Category: Democracy

The main similarity between revolutionary Communism and democratic Socialism is that both of these political ideologies consider Capitalism (as the form of a socio-political governing) historically outdated and utterly immoral. This is because, according to the proponents of both ideologies, in Capitalist countries, the majority of ordinary citizens are denied the right to have a fair share in the national wealth.

This is because in Capitalist societies, it is namely a small number of the representatives of bourgeoisie that exercise a unilateral control over the means of production. In its turn, this allows them to enjoy an undisputed dominance within the society  even though that there are no objective reasons for this to be the case.

That is, if we exclude the fact that the wealthy members of social elites simply happened to have enough of ill-gotten money in their bank accounts. In its turn, this creates a situation when most citizens are being denied the opportunity of a social advancement  only the individuals affiliated with the rich and powerful qualify for a social uplifting. Such state of affairs, of course, is far from being considered thoroughly fair.

Another thing, upon which revolutionary Communism and democratic Socialism agree, is the sheer inappropriateness of the Capitalist practice of subjecting workers to an economic exploitation.

This is because this practice establishes preconditions for employees to be treated as a soulless commodity  hence, causing them to experience the sensation of a societal alienation. In its turn, this prevents hired laborers (regardless of the essence of their professional duties) from being able to attain happiness. Both ideologies refer to such a state of affairs, as utterly inappropriate.

Revolutionary Communism and democratic Socialism also criticize Capitalism on the account of this political system standing in opposition to the concept of egalitarianism.

After all, it is specifically the assumption of peoples perceptual/cognitive inequality, which justifies the Capitalist idea that, in order to ensure the free-market economys proper functioning; societies must remain stratified along class-lines. Both, Communists and Socialists proclaim this idea being not only unethical, but also as such, that contradicts the dialectical laws of history.

Revolutionary Communists and democratic Socialists also share a strongly negative attitude towards the concept of a private ownership. According to the proponents of both political ideologies, the continual institutionalization of this type of ownership contributes to the process of a gap between poor and rich citizens growing wider, and makes the economy more vulnerable to financial crises.

This is why, just as it is being the case with democratic Socialists, revolutionary Communists advocate the concept of a state-ownership, as such that ensures a fair distribution of the national wealth among citizens.

Nevertheless, even though that revolutionary Communism and democratic Socialism do share much of an ideological ground, out which they initially emerged, there are many more differences between them than similarities. The most fundamental of these differences is the fact that, while Socialists consider Socialism to be the final phase of the humanitys socio-economic advancement, Communists refer to it in terms of an intermediary one.

According to them, Socialism is the transitional form of a political governing, which will be eventually replaced by Communism (Kors 3). In its turn, Communism presupposes the complete liquidation of a private ownership, the elimination of money, as the instrument of commercial transactions, and the establishment of the dictatorship of proletariat, as the mechanism of maintaining the societys classless functioning.

Democratic Socialists, on the other hand, point out to the fact that the practical realization of the earlier mentioned Communist agenda will prove impossible, as it does not consider the actual essence of peoples genetically predetermined psychological inclinations.

Another major difference between democratic Socialism and revolutionary Communism is that, while Socialists refer to the transition between Capitalism and Socialism in terms of an evolutionary process, Communists promote the idea that this transition should be revolutionary.

That is, according to Communists, there is only one way for ensuring the eventual triumph of Socialism/Communism  an armed uprising (Dobbs 495). Socialists, on the other hand, suggest that rather than parting away with Capitalism in the revolutionary manner (by the mean of overthrowing the government and eliminating bourgeoisie, as a social class), progressively minded people should aim to create preconditions for the gradual transformation of Capitalism into Socialism.

As Roberts noted: In economics, their (Socialists) main commitment is not to creating a new man by expropriating the expropriators but to taming the excesses of the market through state intervention. They (Socialists) have also been stubbornly reformist and gradualist rather than revolutionary (358).

Unlike their Communist counterparts, Socialists do not subscribe to the idea that a truly fair society must necessarily be classless. In fact, the Socialist idea of a welfare state presupposes that, instead of remaining antagonized against each other, the representatives of different social classes should be equally affiliated with the values of a communal solidarity.

Partially, the earlier mentioned conceptual dichotomy between democratic Socialism and revolutionary Communism can be explained by the fact that democratic Socialists do not think that the continual functioning of Capitalist societies should necessarily result in strengthening the acuteness of class-related antagonisms.

The validity of this suggestion can be illustrated in regards to the ideas of Eduard Bernstein, who is now being considered the father of democratic Socialism. According to Sturmthal: He (Bernstein) pointed out that by its progress labor was gradually transforming the capitalistic society and predicted that by this method of gradual reform and in co-operation with democratic middle-class parties, European labor would win democracy, and, at the end of a long evolutionary process, establish Socialism (101).

Communists, on the other hand, promote the idea that, as time goes on; the intensity of class-antagonisms within Capitalist societies should increase. In its turn, this should eventually lead to the creation of a revolutionary situation, and consequently to the removal of bourgeois governments.

This brings us to discuss another important difference between both political ideologies. Whereas, democratic Socialists do favor democracy, as the people-oriented form of a political governing, Communists do not think this is actually the case  especially when we talk about the democracys functioning within Capitalist societies.

According Communists, capitalist democracy is nothing but the instrument for the representatives of social elites to maintain its dominance within the society. The reason for this is simple. By providing ordinary citizens with the illusion that they can indeed influence the process of a political decision-making, by the mean of casting their votes, capitalists are able to reduce the acuteness of economic tensions within the society  hence, making these citizens less likely to revolt against being continually exploited.

After all, the very conceptual premise of democracy presupposes the process of people casting their votes being second in importance to the process of these votes calculation. This is exactly the reason why, according to revolutionary Communists, the concept of democracy is synonymous with the concept of corruption. It also explains why democracy is dialectically predetermined to transform itself into oligarchy/plutocracy.

Hence, the Communist idea that the best form of government is the dictatorship of proletariat when, after having eliminated capitalists physically, workers enjoy a shared ownership over the means of production. This idea derives out of the assumption that capitalists will never be willing to share some of their riches with the societys underprivileged members  unless when they are being forced to do so by purely external circumstances.

These circumstances, however, must be strong enough. Therefore, in order for socially underprivileged citizens to cease being the subjects of an economic/societal exploitation, they must be ready to defy the very principles, upon which the continual functioning of Capitalist societies is based  including the principle of a democratic voting.

In its turn, this explains why; whereas, democratic Socialists refer to their presence in the Capitalist countries legislative bodies, as such that serves the purpose of the societys betterment, Communists do not make any secret of the fact that the only reason why they participate in political elections, is that this provides them with yet additional opportunity to undermine bourgeois democracies from within.

Revolutionary Communism and democratic Socialism also differ, in regards to how the proponents of both ideologies address the issue of peoples political opinions being formed. According to Communists, the manner in which a particular individual perceives the surrounding socio-political reality reflects the specifics of his or her affiliation with one or another social class.

In other words, it is namely peoples class-status, which causes them to be what they are, in the cognitive sense of this word. Democratic Socialists, on the other hand, refer to the Communist interpretation of what causes people to adopt a particular behavioral pattern, as being overly simplistic. According to them, regardless of what happened to be the particulars of peoples class-affiliation, it is in their very nature to strive to enjoy a social fairness.

