Saturday, September 10, 2011
Expertise or Popularity?
Plato criticizes democracy throughout The Republic. In Chapter 8, for example, he compares the state to a ship. He argues that it is better to have a captain knowledgeable about navigation steer the ship rather than untrained crewmembers. The crewmembers may be able to persuade the owners to let them sail the ship, but without the proper expertise, the ship will not reach its destination. In other words, Plato argues that democracy rewards popularity over expertise, but it is expertise that is essential for good government. Is he right? Consider some examples from class. Can democracy deal with such long-term issues as global warming when most people would prefer to ignore them? Can it deal with economic recovery when most citizens don't understand economic theory? Or can you give a point in democracy's favor?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile Plato seems to make democracy appear as a sinful, desire-filled form of government, democracy actually has many benefits. Democracy allows the input of many different points of view. For example, if we were to examine a practical situation with Plato's form of government, we could find a intelligent yet brusque ruler with a strong interest in an aggressive militarization of the nation (no one else would have a say in this, so the decision would go through immediately). While this may be beneficial in a few ways, there are also many harms that are brought about by the dictator's martial law, such as the elimination of individual privacy and (as often is the case with military occupation) the dehumanization of individuals, especially women, created by the patriarchal mindset of a militaristic society. This scenario can easily be avoided by having individuals in the government (that have the power to influence lawmaking, of course) that represent the opposite beliefs in the system (namely that aggressive militarization of the state has negative effects and thus should not be carried out).
ReplyDeleteA problem that Plato has in his argument is that he does not write about a true democracy, but writes about a representative democracy, especially with his analogy to the ship. If a true democracy could be created (a prospect that is much more viable today due to communication technologies such as the internet), the views of all members of the entire state could play a role in the creation of laws. Alas, this is not practical, so we must criticize the chain of links in Plato's arguments. He believes that being popular is a negative side-effect of democracy. However, this can be argued to the contrary; if a leader carries out decisions that are not beneficial for the masses, the masses will then lose their faith in the leader, making him unpopular which will lead to the leader's loss of office in the next election. Thus, if the leader makes a decision that causes harm, he will lose the position of a lawmaker and a new (and hopefully more capable) leader will take the space.
Addressing Arthurs first paragraph, I believe that Plato believes that a dictatorship can be just as disastrous as democracy because the in both cases the person or persons making decisions are more than likely fundamentally flawed; they do not have true knowledge. Plato believes that the only government that is truly the best option, if not the perfect option, is the one where a philosopher king is in power. Plato's definition of a philosopher king is a true philosopher, someone who has knowledge and is perfectly moral. In being this the philosopher king is fundamentally good and makes only the best decisions. This may seem outlandish or improbable; that does not affect the fact that theoretically if someone who made nothing but the best decisions and was always good was a ruler with no one to contradict his rule, then nothing bad could come from his rule.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with Arthur when he talks about the problem in Plato's argument against democracy is that he is talking about representative democracy. I believe that Plato is talking about direct democracy, the form of government in Athens during Plato's time. A direct democracy is "where the people do not elect representatives to vote on their behalf but vote on legislation and executive bills in their own right. Participation was by no means open, but the in-group of participants was constituted with no reference to economic class and they participated on a scale that was truly phenomenal" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy). Plato's problem with democracy is further explained with his allegory of the cave. He believes that the majority of the people cannot see the truth, and because of this their decisions are based off beliefs; creating a system where people who do not know what is really happening are making decisions. Plato would probably favor a few known to be educated people writing ideas down and drawing one at random from a hat to decide what to do, rather than have the people who have no clue what is going on call the shots. A large portion of the United States' founding fathers also believed strongly in this principal. They believed the people should be represented to avoid their exploitation, but not that they should directly decide what should be done. This is why the United States is a representative democracy.
Plato presents democracy in way that does appear as a sinful and “desired-filled form of government”, but by no means do I believe that he’s completely right in his belief of it being such a thing. I don’t feel as though democracy is a system that is that extreme. Plato also argues that expertise in a particular area outweighs the benefits that a government centered on democracy can bring. However, I do believe that Plato is right to a certain extent in this belief. Just because someone is known well enough to the point where he/she is able to get a large number of people who are simply familiar with him/her to vote them into a specific position does not qualify that person to do a job that requires specific qualifications. People aren’t simply given roles within a community. People earn jobs and roles by being the best in that particular field. As far as one person possessing enough knowledge and understanding of the world as well as those people who live in it to the point where he/she can govern an established community without any input from those people actually living in the community, no I don’t believe that’s possible.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with the arguments that Arthur had to present on this idea because it presented the real struggle with Plato’s argument. For me it showed a balance. There are some instances where it’s best if democracy trumps sheer knowledge, yet there are other instances where knowledge and expertise are better suited for the job.
