Plato

Explain and Assess Plato’s Critique of Democracy. Do You Think His Critique is

Still Applicable? Why or Why Not?

In this essay I will offer an explanation of Plato’s critique of democracy. I

will then assess this critique based on the contemporary model of democracy

experienced by Plato. Furthermore, I will argue that the critique is still

applicable in a modern context by presenting various problems that modern

democratic models pose for the critique and then demonstrating how Plato’s

argument can overcome them.

In order to clearly understand why Plato finds democracy so objectionable

it is necessary to understand how democracy worked in an Ancient Greek

context. One of the main characteristics of this early democracy was its

emphasis on ‘Direct Participation’. This meant that all citizens were to take

part in the political affairs of the state. This was made possible by a relatively

small population of citizens, about 30,000.1 All of these were expected to

partake in the democratic process and vote in assembly, while presidency

over all state bodies was cycled among the citizens to promote fairness and

equality in the government’s agenda. Ancient Athenian democracy, therefore,

was to govern and be governed in turn in a system where majority rule was

paramount, and liberty was equated to direct autonomy over one’s own

affairs.

Plato’s charge against democracy is simply that it violates the proper

order of society by creating an artificial equality. His fundamental criticism of

democracy is that it is based on the assumption that every citizen is equally

1

Held, op. cit pg 12

1

entitled to a say in political affairs, no matter how unsuited he is in terms

of ability, character or training. In his Republic, Plato gives the analogy of a

ship, where the captain, all his training, expertise and life-long experience

notwithstanding, is somehow incapacitated by the crew who now take control

of the ship, with ‘no idea that the true navigator must study the seasons of

the year, the sky, the stars ... if he is to be really fit to control a ship’2 What

is meant by this analogy from ship to state is that no matter how ignorant a

person may be, under a democratic system they still could find themselves

playing a significant role in the regulation of public affairs. A system where

value and merit are disregarded and instead unconditional equality promoted

disgusted Plato. He held that this type of mob rule marginalised the wise

minority who have the necessary acquired abilities to allow them to rule

efficiently. Furthermore, when people do appear from the masses and find

themselves in positions of power, they are still potentially disastrous. In a

democracy, Plato explains, the leaders will always be at the mercy of popular

appraisal, and so will only act to appease the majority, which makes their

political decisions as inefficient and unskilled as anyone else’s.

In an ancient context, it certainly does seem that Plato makes a strong

point. The cycle of the various state body presidencies throughout the entire

electorate, while being egalitarian, does indeed lead to people with hugely

varying levels of competency finding themselves in positions of power.

Furthermore, in this system when the electorate met over forty times a year to

vote, the majority certainly did have a formidable input into the affairs of the

state. The majority of citizens in Plato’s time (early 4th century BC) were poor,

and since at this time the poor were uneducated and largely illiterate, it can

be granted to Plato that he is right in assuming that they will often have had

2

Plato, op. cit. pp 282-83.

2

absolutely no experience or training in the management of state. This could

almost certainly cause problems in times of emergency like sudden war or

famine, as strong leadership and informed decision making are vital factors in

overcoming these difficulties.

It is true that Plato’s critique sheds light on some serious shortcomings of

ancient democracy, and as has been shown above, it is plausible that these

shortcomings could lead to serious problems for the state and its citizens.

Seeing as the alternative is an imposed rule of some sort, however, I will

consider whether Plato goes too far in dismissing democracy as useless. For

example; Even if it is admitted that expert knowledge is necessary for the

government of a state, and that the majority of the citizenry does not have

sufficient grasp of all the social, administrative, legal, and other relevant

details that go into running a government, does it necessarily follow that they

must relinquish their right to appoint the leaders of their government, or to

recall them, if their performance seems unsatisfactory. Voters in a democracy

may not know how to run a government, but they can surely judge the results.

What is essential for a democracy is not that citizens be able to understand

everything themselves, but that they be able to determine any employ the

means to follow their ideals for their state.

Although this argument offers a way in which democracy could still work, it

ultimately succumbs to Plato’s challenge again. If it is plausible to argue that

voters may be too uninformed to decide on the best means to reach a certain

end, then it is also plausible to argue that they may not be informed enough to

choose the right ends. A serious lack of knowledge can manifest itself not only

in the way a state is run, but also in the choice of state goals. Once again what

3

Plato’s critique does here is highlight another problem that a majority

orientated government can run into. To use a modern example; Hitler was

democratically elected into power with the mandate of re-establishing

Germany’s old grandeur. This ended with the most costly war in history and

the attempted genocide of the Jewish people. This example demonstrates

both the latter point – that old imperial grandeur may not be the best end to

seek in a modern world, and the former point, that although democratic, once

a leader is in power it may not be possible to get rid of them before serious

damage is done.

To summarize the assessment of Plato’s critique, presented above, it

was demonstrated that ancient democracy did indeed allow uneducated

people to take part in running the state and unskilled people to lead it. The

problems arising from these possibilities were then made clear. Furthermore,

a counter argument to Plato’s critique was explored but it was found that

even if voters manage to achieve their ends, these ends may be unproductive

or even hazardous for the state. This argument compounded the fact that

an uneducated majority were a risky bastion of governing power, and so the

critique was shown to be thorough and persuasive.