Hence, the democratic Socialist idea that it is possible for the representatives of different social classes to cooperate. It is needless to mention, of course, that Communists do not agree with this idea, because according to them, the wealthy representatives of social elites, on the one hand, and impoverished workers/peasants, on the other, are sworn enemies. Therefore, there can be no cooperation with then, by definition.

The final difference between both ideologies is that, while revolutionary Communism implies that peoples likelihood to attain happiness is being solely concerned with their varying ability to satisfy their physiological needs, democratic Socialism suggests that, besides being provided with the opportunity to fill up their stomachs, people also need to be given the chance of an emotional/spiritual self-actualization.

In its turn, this can be explained by the fact that, unlike Communists, democratic Socialists believe that there is so much more to a particular individual than solely his or her desire to enjoy having a plenty of food. In this respect, democratic Socialism appears much more intellectually refined, as compared to revolutionary Communism, because it avoids making simplistic assumptions about human nature.

Works Cited

Dobbs, Darrell. Communism. The Journal of Politics 62.2 (2000): 491- 510.Print.

Kors, Alan. Can There be an After Socialism? Social Philosophy & Policy 20. 1 (2003): 1-17. Print.

Roberts, Andrew. The State of Socialism: A Note on Terminology. Slavic Review 63.2 (2004): 349-366. Print.

Sturmthal, Adolf. Democratic Socialism in Europe. World Politics 3.1 (1950): 88- 113. Print.

Introduction

Democratic governance is based on legitimacy, order, stability, accountability, and transparency. It mainly involves promoting durable governance; this includes introducing of politics participation, a stable society, and freedom of media. In addition, democratic governance promotes the involvement of women and other minority groups in government levels and in society levels as well. Democratic governance also involves working hard to ensure that childrens rights and human rights are in place and followed to the later. A state that practices democratic governance establishes policies that are sustainable beyond government changes, which are capable of resolving any conflicts within the state in an orderly and legal manner.

These policies should be imposed in the right manner and are capable of fighting corruption and dictatorship; indeed, in a democratic state, criticism should not be shunned by the government (Frank, 1992). Most countries globally try to exercise democratic governance especially to curb poverty. Some of the non-governmental organizations that contribute to the democratic governance include the United Nations development programme, which promotes participation, and effectiveness in member countries.

Such organizations assist countries to improve on their justice levels and the public administration. However, good governance should be democratic in both an institutional and social sense; it should also include individual liberties, human rights, economic progress, and social justice (Carty, n.d, pp 2). The presence of United States military in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan represent a democratic future, since these troops promote peace and harmony in the three countries. It is through the peaceful environment that the United States government is able to promote governance in such countries, thus helping the country to recover by promoting peace, reviving the countrys economy, as well as creating a democratic government.

According to Morgan (2011), united states is fighting three wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, while struggling under huge budget deficit and national debt. The United States proves to be a main player in the promotion of democratic governance in countries where conflict dictatorship and war is involved. In this case, the US has used millions of dollars in order to sustain the troops based in Iraq; this has however met critics from the US citizen, who argue that such money should be invested in their country for development purposes, rather than in the war hit countries. For instance, the United States is spending almost $550 for the military operations in Libya alone, which is a large sum of cash that could be utilized to other major issues of development in the US.

However, the United States president noted that, if the US military was to overthrow the current Libyan president, Gadaffi, by force, this would only mean that the military lives would be endangered, which should not be the case. The Afghanistan military operation for a year cost $110 billion, meaning that approximately $300 million is used in a day. In addition, in 2008, Iraq military operation cost the United States approximately, $ 140 billion, which adds up to $383 million in a day. However, this year there is a reduction of the troops sent to Iraq, which will be approximately 100,000, hence a reduction in salaries, health costs and allowances. However, this is a wise decision since the United States is incurring a large sum of dollars on the many troops it posts to Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, of which these huge sums of money could have been used on development programmes in the United States (Morgan, 2011).

The current situation in Libya entails the United States first priority to be protecting the Libyan citizens by eliminating any threats to the lives of the innocent civilians. The US government has however declared that Libya is a no fly zone and has put in place diplomatic and political tools. They have also freezed president Gadaffis assets, this are some of the strategies that the US hopes that will lead to the stepping down of Gaddafi. However, one of the fundamental values that the United States government has applied in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya is the protection of innocent human life by ensuring that they do not make any drastic decision that may comprise the lives of civilians. Such actions by the United States enhance democratic governance.

Plan of action to consolidate and spread the values of democratic governance

The right to democracy is the right for people to participate and to be consulted in the process of making political choices (Frank, 1994, pp 73). In fact, the United States government has tried to practice democratic governance as a way of solving conflict in war-torn and conflict-hit countries. Though these involvements have cost the United States a fortune, some fruits have been yielded due to these engagements. Democratic governance however cannot work without its values; hence, it is appropriate for the adoption of values in any governance.

The United States should hence involve the non- profitable and non-governmental institution in its journey to effective governance. Such institutions may include, the United Nations development programme (UNDP), which supports and promotes human rights by supporting programmes aimed at building institutions, promoting and protecting human rights, and engaging in human right practices in member nations. UNDP provides support, advice, and guidance tools, when dealing with the governments that are interested in promoting human rights.

According to the Africa  EU partnership, another human rights organization, on the issue of democratic governance and human rights (2011), its main aim is to work with countries and implement programmes that tackle corruption, prevent torture, and promote human rights. This partnership enhances the promotion of human rights by funding projects that are geared towards protecting innocent lives globally. In addition, it also focuses on promoting awareness of the African peer mechanism and supporting the African charter on democracy, elections, and ethics. However, a good government is associated with democratic governance in that strong institutions help legitimate and strengthen the system they serve and strengthen; functioning democracy helps provide the transparency and accountability to enable government to be more relevant and attendant to the society (Carty, n.d, pp 4).

According to Sen. A, (1999, pp 6), there are various functions of democracy; first, countries that practice democracy have the political freedom which results to human freedom. Democracy ensure that both civil and political rights are exercised, thus promoting social lives of citizens of a particular country. In addition, democracy promotes the listening of citizens claims and agendas regarding their political views. Democracy also promotes socialization in a society such that, citizens of a particular country are able to learn from each other, hence enabling the society to be able to create its values and major priorities.

In addition, the main plan of action that should be implemented in order to consolidate and spread the values of democratic governance should involve the United States working hand in hand with non-governmental organizations like the United Nations and European Union in supporting and promoting human right initiative and programmes. In addition, the national democratic institute (NDI) is another non- profitable organization, which is geared towards working with democratic institutions globally on improving the lives of citizens through citizens participation, openness, and accountability. While working together with such organizations, there is a possibility for the enactment of democratic governance to be fast and effective, and this plan will save on the many millions that United States is spending on its military troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.

