support@headlinenews360.com
Last Updated:
Plato’s critique isn’t just an indictment of Athenian democracy but a challenge to democratic systems in general.
Plato’s timeless ideas in The Republic could shed light on the challenges of democracy. (Pexels/Representative Image)
Nothing is perfect, not even democracy. Like any other human institution, it’s riddled with flaws, from systemic inefficiencies to injustices. For instance, elections can be swayed by misinformation, governments often struggle to act decisively and voter apathy undermines the democratic process itself. Despite these imperfections, democracy remains a cherished ideal for much of the world. But what if there was a way to refine it? Matthew Duncombe, Associate Professor in Philosophy at the University of Nottingham, suggests that an ancient philosopher might have some answers.
Duncombe explores how Plato’s timeless ideas in The Republic could shed light on the challenges facing democracy today.
Plato, a name synonymous with classical Greek philosophy, wrote The Republic around 375 BC. This text, a cornerstone of Western political thought, continues to shape debates about governance and justice. Greece, celebrated as the “cradle of democracy,” gave the world its first democratic system in Athens. Even the word democracy originates from the Greek demos (people) and kratos (rule). Ironically, Plato’s The Republic presents a scathing critique of democracy.
In his article for The Conversation, Duncombe writes that this paradox may seem surprising, especially to those of us raised to see democracy as the gold standard of governance. After all, nearly every Western nation operates under some form of democracy. In the United States, the last election saw both Trump and Harris supporters passionately asserting their roles as defenders of democracy. Across the Atlantic, the UK’s Labour government has even proposed lowering the voting age to 16, further expanding democratic participation. So why did Plato take issue with democracy, and could his critique help explain the modern-day erosion of trust in democratic institutions?
Plato’s Case Against Democracy
In The Republic, Plato’s criticisms are voiced by Socrates, his mentor and a central figure in the dialogue. However, it’s important to note that the democracy Socrates critiques differs vastly from today’s representative systems.
Athenian democracy in the 5th and 4th centuries BC was a direct democracy where male citizens voted on laws and policies. Leadership roles were often assigned by lottery, and vast segments of the population—women, enslaved people, and foreigners—were excluded from the process.
This system, thought to be groundbreaking for its time, had significant flaws. It made devastating decisions, such as exiling citizens annually through popular vote or sentencing Socrates himself to death. Yet Socrates doesn’t focus on these moral failings. Instead, his argument rests on a broader principle: governance is a skill and not everyone possesses it.
To illustrate, imagine boarding a plane where passengers vote to decide who should pilot. A qualified, experienced pilot might argue their case, but what if someone else persuaded passengers they could fly the plane despite lacking training? They might spread false claims about pilots being disconnected from “everyday passengers” or bribe voters for support. Would you feel safe?
This analogy, adapted from The Republic, raises a stark point: democracy doesn’t necessarily ensure capable leaders. Socrates takes it further, arguing that governance, like piloting a plane, requires expertise—a skill that the majority of people lack. Therefore, in a democracy where the majority rules, we risk being led by the unskilled.
Unpacking the Argument
Plato’s critique isn’t just an indictment of Athenian democracy but a challenge to democratic systems in general. However, it’s not without its flaws. Here are three key issues:
Is ruling truly a skill? Plato believed skilled governance required knowledge of “that which is truly good.” This abstract notion doesn’t resonate with modern political realities. What exactly constitutes this skill, and how do we measure it?
Are most people unskilled in governance? There are skilled decision-makers across various fields, not just politics. Moreover, collective decisions—drawing from diverse perspectives—might be more effective than those made by a select few.
Should we exclude the majority? Even if most people lack political expertise, there’s value in including them. Participation can foster learning and engagement, and fairness in decision-making often outweighs the pursuit of perfection.
A Modern Take on Plato’s Ideas
Plato was right to highlight democracy’s vulnerabilities, such as the risk of electing unqualified leaders. However, his solution—replacing democracy with rule by the “skilled”—isn’t necessarily the answer. Instead, we might focus on nurturing political skills across society. By educating citizens, fostering dialogue, and emphasizing fairness, we can preserve democracy while addressing its weaknesses.