This essay so far has striven to demonstrate that Plato’s critique was

applicable to democracy in an ancient Greek context, contemporary to Plato

himself. Democracy, however, has changed substantially since the 4th century

BC. Nevertheless, I intend to use the rest of this essay to demonstrate that

Plato’s critique has stood the test of time and is still applicable today. I will

do this by highlighting various key differences between ancient and modern

democracy and then offering an argument as to how these changes do not

prevent democracy from succumbing to Plato’s argument, as outlined above.

4

One of the key aspects of modern democracy is the use of elected officials

who run the state on behalf of the electorate. Made necessary mainly by

the restrictions that our burgeoning populations place on the democratic

process, these representatives are generally brought into power in periodic

elections after having campaigned around the country, explaining their

various political ideals and aims. This is in clear contrast to the ancient Greek

system because now professional statesmen exist, who are often educated

in governing and see this career as a full-time occupation. It would seem

that this evolution obsoletes Plato’s critique because these seem to fit the

description of ‘philosopher kings’, as sought after by Plato. They are educated

in the business of rule and commit their entire career to it, as opposed to

partaking in the democratic process in an almost hobby-like way, which is what

many Greek citizens did. There is one critical point, however, that prevents

them from becoming true philosopher kings – in a democracy, the elected are

always accountable to the electorate. This means that to stay in power it is

necessary that a leader stay popular and so must appease the people by acting

in accordance with the desires of the majority. This can be juxtaposed to a

philosopher king who, in theory, would continue ruling through unpopularity

as, by nature, he would know better than the majority and could not be

removed because of this. In this way the advent of ‘elite’ statesmen has not

protected democracy from Plato’s critique as the majority still hold their

supremacy over government direction.

Although Plato’s critique appears to be in a strong position following the

above argument, there is an implicit point made against which the critique

must be assessed. Since we do have professional politicians to deal with the

running of our modern states, the need for ‘direct democracy’ is taken away,

5

meaning that the electorate’s input can be minimised. This is actually what

happens in practice. The more apathetic or uninformed citizens can simply

opt out of the process. In this way a more educated and interested ‘working

electorate’ (those that do vote) comes into being. One of Plato’s key problems

with democracy was that the electorate were not educated or informed

enough to run the state but since now only interested citizens need partake,

surely this means that those who do are in fact informed about the intricacies

of running government.

At first glance this argument seems to hold sway, but there are some

problems with it. The first is that while being forceful, the premises of this

argument are not necessarily true. For instance, the fact that uninformed

voters need not vote doesn’t guarantee that they will not vote. Apathetic

voters will not necessarily step back from the process either, because while

a voter may be totally apathetic and ignorant to the vast majority of his or

her state’s politics, they may harbour one key interest and vote with that, no

matter what other policies their preferred candidate may have. A common

example used in this circumstance is a one of a candidate with the promise to

legalize marijuana as part of his campaign. A voter could be entirely apathetic

to the whole democratic process but feel very strongly that marijuana should

be legal, and so vote for this candidate without knowing or perhaps caring

about any of their other policies, which could potentially be detrimental to the

state. The loss of direct democracy has also taken away the requirement that

a citizen be thoroughly politically informed. This has lead to an electorate that

is less informed on average than an ancient Greek citizenry. This is an obvious

progression. In ancient Greece almost every citizen participated directly in the

political decision making process. Today, however, democratic countries elect

6

a handful of politicians (a hundred or more in most cases) to do this for them.

This means that the vast majority of the citizenry remains entirely uninvolved

and so could not possibly be as informed as members of a direct democracy.

So while the above argument held that the lack of direct participation can lead

to a more informed working electorate, the counter argument showed that

this is not a valid, and demonstrated that a modern democratic citizenry is less

politically informed on average than an ancient one.

In summary, the changes to democracy lead to the creation of new

arguments against Plato’s critique to be formulated. These were shown to

be dismissible, problematic themselves or invalid. To conclude, I will suggest

a reason that Plato’s critique is still applicable in a modern sense; while

democracy has changed substantially since Plato’s time, these changes have

been in the practice or method to democracy, not to democracy itself. Since

democracy is essentially the rule of the people, and Plato’s critique is aimed

at the problems that arise from the majoritarian and egalitarian aspects of

democracy, then this critique’s applicability will not be affected by changes

made to how democracy is practiced. As long as it remains an egalitarian

system where the will of the majority is enacted in rule, then Plato’s critique

will still hold.

7

Bibliography

• Held, David, ‘Models of Democracy’, Polity Press, 2006.

• Plato, ‘The Republic’, Translated by Desmond Lee, Penguin Books, 1987.

• ‘Plato: The Failure of Democracy’, internet article found at http://

faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/PlatoRep.htm

Bibliography: • Held, David, ‘Models of Democracy’, Polity Press, 2006. • Plato, ‘The Republic’, Translated by Desmond Lee, Penguin Books, 1987. • ‘Plato: The Failure of Democracy’, internet article found at http:// faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/PlatoRep.htm