Secondly, the United States should find other means of promoting the democratic governance in the war-affected areas, apart from sending its military troops to life-risking missions. The United States can try to hold peace talks with the affected countries representatives and find measure that will curb conflicts and ruthless leadership. Implementing human rights institutions in different countries could also help in solving problems of bad governance. Since these institutions will act as a link between the United States government and the affected countries, this will be an effective method of ensuring that democratic governance is practiced to the fullest. The main aim of democratic governance is to enhance effective leadership of a country by curbing dictatorship and promoting peace, enhancing political freedom and promoting human rights of all citizens of a state.

Conclusion

Democratic governance is a process that involves participation of both the government of a state and the citizens of that state. In a democratic state, issues of dictatorship and misuse of power are rare. The government normally concentrates on welfare of its citizen, ensuring that human rights policies are implemented and followed. However, in war-hit areas, democratic governance may be promoted by major countries such as the United States, which send its troops to these countries to promote peace and protect the lives of innocent citizens of the affected countries. United States is however spending billions of dollars in trying to promote peace in countries like Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq. However, too much involvement of the United States to these countries is costing the country in terms of money and its own development, rather than focusing on issues such as education, health, and poverty.

Nevertheless, democratic governance can be promoted in the affected countries by cooperation between the United States, the great seven nations, and the non-governmental organizations like the United Nations. Finally, it is important to note that the democratic governance of any country involves citizens of that country and its government respectively. A nation which has good governance should be capable of promoting peace throughout its territories, support and promote human rights of its citizens, and ensure that there is room for its citizens expression in terms of politics. The right of speech and media press should also be encouraged by the government but not shunned, as a good democratic nation always listens to its citizens, and sometimes, uses those critics to govern and lead the country in a better way.

References

Carty, W. and Rizvi, G. (N. D). The Legitimacy Challenge for Good Government and Democratic Governance: The Imperative to Innovate. Web.

Democratic Governance. (N.d). National democratic institute (NDI). Web.

Democratic governance and human rights. (2011). African and Europe Partnership. Web.

Frank, T. (1994). Democracy as a human right. Web.

Frank, T. (1992). The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance.The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 86, No. 1, pp. 46-91. Web.

Morgan, D. (2011). Washington. Web.

Sen, A. (1999). Democracy as a Universal Value. Journal of Democracy, Volume 10, Number 3, pp. 3-17. University press publishers. Web.

Introduction

Democracy is the best protection of the rights and interests of all classes of people in a given state. This is because under such a government all the people have a voice and share in improving their rights as well as furthering their interests. This is viewed as a superior form of governance of all other forms because the rights of every citizen are secure from being disregarded by any person who seems to be able to habitually dispose to be capable of standing up for them. This system postulates that a measure of personal liberty and consideration of all classes in an equal manner (Samons, 2007). This paper explores the role of ethics in making a citizen the foundation of a contemporary democratic state by focusing on the Greek legacy to ascertain some of the responsibilities of a citizen in achieving a democratic state.

Politics of Plato and Aristotle

The ethics and politics of Aristotle have remained to be one of the most memorable regarding the ancient democracy of Greece. Aristotle has argued that ethics serves as a purpose of finding the ultimate purpose of human life, thus demonstrating the emphasis on teleology (Samons, 2007). This is because ethics is a practical science whose main concern is not knowledge, but for the application. This, why ethics s viewed as a cornerstone of any successful democracy. This may be one of the reasons that the application of ethics bestowed upon citizens in Ancient Greece led to its success, and to be referred to as one of the best democracies of its time. However, Greek had its unique interpretation of ethics. This may be, in part, because of the many philosophers that existed at the time like Aristotle and Plato.

According to Aristotle slaves are meant to be ruled, and therefore have no equal rights as the citizens of a particular state. However, he asserts that individuals are meant to participate in every aspect of the government, and, on the other hand, the government should work to promote a good life for all of its citizens. Therefore, given the fact that only citizens are supposed to participate in the building of the state, and this excludes all the slaves as well as aliens.

Ethics of Plato and Aristotle

The word democracy was coined from Greek words demos which means people and Kratos which means rule. This defines the political system that had its roots in the city-state of Athens which has given way to a form of governance that is being witnessed in most of the current nation-states; the US was the first nation to adopt this system of poof governance. However, Cartledge and Edge (2009) assert that no democracy has come in close resemblance to the ancient Greek democracy which emphasized the significance of citizens in achieving the best form of governance. This is because the US has a liberal democracy as opposed to the Greek democracy that was a direct democracy that had provisions that all citizens participate in all major policy decisions. Aristotle asserts that the role of ethics was that diversity was to be valued mostly because unity could be achieved through differences. However, this notion applies more to contemporary times than ancient times. Aristotle also believed that it was the task of any given country to cater to the educational needs of its citizens that would shape them and transform them into eligible citizens that would create a foundation for democracy (Cartledge and Edge, 2009).

Relevance to the contemporary democratic states

However, Plato criticized this form of citizenship that only acknowledged the citizens of the state but not all others that formed the slaves, women, and resident aliens. This led to the participation of only a tenth of the population who fully participated in the democratic government. Plato envisaged having a homogenous constituency that accommodated all classes of citizens to bring out a powerful democracy. This was in contrast to many Christian political theories that rooted for unity as a sign of a strong democracy where unity achieved through homogeneity is stronger than that one achieved through difference. This notion was also shared with Plato who likes the religious groups was a major critic of Aristotle.

Therefore, this political philosophy from Plato has had an impact on the modern political philosophy which is still faced with problems of the ancient times (Hovdelien, 2011). However, it also brought out the value of ethics in politics in creating a successful democracy, for this only emanates from the citizens who are morally educated. Plato believed that the important goal in any mans life was a good life that was to be founded on good morals that enables one the judgment as to what is good or bad. Therefore, given that Plato and Aristotle believed that ethical values were primarily concerned with ensuring the well-being of every man, and that means the well-being of the entire government. This, therefore, amounts to the fact that the good morals of citizens enhance democracies by making them better.

Conclusion

Platos thought on democracy as preconditioned by law stems from the fact that if citizens are ethical, then they will follow the laws and this will be a sign of good governance. In most cases, he claimed that law was a necessity for good governance and not a mark of good governance as argued by Aristotle (Hovdelien, 2011). This means that he dismissed the Christian political theories who believed in wisdom as one of the major contributors of good governance, for those theories were personalized He, therefore envisioned that good governance should come from the rule of law mainly because it has an impersonal quality. This was one of the foundations of successful democracies where governments were formed by people for everything was conducted through law.

This was excellent. All the rights of all the citizens were respected because everyone was under the law. This seems to be the core of successful democracies where everyone is capable of free life that cannot be undermined by anyone no matter the social classes. This was against the Christian religious theories that took into account the existence of classes that were taken as important in the well-being of every society. Therefore, this notion of Plato has turned out to be influential in contemporary democracies. This is because it laid the basics of rule of law that now is the backbone of many of the known successful democracies in the world led by the US. It is, therefore, important to note that ethics are important in determining the success of any given democracy. This is because democracy is all about people, and if people are moral enough to observe the rule of law, this guarantees a good democracy. This is to means that the success of democracies is measured by the morality of their citizens.

References

Cartledge, P. & M. Edge (2009). Rights, Individuals, and Communities in Ancient Greece in R. Balot Ed. A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought Malden, MA, & Oxford, 149-63.

