Political Philosophy
Consider Plato’s criticisms of democracy and Aristotle’s criticisms of this form of government. How valid are their arguments?
The philosophers, Plato and Aristotle offered democracy its fair share of criticism on the form of government in place. Plato’s point of view on democracy was that it led to individuals being corrupt through public opinion and generated rulers who had no idea about ruling. These types of rulers were only concerned about persuading the “beast”, which is the Demos, the community (Baron 2010). Aristotle understanding of democracy embraces the fact that democratic agencies will bring about corruption in individuals. If these individuals pick to reallocate the fortune of the rich, they are bound to extinguish the state and, considering these individuals are not experienced in governance, when they choose their leaders; they are bound to make mistakes. Do these criticisms have any validity for present forms of democracy? This question will be focused with reference to a particular form of democracy that of the United States. It is in trying to figure out its validity which will be used to define what democracy is; as a form of control where by people who are entitled to elect their leaders by the process of elections and social frameworks which based on equality of each and everyone in the country.
According to Plato in his assessment of democracy, democracy is a form of governance where public judgment models the opinions and interpretations of the citizens. He sees; the public, who put their views at elections, as the best of all Sophists, and the men acquire knowledge so as shape them according to what they want. In reference to Plato’s view, because the public overstates the praise for what they attribute to be good or bad; this is a great concern. They therefore complement some things which are being stated or undertaken and lay blame on other effects which equally overstates the two (Plato 2009). This overstatement is a concern for the evolving individual as he or she will acquire their experience of what is positive or negative from the opinion of the society. The person will have the idea of what is positive or negative, -he or she will undertake what others do and will be what they aim to be. For Plato, these overstated of views of what is positive or negative will not be the appropriate interpretation of what is fair and correct, which is only acquired through the focus of philosophy and notions of practices.
Democratic governments looks down upon the things we solemnly express when we are looking for our city, except if an individual has a great acceptable nature, he will never be able to acquire the positive form. According to Plato, the autonomy of democracy suggests that the public is not as open-minded as in Plato’s government in the Republic, which plays a vital role in informing the public through the media on events both local and foreign. Why this takes place is that a democratic individual “does not welcome true reasoning….” If an individual conveys to him that some preferences have their place to the good and attractive desires, while others have their place in bad ones. An individual should value and follow the initial, while the former has to be controlled and mastered, he does not agree with this and states all of the preferences are the same and have to be prized in the same manner. Considering that these prizes have to be the same and the democratic individual has “no plan or discipline in his life”, he will go from one preference to another unable to pursue something completely. Consequently, his soul acquires an aspect of rudderless impudence.
Plato applies another rigid analogy to make his ideas on democracies more palpable: of relations onboard a ship. Here the sailors go to the captain pleading with him to assist them to take to take control of the ship. If there arises a point in time where they do not succeed and their rivals to control the ship are accepted other than the other faction, they do away with them by throwing them overboard. After gaining control of the captain’s thoughts using drinks or drugs, the sailors take control of the ship and acquire possession to the stores. The analogy of the sailor ends with the thought that for a good leader, the sailors ought to have a sense of authority.
In Plato’s analogy, the sailors are attributed as being the “demos’ or the several individuals who are calling upon the captain to take control of the ship, this is a perfect illustration of today’s system of democratic governance. In their attempt to acquire control of the ship, the sailors take control of the captain by drugging him; this may be attributed to as being something preferable and satisfying utterances. They later take the food and drinks without any thought of the coming days. The sailors, who have no idea that the food was being rationed, represent the politicians who run the state dry by taking all of its money and riches when they were initially intended for some more useful projects for the community. The people who have assisted the sailors acquire control of the ship are Plato attributes them as genuine sailors and contemptible (Plato 1974). These flabby sailors take place of philosophers like Plato, who has the experience of how to manage a state that is maintainable, fair and ethical, they are not taken into consideration by the politicians as they claim that no individual is able to learn the art of governance and they are the only genuine navigators while the philosophers are just gazers with their heads above the clouds.
These politicians who rule of the state will have become knowledgeable about the demos through the Sophists, who “teach nothing but the opinion of the many… ” According to the Sophists, they learn the way of the more capable, which is the demos, and impart this to the politicians. This knowledge on the negative side does not impart what is honorable or not, as he or she does not have that attribute. According the teacher, what is good is what the beast likes and what is evil is what the beast does not like. The Sophists pass knowledge of wrong definitions of what is fair and positive which is corrupting the individuals. It is thus that it is hard for fair and good individuals to grow in a society as they are often being impacted by wrong definitions of what is positive and negative, as opposed to the thoughts about and forms of the positive and negative that are developed through reflection and are therefore exceptional.
In Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics”-, democracy is not that wicked as its perversion of the constitutional form of control is limited (Aristotle 1999, pp. 234). However, this government is still sufficiently problematic for Aristotle to criticize. The basis of his criticism is relies on hypothetical instances and forms of democracy. According to him, democracy, which is managed by law with persons who are not looked down upon, is not a bad form of government; in fact he seems to admire it.