I agree with Plato that often, in today’s society, we find individuals rising to power simply because of their ability to win over a crowd, no matter his or her qualifications or ability. Even more commonly, individuals in seek of power make unrealistic promises in attempt to when over the public’s vote. I agree with Plato that expertise is essential for a flourishing society, and that while the popular candidate may be more appealing to the public for the short-term, in the long-run it is the wise, knowledgeable, and most qualified individual who is best for the job, despite his or her inability to win over a crowd. I further agree with Plato that democracy is flawed, and many times incapable individuals withhold undeserving power. An additional flaw of democracy is that individuals begin concentrating too greatly on how to win votes, and begin to lose sight on other more important matters that deserve attention.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, while I agree that democracy is flawed, I do believe it is the best possible option in terms of government structure. Moreover, I believe that the same problems present under a democracy could be found under a dictatorship. I believe that in a democracy, the candidates devote their attention to gaining popularity; in a dictatorship, the focus is centered on gaining more power and control. In both scenarios, focus is diverted from the true issues at stake, and instead, concern for the community turns in to selfish concerns of the individual in power. In regards to Adams argument that if the Philosopher king was in control nothing bad could come from his rule, there are many counterarguments to this belief in Chapter 8. For example, Adeimantus explains that no matter the character of the individual, corruption is bound to happen because the morality of the ruler (or philosopher) is out numbered and thus influenced by the immorality of the surrounding individuals. Thus, it does not matter how great the nature of the dictator, not one single individual can withhold total control without corruption. If our society did not run a democratic system, the gap of power and control between the public and the ruler would be too large. Even though there is a risk of not electing the person with the most expertise, democracy is still the best form of government.
This argument, set up by Plato, is not that a dictatorship ruled by one (an experienced navigator) is better than a democracy (the crew), but is actually an argument that a theoretical aristocracy (still the experienced navigator) is better than a theoretical democracy. This is because the captain/navigator can be viewed as the philosopher king and the only one who knows the entire truth about running a ship. This form of government would be better for the captain and the crew because the captain would know how to properly run the ship and without the crew vying for power but instead doing the orders given by the captain, the processes on the ship would run smoothly and the ship would carry out numerous trips and return safely every time. In a ship run by morality and aristocracy, the crew would be treated properly and humanly because the captain would know that if they weren’t, they would either become unable to do their job, or they would revolt. However, if the ship was run by the crew, nothing would get done and no one would know how to properly run the ship, so the ship will most likely end up crashing or getting lost at sea. If everyone is given absolute equality and each idea is on equal footing, the good ideas will be overlooked causing the ship to end in chaos.
ReplyDeleteThis may seem like a possible argument for a government ruled by one person, but this these kinds of governments would not exist in the real world, but would actually morph into a dictatorship and representative democracy. This is because in the real world, the captain with absolute power would know the dangers of upsetting the crew (revolts or the crew stops working), but will nevertheless overwork the crew for personal gain (such as doing more jobs in shorter time to get more money), and put down mutinies with his overwhelming power. On the other hand, a true democracy, where everybody has equal rule, will quickly be seen by the crew as impractical, and they will change the government into a representative democracy where everyone is still part of the decision making process, but in the end, the representatives picked by the people will decide what is best for the whole. In a theoretical and ideal world, an aristocracy would be the best form of government on a ship or for a country, but a democracy is more practical in the real world.
Even after more than two thousand years, democracy still seems to be about popularity. Some people say that current candidates such as Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, and even Barack Obama do not know how to run governments, but are successful because of their common man image. I always here the saying, "I'll vote for the guy who I could have a beer with" around election time. Right now, it seems like it is easier to be on the news if you are a politician who has something controversial to say or pulled off some stunt that makes you look cool. A lot of Rick Perry's reputation outside of Texas comes from his shooting of a coyote on a morning jog. Michelle Bachman is known for wanting to investigate congress in a McCarthy 2.0 sort of way.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy can deal with the long term issues, but it is necessary to have a well educated populace for it to function. The founding fathers of the United States realized that allowing the common man to vote could potentially destabilize the government. The original requirements to vote were: you must be a white male 21 years or older who owns property. Over time, people disagreed that having this near-oligarchic model was good for the country. The United State's political structure almost followed the path that Socrates outlines when describing the four types of government.
As the future presents an increasing number of crises, the only way that we can make democracy fix these problems is to improve education. For example, spreading the word about good environmental practices and teaching people the effects of pollution would allow them to make the right decision when they vote. Democracy could have a good future if knowledge became popular.
While expertise is an important quality in a community’s leaders, it is not everything. Plato suggests that rulers only need expertise to be a good ruler, but they also need popular support to put their expertise to good use. If a ruler cannot effectively convey his or her ideas to the public, he or she cannot effectively implement their changes because he or she does not have the backing of the people. Plato does not give the community much credit. He thinks that the community cannot see through a politician who claims to know what he is talking about, but actually does not. Also, the competition within democracy could actually prove to help bring out the best leaders. If people elect a ruler who does not want the job, as Plato suggests, then the ruler will not work as hard. Because of the competition for positions of authority in a democracy, it brings out the best and the brightest and works to the government’s advantage. While there are some government officials that gain their positions through public persuasion, I think that there are enough people in the government with the right expertise to outweigh those few. For a ruler to do his job well, he has to have both popular support and expertise.
ReplyDelete