Hovdelien, O. (2011). Post secular consensus? On the Munich-dialogue between Joseph Rat zinger and jurgen Hanbermas. Australian eJournal of Theology. Vol 8, No 2 pp 107-117

Samons, L. J. (2007). Whats Wrong with Democracy? From Athenian Practice to American Worship. California, University of California Press.

Platos criticism of democracy

Plato criticises the free choices or freedoms in democracy and the free choice of occupation. An important theory that comes from Socrates states that control of policy in government should be given in the hands of the guardians. The guardians are those who have reason or a dominating faculty which allows them to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong.

Morality can be guarded and ensured if those given the chance to have power over it are those whose actions are ruled by reason. The others who are not dominated by reason should not be allowed to take control of policy. (Sofroniou 2007, p. 75)

People in government should have moral knowledge and not just moral opinion. According to Plato, this is a requirement in order for a government to be moral. An ordinary citizen can have opinion about good things in life but may not have good moral judgement.

He does not know if such things are good if he does not know how to distinguish the essence of goodness and its corresponding attributes or manifestations. If a citizen does not possess this power or quality, he will not be able to know the goodness of a thing.

To speak of it in our present time, there are only a few people who are given the power of sound judgement about what is right and what is wrong and should have the power to make policy.

Plato opposed the doctrine that everyone should be allowed to express his or her own opinion, to state his beliefs or to influence policies because those who are not trained to function in government do not have enough reason and do not exactly know what is right and what is wrong. A moral government should be controlled by those with moral knowledge and not with mere moral opinion.

In order to expound on this clearly, Plato makes another distinction, that between Forms and their apparent manifestations. Plato would like to distinguish the essence of beauty and the manifestations of beauty. For Plato these are two different things  essence and manifestations of beauty. (Sofroniou 2007, p. 75)

Modern philosophers have interpreted this distinction with their examples of particulars and universals. For example, an orange has its individual qualities, the particulars, but oranges have general qualities of colour, taste, smell, and so on. An orange may have a particular sweet taste  it may be sweeter than another orange but the universal quality is that all oranges have sweet taste.

Plato suggests that a thing is beautiful if it has the Form of beauty. We will know that a thing is beautiful if we know the Form of beauty, or the thing has the presence of that Form, and not on our mere belief that the thing is beautiful. Knowledge depends upon what we know of the universals.

Having knowledge of the Form is important before one can have the wisdom to act and according to Plato this is a prerequisite before he can act on his own life or anything about the state. This is true with goodness and the Form of goodness. The Form of goodness enables us to understand the goodness of a thing. This is compared to the sun which makes our eyes see and makes things visible to everyone.(Sofroniou 2007, p. 76)

The Form of the Good, according to Socrates, may not be the same with universal characteristic. But Socrates believes the objective difference between good and bad acts and humans know how to recognise this difference and distinction. Socrates suggests that only the philosophers can do it.

A philosopher is one who has the passion to see the truth. He knows how to discern the essence of the thing and does not confuse things. For this reason, Socrates concludes that philosophers should be kings  political power and philosophy should meet so that people can rest from troubles and there will be peace in the land. (Sofroniou 2007, p. 77)

Plato suggests that a government should be composed of experts. He does not conform to the democratic system that people should select the kind of leaders to make the policy of government because those who are elected in office will only do what satisfies public demand and do not even know the essence of things and the many manifestations of things.

Experts in government should be selected according to their knowledge of the essence of things.

How should experts in government be selected?

According to Plato, someone who has the capability to have knowledge of the Good needs training or his mind should be trained for this purpose. And another important thing is that someone who has this kind of knowledge and training should live apart from temptations so that he is able to perform his solemn duty.(Sofroniou 2007, p. 78)

Plato criticises the free choice of occupation and the free choice of being politician. In the play, Socrates proposed in social justice that one should perform one social service according to his best nature or capacity  one should perform according to what he knows best. He must not perform the job of a cobbler if he is a carpenter, or perform the job of a carpenter if he is a cobbler, or perform both.

If this happens, he does a great disservice to the city and it would cause a problem. (Santas 2010, p. 171) Multitasking results in a great problem for the city, Socrates suggests. A money maker should not become a soldier, or a soldier cannot become a counsellor and guardian, or one man cannot perform all those functions; otherwise, he gives a ruin of the city (Santas 2010, p. 171).

The principle of social justice

The principle of social justice, as suggested in the Republic, is that one should perform for what he is best suited and should not be permitted to do anything that he cannot do best; anyone should also not be permitted to change occupation from something for which she can do best to something she cannot do best, and this applies to all. Why can this harm the city?

According to Socrates, this goes all the way to the principle of division of labour which makes things easier, rather than each one do all the things he/she can do  be it production of food, shelter and clothing. People are born with different talents and capabilities needed in different occupations.

An individual can do best on one particular thing while another one can do best on other things. He cannot do many things because doing best on one occupation requires time, education, training, and so on. (Santas 2010, p. 172)

Socrates reasoning is still applicable in our time. Division of labour is applied in production. In communities, we get the right people for the right job.

Firms have human resource management to get the best person for the job. And it is not possible to have two jobs for one person even if that person is multi-talented  his performance will be affected. It is still best if people are chosen and perform their job according to their knowledge and training.

Aristotles criticism of democracy

Aristotles criticisms of democracy are varied and still practiced up to today. They can be applied in many governments today. They are present in many of human activities.

Aristotle says that there is a tendency for democracy to be excessive. More democracy is the usual cry of democrats. A democrat starts with a cry for justice and equality; then he identifies this with the masses and the sovereignty and will of the people. He ends up with absolute freedom (Coats 1994, p. 54). Absolute freedom and absolute ownership of property go together.

Extreme democracy, according to Aristotle, allows the political domination of a small group of citizenry over all the members of a polity (Ober 2001, p. 328). Aristotle says that democracy can change and like any other human activity, it is subject to change.

Democracy can turn into oligarchy or oligarchy into democracy, but there are other forms of democracy and also other forms of oligarchy. From oligarchy, tyranny can take place and tyranny terminates progress. (Simpson 1998, p. 419)

Aristotle in his writings taught that there is a system of check in democracy, something which is found in the American system. This kind of check is present in the powerful and the elite. Bureaucrats are criticised by the people, and when the people are organised, they oppose every proposed measure which is good for the people. (Wilson, Cheek, Power, & Cheek 2001, p. 242)

Aristotle sometimes agreed with Plato that democracy is not an ideal political constitution but it distorts and corrupts something else. Aristotle attacks what democracy creates: the peoples ambivalence to what they call social justice; political chaos; seeming lack of morality by the so-called elite; the holding on to power by a select few; etc. (Corcoran 1983, p. 17)

Aristotle considers polity is a form of government or state  it is constitutional and applies to what we now know as democracy. Aristocracy has a constitution which diverts from democracy or it may have a mix of oligarchic and democratic ideals. But Aristotle recognizes democracy as the best that we can ever have as a form of government  it is a government of, by, and for the people (Jayapalan 2002, p. 139).

