What is the orgin, nature, and demise of democracy according to Plato?

Question

cite and evaluate contemporary evidence to support or refute his view

Answer 1

i had never heard about plato's ideas before about democracy but it seems like if he believed than democracy would not work because of the lack of knowledge of the masses . to me it seems like he thought that would be its demise and destruction , to be run by people who did not understood wrong from good .

he apparently believed that democracy could only work if only those who were philosophically mature were the ones which run it . he thought that democracy as it is gave too much power to any indidvidual regarless of his knowlege or ignorance .

i think he had a point , democracy as it is , is run by those who have the money not the ideas , by those who seek their own benefit before the benefit of society . yes democracy does have a lot of problems .... democracy as it is today only cares about one group of people while it leaves another out , yes it sounds though but ti is the truth .

an example of this could be any first world country , we know they have the power , we know they make the choises , choices which affect the whole planet but most of the time benefit their own comunitites . yes democracy is imperfect as it is but still it seem to be the only way out for many ... it would be good that plato's ideas could somehow be part of our democracies but sometimes it seems like if we had gone 15 centuries back instead of going foward ... hopefully democracy may bring better leaderes in the future and i hope that it does it soon :D ...

it is also important to mention that democracy is still the best kind of governement there is and that most of the other kinds of goverment are exaclty what plato was afraid democracy would lead to , so yet with all the imperfection we had created in it it is still the best way for us .

Answer 2

1. Plato on origin and nature of democracy:

- When in that case the many poor become aware of their numbers, they will overthrow the government of the few rich men in a revolution, and will bring about the origin of democracy. For the description of this form of government, Plato had under his eyes the politics of his time; but let us emphasize the fact that for many periods the Greek democracy is not absolutely comparable to what me mean today by that term. In fact, in the interior of this city, there exists as many states as there are citizens; it will appear therefore very multihued, since each individual is concerned with very many things, he can assert his opinion on every question, including those of which he has neither knowledge nor experience. He is concerned with a situation completely opposite from the life of the government of the philosophers, in which each individual performed a very precise function, which gave him fulfillment and gave the city wellbeing and harmony.


2. Plato on the demise of democracy:

Another problem associated with the classical Greek democracy was the danger of strict political equality. Plato, one of Athens' most famous critics, was dismayed by the notion that each citizen had equal rights of political participation. Most people, according to Plato, have neither the experience nor the knowledge for sound public decision-making. If we let people make all public decisions directly, they will either do a poor job or be misled by sycophants and demogogues. In addition, Plato continued, "[p]olitical leadership [in a democracy] is enfeebled by acquiescence to popular demands and by the basing of political strategy on what can be 'sold.' Careful judgments, difficult decisions, uncomfortable options, unpleasant truths will of necessity be generally avoided. Democracy marginalizes the wise." (Held) Finally, Plato was also worried that the notions of liberty and political equality are "inconsistent with the maintenance of authority, order and stability ... (because) social cohesion is threatened, political life becomes more and more fragmented and politics becomes riddled with factional disputes."



3. Contemporary support of this view:

Constitutional founders, Madison and Hamilton subscribed to Plato's view that pure democracies were short-lived and violent in their demise. They opted for a scheme of representation that was supposed to control the effects of factions, but it hasn't worked very well. George Washington and Thomas Paine knew better. And Athenian democracy was Thomas Jefferson's dream for America.

And that brings us to what could be described as a disturbing conclusion:
By whatever definition, our 225 year-old democratic republic is in trouble and the people are steeped in uncertainty. The federal government has become too large and powerful. It has usurped too much power from the states and, with the growing global economy, corporate America has attained too much influence over government.

Representative democracy was supposed to be based on wisdom of the best of us to represent the rest of us, but it's evolved into a dominant two-party system of elections and government that smacks of the wrong kind of republic. Clearly, the political system of powerful interests have compromised our representatives, eroded democracy and betrayed the people.

Thomas Jefferson wisely and prophetically observed, "That government is best which governs least." Indeed, activist government growth has been largely responsible for the rise of social dependency and aggression, political terrorism, legal anarchy and media-driven chaos. And it has nearly turned our public schools into factories of ignorance and warehouses of violence.