Political Science

Over the years, philosophers have proposed several theories regarding the best system of governance. Plato is perhaps one of the most remarkable thinkers who discussed this issue at great length. For him, democracy is not an ideal system of governance. In other words, Plato finds several faults with this model that, it should not be admitted as a method of governance.  Platos background somehow influenced his position regarding this issue. His experience with democracy was quite harsh, after having witnessed his master Socrates execution by the government of Athens. The fact that he was born in an Aristocratic family would have made many to imagine that he would be actively involved in active politics. However, Plato was constantly disgusted by the policies of his city, and often considered it self destructive. It is for this reason that he chose not to engage in active politics. In order to sufficiently analyze his critique of democracy, it is important to sufficiently understand his experience with a democracy. This study is based on Platos understanding of democracy according to book VIII of The Republic, and his critique of it

A Critique of Democracy
Between the fifth and fourth centuries before contemporary era, Athens was mostly a democracy. However, there was constant tension between the democrats and the oligarchs. Oligarchy was already out of the question according to him, because it meant the dictatorial rule by the mighty who often sought to protect their wealth. Democracy on the other hand, people were much more likely to fall prey to the rhetoric of the politicians. This was particularly the case because these politicians were likely to appeal to emotions and deceptive tricks. Democracy had led to a breach of the law when the people approved of the Peloponnesian war in which several people were killed. It was also democracy that approved the execution of his teacher Socrates. Plato thought that the possibility of finding lasting justice and peace would be a model of governance other than democracy or oligarchy. This was the idea behind the authorship of the Republic.

Accordingly, Plato proposed a tripartite structure of the soul, which corresponded with that of the state, and it was on the basis of this that democracy was dismissed as a bad system of governance. These elements were the rational, appetitive, and the spirited elements. The first element is one that is guided by the faculty of reason in everything. The second element is concerned with physical desire, emotions, and the need for physical survival. The third one has the role of pushing for the realization of projects and plans. Plato asserted that it was possible to classify society on the basis of these three elements. As a matter of fact, society was according to him divided into these three categories of people those who were guided by their appetitive elements, those who were guided by their spirited elements, and those who were guided by their rational element (Plato 232). According to him, democracy as a rule by the populace was flawed because it meant that a person guided by the appetitive or the spirited element could be allowed to rule. These persons were not properly instructed in the ways of knowledge, because they lacked in the rational predisposition necessary for efficient leadership. They were dominated by their love for either money or honor (Plato 241). In order for society to be sufficiently governed, only those with the right disposition, proper education, and wisdom should be put in positions of leadership. This is precisely the reason why democracy as a system of governance falls short. As it were, democracy provided the possibility of weak minds becoming rulers. It was possible for the incompetent politicians to woo the masses into voting them by their sweet words. A noteworthy thing is the unification of the person and the city. Plato believed that it is impossible to separate proper leadership from the three elements discussed. The reason being that, the individuals collectively form states, and only when the various elements work in unison can there be a just society (Plato 239). This was informed by the fact that there are persons who are largely dominated by their spirited element and others who are dominated by the appetitive element. These two categories of people could be dangerous if allowed to lead the people, because they would embark on a mission to enrich themselves or to rule by the fist. This presupposes that persons must only be allowed to perform duties that they are best suited to. Plato noted that democracy does not allow for this possibility.

According to Plato, freedom is one of the most important ideals in democratic governments. However, this system slowly degenerates into chaos because people do not follow the laws. The most common scenario is where the people push the leaders to do whatever they want, regardless of whether they know what is best for them or not. Unfortunately, because democracy allows anyone into leadership, there is a great possibility that such a leader will allow the people whatever they want because they ultimately decide whether a particular leader remains in office or not. The citizens also get to determine the kind of laws they are to be subject to (Plato 238). In the system that they proposed in the Republic, there is no possibility of the people pushing the leader to a certain thing because each one participates only to the extent of their best abilities. This means that if one is a merchant, they remain there and not interfere with the guardians. If on the other hand one is a soldier, they are not in a position to interfere because their role is only that of protecting and ensuring that the projects of the guardians are fulfilled and that the society is protected from any sort of interference. In other words, Plato was saying that only a few persons are capable of making the right decisions for a state.

Plato also notes that private wealth is one of the reasons that caused leaders to degenerate into self centered individuals (Plato 236). Accordingly, he proposed that there should be a system where leaders are not allowed the luxury of private property. This he said cannot be in the democratic system of governance as practiced in Athens because as such, one of its central tenets is the right to own private property.

However, the system that Plato proposes in place of democracy is not necessarily without flaws. Plato seems to have been convinced that if the small class of the guardians were properly trained in the art of leadership, they would lead in the best way possible. This however seems to be a very difficult thing to actualize. It seems that it may be much safer and better to let the greater majority hold power, than letting it reside in a few. This is extremely important because experience has shown that there is always the tendency to become corrupt. The system as proposed by Plato seems to stand in need of extremely high standards in terms of the morality of the human persons. It does not provide the necessary tools for checks and balances, because it assumes that the guardians are incorruptible, an assertion that is highly debatable. Therefore, it is possible that even in his (Plato) proposed system, tyranny is not eliminated.

It is common knowledge that there are leaders who practice virtue in order to further advance their unjust rule. It would be difficult to explain

Conclusion
Plato was totally opposed to democracy as a model of governance. He considered that there were several flaws with it, which if allowed would easily ruin society. Worth noting is the fact that his main concern had always been a society that was guided by virtue. After a careful examination, Plato came to the conclusion that democracy should not be allowed as a system of governance. Whenever one disputes a particular system, it is important that they proposed what they consider as the best. Plato proposed the republic. However, this study has went a step further and established that the alternative proposed by Plato does not eliminate the societal evils that were the thorns in his flesh. Plato does not seem sure as well, whether it is possible to actualize this new system. However, his was a great attempt. He seems to have observed the flaws that are present within the democratic system. Platos greatest fear seems to have been in the majority having a lot of power. In order to address this, he proposed a system whereby the power and authority to rule rests in just a few people.

This has been shown to have its implications. It seems that his was a move from one extreme to another. He also seems to have doubted the possibility of this system that he proposed, which somehow waters down its strengths. As it is, the world still stands in need of a system that eliminates the evils that have been exposed, both in democracy and in the republic.