It is false to state that democracy is a government by the poor because rich countries of the world have the democratic form of government  with all the weaknesses and barriers that democracy can offer to the poor. But it is still the best, or perhaps better than dictatorship. Aristotle does not recognize or mention other forms of government like Parliamentary, Representative, or Totalitarian form. (Jayapalan 2002, p. 139)

Concept of private property

Aristotles criticism on private property is often the subject of commentaries of philosophers. It is interesting and worth the time because it is one of the original concepts of socialism: wealth should not be used for private gain but for the common good. Property enables an organised community to be well constituted and in a well-organised polity common means should be given to all people. (Frank 2005, p. 55)

Aristotle prefers the word holding instead of ownership but he rejects common ownership by Plato. He is not opposed to private property but anyone with property should also have the power over it. He opposes forced redistribution of property because it may lead to civil strife. (Frank 2005, p. 55)

But if people have private property, there should be one for common use, with laws applied to it, properties like land and crops, political offices, and so on. This gives a public dimension to the concept of property. Scholars regard property as an instrument; theorists hold that it is an instrument to accumulation of wealth. Property can lead to wealth and virtue.

But Aristotle says that too much property can harm the owner or possessor of property. The summary of Aristotles understanding of property is that property is both private and public. Excessive property will not do any good to its owner. (Frank 2005, p. 56)

How valid are the arguments of Plato and Aristotle?

The worlds main source of Greek political thought, the old and modern tenets of democracy are the writings of Plato and Aristotle. No way can they be considered not valid. Plato is Aristotles predecessor and most of their writings agree although there are times that they deviate from their original ideas.

Plato and Aristotle have anti-democratic biases which sometimes render obstacle to a political-science students serious study of ancient political thought. But they are more than valid and are even applicable to todays democratic practices.

Platos criticism on the many kinds of regimes depends on the degree from which they have departed from ideal democracy. Aristotles criticism on democracy and oligarchy are very valid in the sense that they sometimes both meet on their extremes. For example, when democrats cry for justice, they go to the extent of seeking the peoples support but when they are given the freedom, they abuse power.

Oligarchs are old-time democrats who have lost their being democrats because of their long stay in the system. They are used to democracy that they have taken it for granted. They have transformed into oligarchs. (Yunis 1996, p. 26)

In contrast to Plato, Aristotle warns of excessive property for excessive wealth brings harm to the possessor. Aristotles words echo in the lobbies and corridors of wealth and power in congress and in the skyscrapers of businesses in New York and Wall Street where money sells like hotcake, or money doesnt sleep. It is here where according to Plato freedom becomes absolute because the democrat continues to cry for justice.

Plato and Aristotle both opposed absolute freedom. Plato said that if all people are allowed to express themselves, there will be chaos. This is the freedom of expression that is a primary freedom of the world today. Take this out and there will be chaos and war.

But this is one of the primary causes of war  the freedom to express ones self. While both Plato and Aristotle are proponents of democracy, they want a controlled democracy. It may be called an autocratic democracy.

But this could be an ideal state. There are states practicing this form of autocratic democracy. Some call it a police state. And they are successful in some sense.

References

Coats, W 1994, A theory of Republican character and related essays, Susquehanna University Press, U.S.A.

Corcoran, P 1983, The limits of democratic theory, in G Duncan (ed.), Democratic theory and practice, Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge and New York, pp. 13-24.

Frank, J 2005, A democracy of distinction: Aristotle and the work of politics, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

Jayapalan, N 2002, Comprehensive study of Aristotle, Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi.

Ober, J 2001, Political dissent in democratic Athens: intellectual critics of popular rule, Princeton University Press, Oxford and New Jersey.

Santas, G 2010, Understanding Platos Republic, John Wiley & Sons Inc., West Sussex.

Simpson, P 1998, A philosophical commentary on the politics of Aristotle, University of North Carolina Press, North Carolina.

Sofroniou, A 2007, Moral philosophy, from Hippocrates to the 21^st aeon, Lulu.com, UK.

Wilson, F, Cheek, H, Power, M, & Cheek, K 2001, Political philosophy and cultural renewal: collected essays, Transaction Publishers, New Jersey.

Yunis, H 1996, Taming democracy: models of political rhetoric in classical Athens, Cornell University, New York.

Taken from his 1922 book, titled Public Opinion, The Image of democracy start by Lippman questioning why there are no records in form of literature on public opinion, where else, literature on government and political parties are literally scattered everywhere. He is of the opinion that America political writers and the political class deliberately blocks public opinion to serve their own interests; The existence of a force called public opinion is in the main taken for granted, and American political writer have been more interested in finding out how to make government express the common will&

Lippmann goes on to answer the question which he had posed to the reader, he talks of the quality of the public opinion been low, personal opinion could not be taken as the whole society opinion. He feels a personal opinion may be aimed to serve his self-interest, flawed and not based on the exact record, measurement, analysis, and comparison&&therefore, unless there is in the community at large &. He is of the opinion that the only valid opinion would be from the whole community as whole but not individuals.

Lippmann then takes us back in the eighteenth century, on how past leaders perceived public opinion, he still find the problem has existed in past society, where leaders were low fellows or as a problem, not as possessors of the most effective knowledge there was on how to create and operate public opinion the leadership back then was of the opinion that for public opinion to be valid, it had to be spontaneous and the leaders themselves were felt threatened by public opinion.

On leadership, the public opinion was very unanimous that leaders were born, but they were so divided when it came to choosing the right person whom political wisdom was innate Lippman gives an example of a great leader like Jefferson who was strongly convinced that farmer and planters had been instilled with leadership skills from God. Lippmann then continues to describe a society that is content with few individuals or a certain class of people, who the society felt reserved the right to make an opinion.

What of those who dare rise above the social norm of conformity? A classic example is Machiavelli, &&&.the classic of this school, a man most mercilessly maligned, because he happened to be the first naturalist& in bringing Machiavelli, Lippmann paint a picture of a rigid leadership, so content with the traditions that anyone trying to raise his opinion is met with a lot of opposition, Lippman continues to describe Machiavelli treatment by the society &&because he happened to be the first naturalist who used plain language in a field hitherto preempted by supernaturalist. He has a worse name and more disciples than any political thinker who ever lived.

On democracy, Lippmann depicts a picture where the basis of democracy is based on political elites but not on the reality on the ground, the democratic ideal, as Jefferson molded it, consisting of an ideal environment and a selected class, did not conflict with the political science of his time. It did conflict with the realities in other words, the political agenda was not intended to serve the masses, but a few influential individuals.

The people, though they might feel that their opinion is not sought by the few influential individuals on an issue related to democracy, they are forced, by the same system to stick to it. Lippmann gives an example of the mirror being concave in describing the democrats stand &&and although democrats recognize that they are in contact with external affairs, they see quite sure that every contact outside that self-contained group is a threat to democracy The democrats can not raise a voice, ironically to preserve democracy.

Lippmann depicts a society in war with itself, a war that can not be fought. Where instead of confronting the reality, the democrat went passionately into the wilderness, and founded utopian communities&.. a place of comfort and fulfillment, a place that indeed doesnt exist. Lippmann further adds a twist to this situation by letting the reader know that its not that people dont know their rights, &&..the democrats had caught sight of a dazzling possibility, that every human being should rise to his full stature, free from man-made limitations but even with all these knowledge, they are strongly convinced that the well being of their society depends on their sticking to the system.