Aristotle adds that the worst form of democracy is demagoguery, where each individual’s say is the same and the rule of the majority has greater sway than the law. This form of lack of law emerges when decrees acquire more strength than laws. In the government, having more power than the law makes the decrees of the individuals to override the laws, thereby directing everything to the national assembly. According to Aristotle, a compelling leader will be able to manage the views and emotional state of the demos in a better manner than becoming a tyrant over the people. They hence control the state like masters of the people, as opposed to them being equals. Another issue for Aristotle is giving the poor a “share the great offices of the state”; it comes about as a result of poverty and poor form of education which makes them become criminals (Aristotle 2009). They become criminals because they are so poor making. The fact that they have negative attributes is evidence that they have inadequate education in issues concerning the state. The unfortunate in society are not to be kept aside, according to Aristotle, “for a state in which many men are excluded from office will necessary be full of enemies”, that is the poor and unfortunate pitted against the wealthy people.
The argument of these philosophers is applicable and relevant to our present democracies. The United States is a good instance where, are able to note the several criticisms put forth by Plato and Aristotle are just as relevant today as they were 3000 years ago. According to Plato, democracy creates individuals who have a strong belief in their own views and values. For Plato they see “insolence is good breeding…..and shamelessness courage”, and this can be seen is noted to be valid in our democracies (Plato, 1974; Plato, 2009). Many Americans fit this description of democratic rights leading to insolence; this is proved in some cultures like the ‘Gothic’ which started in England and is found in many countries, it has lived on much longer than others. There is still a bigger portion of the citizens which should not be disregarded. It is similarly shown in some ways by the wealthy and strong like Donald Trump “All of the women on the Apprentice flirt with me……” Donald Trump, a president, was portraying an attribute of disrespect to women (The Hollywood Reporter staff, 2011). These citizens are only able to free themselves through anarchy; this is integrated in to the democratic persons, however the prevailing economic systems in the US some economic form of methods are desired. The government to put its best efforts to keep out of the private economic sector creating an environment that has freedom. If this policy is not followed by the government, it gets a wrong attribution from commentators as well as the business sector, which do much to model the public’s view. The level of extravagance in the consumers in America is common, they acquire these attribute due to its economic policies. This is reliant on the trickle-down effect which Ronald Reagan explained as a process whereby elevating the revenue of an organization will lead to the less fortunate acquiring some advantage, indirectly making extravagant organizations become generous. Shamelessness is observed in American culture. For instance, shamelessness seems to be seen as courage by many American youth. This can be seen in many films for example the film “Jackass”- which influenced a whole generation in the belief that daft shamelessness, was basically a form of courage, having “balls” to fight your father.
Plato’s analogy, then seems, useful for examining American democracy. The politicians currently shape demos with rhetoric and promises, for example like moving out of Iraq or changes in the elections which have not yet been met (Plato 1974). After them taking up office, they apply their power to prize it to defense contracts to their cronies which is not the best way to handle expensive transactions. This is like the case of the sailors who take the food in the stores with no concern for the fact that it was being rationed. The genuine politicians, republicans and democrats are too disparaged and harm the unruly politicians, like the independents who bank on campaign sustainability, and reforms. All things which are necessary for a state like USA but free, is told by Plato that it has its head in the clouds and should dwell on the reachable objectives.
Conclusion
Discussion of Plato and Aristotle’s criticisms of democracy and how relevant it is to the current government in the US leads to several conclusions. If both these philosophers were present today, they would disagree as to whether the US form of government is the best form of governance. Plato’s argument would involve how democracy corrupts some people and its rulers who are anarchic in their manner of governing the state. Aristotle’s from of democracy is perverted from all other corrupt forms of control of a state. Although he would not criticize it fundamentally given his views on demagogues; he would not uphold the prevailing form of rule in the United States. In Aristotle’s view, the application of fear and feelings of the demos, so as to pass debatable laws would be to go against good rule. With what is already stated above, according to both Plato and Aristotle, the form of contemporary governance is not perfect.
References
Aristotle, 2009, Politics, Book 3, translated by Benjamin Jowet, acquired on 13th April 2012 fromhttp://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.3.three.html
Aristotle, 1999 pp. 234, Nicomachean Ethics, translated by Martin Ostwald. Prentice Hall.
Baron, B 2010, Plato and Aristotle on Democracy, Monarchists Views, acquired on 03th May 2012 <http://monarchistcrusade.webs.com/apps/blog/show/5068319-plato-and-aristotle-on-democracy>
Plato, 2009, The Republic, Book 6, translated by Benjamin Jowett, acquired on 13th April 2012 from <http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html>
Plato, 1974, The Republic, Book 8. translated by G.M.A Grube, Hackett publishing company.
The Hollywood Reporter staff, April 2011, Groupon Pulls Ads from Donald Trump’s ‘Apprentice’ Website, acquired on 03th May 2012 <http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/groupon-pulls-ads-donald-trumps-183698>