The writer describes the thought pattern of the people, people whose picture of the reality comes from what has been passed and coined to them by their teachers and parents &.and were little corrected by their own experience they are not willing to open up their eyes to new possibilities.

The writer has succeeded in his effort in giving the true picture of the peoples unwillingness to confront the systems and leadership, where public opinion is left to the political class and the leadership of a chosen few. A society where those who try to raise their voice are met with stiff opposition.

Reference

Walter Lippmann (1952) Public Opinion, Green-Wood Publish Group, New York.

Introduction

Contrary to other ideas in political science such as justice and liberty, democracy is a term that can be easily explained. It mainly relates to the government by the majority. Although characterizing democracy is not difficult, the latest political theory is often left this out. No strong argument is provided by political theorists regarding the reason for representative democracy.

On the other hand, if any is given, it lacks strength. One would anticipate that great literature can be created from the reasons for the promotion and institution of democracy. On the contrary, popular literature does not delve so much into why democracy is desirable, but instead, get to explain the reasons for the improvement of the current democracy. This essay examines what different philosophers have had to argue both for and against democracy.

Arguments for Democracy

One of the arguments is that democracy is important because it can be embraced and made deliberative. This implies that deliberation of a dialogical nature is vital to the democratic society. When democracy is made deliberate in a given society, instead of peoples mere adaptation to circumstance, their preferences are not only informed but also made clear.

Democracy also helps to remove points of difference among people without necessarily making them agree. At times, democracy requires that people be compelled to embrace a general perspective. As such, both their imagination and empathy are stretched. In the same vein of the deliberateness of democracy, selfish concerns can be separated from public-oriented considerations thus encouraging public reasoning for participants who are free and equal (Sosa & Villanueva 287-288).

Research also indicates that making democratic to be more deliberative is likely to result to other benefits such as legitimizing all decisions that are arrived at, encouraging the powerless to voice their concerns in decision making, promoting transparency among group members and enhancing outcomes that are just.

Another argument that favors the importance of democracy in deliberation is one that aims at making deliberation democratic and not vice versa. This implies that whenever there is democratic deliberation, then the probability of reaching the truth based on reliability increases with the presence of a democratic decision-making regime.

Moreover, democracy enhances the proper allocation of resources to appropriate uses. This argument is supported by the fact dictatorial leaders are not fully accountable to citizens and do not have motivations to put the total output into maximum use. Instead, they focus on their selfish ends.

Consequently, democracy ensures that property rights are protected hence allowing investors to have a long term perspective. Besides, allowing free flow of information ensures that the quality of economic decisions made is high (Dahl 448).

Arguments against Democracy

In attempting to argue against democracy, Gordon takes on several philosophers who have argued in favor of democracy. He does this by revealing how such arguments fail to hold water when based on democracy because, in his perspective, the proponents of democracy do not express the desirability of democracy as it were. A good example of writers who have omitted this fact is Bernard Barber.

He dismisses other philosophers on this matter arguing that a just political order can only be reached at through a discussion and not by avoiding it. Questions of distributive justice can properly be dealt with by individuals rather than by philosophers alone since it would be undemocratic to do the reverse. However, Barber does not clearly explain why people should value democracy.

His concern is that individuals thinking on their own can reach wiser decisions than a group of individuals discussing the same issue. Hes satisfied with the fact that Rousseau concurs with the issue. If he were to be correct about this empirical matter, then it would be sound to conclude that if democratic governance would guide a society, then it would be prudent to arrive at decisions in such a society through discussions.

Although this point is still devoid of the desirability of democracy, it centers on the importance of democracy in discussing policy publicly. Deliberating on issues publicly is not a compulsory ingredient for democracy. For instance, during the nineteenth century, there was no democracy in the British government although public issues could be discussed broadly (Gordon para.5).

Plato presents a couple of arguments against democracy. First, Plato describes democracies as societies that are anarchic. He believes that societies that are democratic are marked with anarchy. For example, his attack describes governments that are democratic for being libertarian in such a manner every citizen can carry out their life issues in a way that appeals to them.

In this way, he asserts that people mistake anarchy for freedom. Plato criticizes democratic societies again by asserting that since they are characterized with anarchy, they are devoid of unity. They are not united on two fronts. First, due to the lack of political structure and are not politically organized. Second, democratic societies do not have a leadership structure since everyone can speak on political issues.

Second, Plato argues that democratic societies are likely to adhere to what their citizens want hence lacking any concern for the good of all. If anarchy is what features in democracies, then every individual has the freedom to choose what will ultimately benefit him or her. These choices may clash and encourage people to value their own needs rather those of others as well.

This is a clear pursuit of personal desires which may encourage loss of the common good. Since citizens have no idea of what ruling is, it happens that they pursue their passions and not the reason because reason cannot be applied in such pursuits. Any leaders that are elected through democracy are therefore servants who are out to satisfy the individual desires and appetites of the citizens.

Plato further argues that citizens who are guided by democracy are likened to individuals who grope in darkness since they do not have what it takes to execute governance (Kofmel 20). Moreover, Plato lists two more difficulties. First, numerous individuals falsely believe that they have adequate political proficiency that can qualify them to take part in political issues.

Citizens are not bothered by the fact that on account of their political standing, they are entitled to an equal political voice with each other. Second, when people get involved in a philosophical investigation with each other, they are more concerned with winning arguments instead of the following truth.

Therefore, even though citizens may be endowed with enough political expertise, it may be concluded that they will not be able to manage it effectively (Kofmel 21). The best remedy to this problem is to limit popular involvement in politics and allowing those who have sufficient political know-how in matters of governance to take the lead in the political decision-making process. Such are the people who can guide the citizens into achieving their common good.

Conclusion

Democracy is a term that is perceived differently by different people. Arguments put forth in favor of it are that it encourages fair allocation of resources, sound decision making especially by the powerless and allows for transparency and justice through deliberation.

Arguments against democracy are that it is not the best option for decision making, it encourages anarchy and hence lack of unity and that democracy encourages people who do not have sufficient political expertise to be involved in decision making. This results in a lack of common good.

Works Cited

Dahl, Robert. The Democracy Sourcebook. NY: MIT Press, 2003. June 19, 2011.

Gordon, David. Whats the Argument for Democracy? LeRockwell.com, 1992. June 19, 2011.

Kofmel, Erich. Anti-Democratic Thought. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic, 2008. June 19, 2011.

Sosa, Ernest & Villanueva, Enrique. Social, Political and Legal Philosophy, Volume 1. Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. June 19, 2011.

Introduction

The world is home to diverse systems of governance. Different countries are governed differently due to a variety of reasons, mostly depending on their geographical location, political affiliations, and religious background to a lesser extent. Democracy is the most favored system of governance while dictatorship is loathed by many. This paper seeks to compare and contrast democracy and dictatorship as systems of governance.

Description of democracy and dictatorship

Democracy is often described as a form of governance in which all the adult citizens of a given country have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives (Diamond and Marc 168). This implies that the citizens have a way of participating in the formation of the rules and laws by which they are governed.

Democratic principles may encompass cultural, economic and other social practices that encourage free and fair competition, particularly in the political arena (Diamond and Marc 168). On the other hand, dictatorship can be defined as a form of government that is controlled by an individual or a small collection of individuals. Power is concentrated around the individual or the small group of people and is often obtained through force or inheritance (Bueno, Alastair and Morrow 15).

Similarities between Democratic and Authoritarian Government

There are very few similarities between democracy and dictatorship. Both can be identified as forms of governance. Democratic and dictatorial regimes both vest their authority in one person or a few individuals. Both types of government can be effective or infective depending on several factors that may involve the particular individual holding the executive authority. A dictatorship is generally a poor form or governance.

However, democracy can also be weak if its often locked in disagreements. Its usually believed that there are no true democracies as most of them typically carry some aspects of dictatorship. Both systems are designed to effectively control the people only that in democracies people think that the ruling elite has their consent to rule (Diamond and Marc 168).

Difference between Democracy and Dictatorship

Democracy and dictatorship differ in many ways. The differences mainly pertain to the concept of governance and the methodology applied (Bueno, Alastair and Morrow 132). A dictator exercises absolute power and often formulates laws that are meant to suppress competition. On the other hand, the choice to create the rules of governance and other regulations is usually made by the people.

In democracies, people are given a chance to choose what works best for them. Decisions are arrived at through a consultative process where everyone is allowed to provide his/her views. In a dictatorship, an individual or a small group of influential persons make choices on behalf of the people.

The laws that govern the rights of people and the economy are framed for the people in a dictatorship (Bueno, Alastair and Morrow 57). On the hand, democracies give people the power to make laws.

The freedoms and rights of citizens, media, civil society, and other organizations are often curtailed in dictatorial systems of governance. People are often not allowed to say what they think is right for them. In democracies, citizens, media, civil society, and other organizations are usually free to initiate any meaningful change.

Conclusion

This paper sought to identify the similarities and differences between democracy and dictatorship. Both have been identified as systems of governance which have very few similarities unless the principles of democracy are compromised to bring in some elements of dictatorship. However, the two are different in several ways that mainly relate to the rights and freedoms of citizens and the concentration of power.

Works Cited

Bueno, Mesquita, Smith Alastair and James Morrow. The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003.

Diamond, Larry and Plattner Marc. Electoral Systems and Democracy. Baltimore: John Hopkins University, 2006.

A democracy is a form of governance characterized by power sharing. The implication of this is that all the citizens have an equal voice in the way a nation is governed. This often encompasses either direct or indirect involvement in lawmaking. Democracy can be a very delicate subject for any writer.

Throughout history, various scholars, including ancient philosophers, have had a divergent view on whether democracy is the best form of governance (Kelsen 3). Some of these arguments are discussed in this essay. Democracy appears to go hand in hand with national unity.

This is particularly true because this form of governance is all about people, and these people are working together towards attainment of national goals. The cohesiveness also results from the freedom prevailing in a democratic environment. Unity and liberty in a nation lay a fertile ground for economic and social growth (Weatherford 121).

In a democratic form of government, the entire citizenry is cushioned against exploitation and all form of abuse. As opposed to other governance approaches (for instance monarchy and dictatorship), democracy engages the people in decision-making processes. This ensures efficient delivery of basic services such as education, health care, and security.

Moreover, these services will be of high quality. Having people govern themselves significantly minimizes the risk of running a nation into chaos. In operational democracies, policies must undergo thorough scrutiny by many organs of government and stakeholders before they are made laws. The modalities of implementing the laws are also carefully determined.

In such a corporate system, it would be rare for all the involved people to be wrong. Therefore democracy protects a nation against the consequences of human errors. As a consequence of reduced possibility for human errors, people will experience a nation devoid of civil wars and strife. This atmosphere, in turn, perpetuates the general growth of a nation.

Democracy acts as a framework within which the law about the basic human rights operates (Barak 27). In a democratic environment, the law gives equal entitlement to the bill of rights with total disregard of race, ethnicity or economic class.

On the other hand, democracy may not be worth the high status it has been accorded for centuries by many schools of thought. Democracy gives an opportunity for all citizens to vote (Williamson 36). This can be technically hazardous to a nation. An average voter is not adequately equipped with the necessary information on the economic and political aspects of a nation.

The direct implication is that a fairly large percentage of voters will base their choice on limited and incorrect information. This situation can greatly impair development. Democratic approaches tend to slow down the process of policy-making and implementation (Dahl 49). This is due to the bureaucracies associated with democracy.

For example, it may take twelve months for parliament to debate over a bill, pass it into law and fully enforce it. In a dictatorial system, however, the same process would take utmost one day. For many years, democracy has been synonymous with political instability (Snell 18). The high turnover rate of governments comes with drastic changes in national and international policies.

New governments tend to attract much criticism from the media and non-governmental bodies. This criticism and alteration of international relations policies keep off foreign investors, something that can have immense economic implications to a nation.

The seemingly most feared danger of democracy relates to the basic rights of the minority. A case in point is the Netherlands. The Dutch parliament enacted a law against female genital mutilation. The Somali living in the Netherlands could not have a say in this because they are a small group.

In conclusion, the name a government gives itself is immaterial. Whether a government calls itself democratic, anarchy, monarchy, or dictatorial, the most important question should be Are the people getting back what they deserve?

Works Cited

Barak, Aharon. The Judge in a Democracy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2006. Print.

Dahl, Robert. Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Print.

Kelsen, Hans. Foundations of Democracy. Ethics 66.1 (1955):1101.

Snell, Daniel. Flight and Freedom in the Ancient Near East. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2001. Print.

Weatherford, McIver. Indian givers: how the Indians of the America transformed the world. New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1988. Print.

Williamson, Thames. Problems in American Democracy. Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 2004. Print.

For Plato, an ideal state should be ruled by philosophers who possess strong leadership skills and are able to control the masses. Socrates no doubt persisted in suggesting that democracy was an unsound form of government: just as a city that decided questions of public health by popular vote (Monoson 114). During Platos life, the democratic constitution set the seal on the work of the tyranny, for it ensured the exclusion of the large landowner from a predominating influence on politics, and it put effective power into the hands of the townsman  the merchant, the manufacturer, and the proletariat. Socratess execution demonstrates strengths of the Platos argument and proves his position that the state should be ruled by philosophers (elite).

Socrates stayed for the trial. Socrates was condemned to death for corrupting the youth and for worshipping strange gods. Platos Apology can be seen as a report, but also edited and polished to bring out the philosophic issues that the situation held. Socrates asks the jury to forget old prejudices they may have against him based on The Clouds, and explains that he inquires because he has a divine mission. To his surprise, however, Socrates found he had one advantage over all he met: about important things (for mere craftsmanship could not count as the highest wisdom), the men he talked to knew nothing, but were absolutely sure that they did know; he, at least, realizing his own ignorance, was that much wiser (Recco 83). The real clear and present danger seemed to be the men who had complete power, confidence, and ignorance, who spoke of justice but with no knowledge of its meaning, who made laws for national security with excellent intention and uncritical stupidity. The legal case against Socrates was known to be weak; his honesty and integrity were widely recognized, and the temper of the day was inclined to toleration (Monoson 115). Socrates was now seventy years old: the Athens he had loved was gone, never to be rebuilt. Almost deliberately he seemed to press for a final decision, refusing absolutely to escape from prison or to accept the various offers of help that came from his many friends (Barrett 43).

In effect, Anytus must have seen Socrates as a clear and present danger; and those of us who have lived in the twentieth rather than the nineteenth century can very readily see why he might have done so. Where Anytus would much have preferred uncritical patriotism and conformity as the order of the day, Socrates was insisting on giving young people ideas that at least implicitly were critical of the government (Recco 54). By his own account at the trial, Socrates had deflated a good many politicians in a debate by asking simple questions and had stirred up a number of young men to imitate his example. Although this charge could carry the death penalty, it was almost certainly intended only to frighten Socrates so that he would leave the town, as Anaxagoras had many years before (Monoson 114).To show that the accusation represented general opinion, Anytus chose as his associates a conservative religious man, Meletus, and an oratorabout whom nothing else is knownLycon. However, they had miscalculated: Socrates stayed in Athens, stood trial, and forced the issue. Thus public opinion was against him as the trial began (Barrett 47).

Socrates speech is interesting because it follows the topics of other defendants speeches in establishing Socrates character and citizenship, then, unlike any other such defense, rejects this evidence as irrelevant to the point at issue. Socrates has done all of the things a good man and good citizen should do: he has a family, an excellent military record, he was not intimidated by The Thirty into complicity in their crimes, though his resistance risked his life. If he had stopped there, he could surely have gained an acquittal (Monoson 116). What was really on trial, he reminded the jury, was the social value or danger of his inquiries; and other considerations should be set aside. To deny the importance of his mission, to admit he should be punished for it, or even to agree that he will now stop it, are not open to him, he tells the jury; all would be unjust, and he has always been motivated by a love of justice (Recco 39).

As an Athenian, Socrates was under an obligation to the Laws, and he had been tried and sentenced by their due process. Whether the sentence was just or unjust, said the Laws, will not change the fact that due process was observed and the sentence was a legal decision. The Laws said to Socrates that if he were to run away, he would be committing an act of cowardice and of injustice, and would indeed be guilty of the charges brought against him. It might have been within his rights to disobey a court injunction, but only if he was then willing to stand trial for that disobedience before the court (Recco 83). He owed the principle of respect for law his allegiance, and he was not released from his implicit contract with Athenian law just because he found it personally unpleasant. The Laws told him it would be wrong to escape; and Socrates remained (Barrett 76). In the Republic Plato writes:

Unless the philosophers rule as kings or those now called kings and chiefs genuinely and adequately philosophize, and political power and philosophy coincide in the same place, while the many natures now making their way to either apart from the other are by necessity excluded, there is no rest from ills for the cities, my dear Glaucon, nor I think for humankind, nor will the regime we have now described in speech ever come forth from nature, insofar as possible, and see the light of the sun. (Republic 473d-e).

The relation between the community and the individual was one problem that Plato knew from experience; to find a solution was presumably one of his goals for the new Academy. On the one hand, it was only in a social context that fully human life could be led, and such a context seemed to impose an obligation to have respect for the law; on the other hand, the group wielding power in a state, whether it was a dictator, an oligarchy of Thirty, or democracy, could and often did use this power unjustly; critics admit that there is the dilemma of Socrates, a good man in a bad state, unjustly sentenced but unwilling to set an example of disrespect for the law by running away (Recco 57). The possible solutions of declaring either that the state or the individual alone was real and hence took priority may have occurred to Plato, but since he held that both were real, this simple kind of solution was not open to him. Instead, he proposed to design a state such that no just man in it could ever be treated unjustly. But before this could be well done, it was evidently necessary to have a clear idea of the nature of justice; as critics have seen, this was a point on which Socrates, professional legal opinion, and the common sense of the time, differed sharply. Justice in the individual, the state, and the universe is the theme of Platos Republic, the most widely read, admired and criticized single work in Western philosophy. The Republic is a brilliant discussion, showing Platos ability to bring together many fields of knowledge and relate them to a single central speculative theme. In the course of the discussion, a state is described which is ideal in respect to social justice; and an educational system outlined which presupposes the theory of forms, and Socrates equation of virtue with knowledge (Monoson 118).

The execution of Socrates proves that society is wise if its rulers make policy well; brave if its soldiers execute policy effectively; temperate if all its classes are harmonized by an agreement as to which should rule and which be ruled; and just when each citizen has and does his own proper work, not meddling in other classes business. These conditions of value can be generalized to apply to other sorts of organizations, as well as to the political one (Monoson 119). For example, critics test the tentative result by seeing whether it will work for justice and injustice in the individual soul, as well as in the state. Examination of their conflict shows three independent parts in the soul. These are the appetitive, aggressive (spirited-the part that loves contests and prestige), and rational. (The rational faculty must be separate since reason can come into conflict both with ambition and appetite.) An excellent individual will be exactly like an excellent society: wise if the rational part is strong; brave if the ambitious part co-operates with reason and is not deterred by pain and pleasure; temperate if the parts are in their proper (reason-spirit-appetite) order of subordination; and just if each part of the soul does its own proper work. In the individual, then, justice is a psychological balance, with appetite and ambition guided by reason to their proper exercise and satisfaction (Recco 55). Critics admit that it is necessary for truly human life, justice turns out, as Socrates had thought, to have intrinsic value for the individual; it is the psychological state necessary to lead human life fully and well. Since the rulers have absolute power, the state seems totalitarian to some readers. On the other hand, justice and social welfare both require equality of opportunity, so that each person functions in the class for which he is fitted; the aristocracy is one of ability. Finally, the rulers are trained as public-spirited administrators, who will be objective in their judgments of policy (Barrett 65).

Following the discussion of social classes and psychological excellence, Socrates illustrates what he means his ideal rulers to be, by describing their training intemperance, courage, and wisdom, in that order. Although he keeps saying that his illustrations are not impossible, the account is not a practical program but a fascinating description of family life and education in an imaginary community of these guardians. It is primarily intended to show in more detail what sort of rulers his abstract aristocrats are. They must never put personal interest ahead of the welfare of the community as a whole. While the motives of gaining profit and prestige are natural and proper for the craftsman or farmer, they are not so for the legislator. The way to ensure that there will be no conflicts of interest is to give the rulers no personal ties that could interfere (Recco 87). This means no private property; it also means no private families. Women and children will be held in common so that the rulers form a single-family. To judge from later reactions of its readers, one might think the main intention of the whole Republic was to advocate such communism, rather than to define justice (Monoson 118). The proposal is shocking to the modern reader and was meant to be so. Temperance, in this limiting case, will require a radical alteration of what Greek and American alike have always thought of as human nature; the natural pursuit of our own profit, and the natural tendency, even more, marked then than now, to give ones own relatives preferential treatment whenever possible. This community is helping to define an idea; it is not a program that is recommended for actual operation. Rulers should be taught to be fearless from an early age; critics take them into battle, so that they will not be frightened of pain and combat, and can make decisions of policy without timidity. To the reader of his time, who could easily visualize this childrens cavalry, this plan surely seemed startling; and no less startling was the scheme of education that follows later. The great danger in giving a group total power is that they use this in ignorance of what they are really doing; the great temptation of politicians is to rely on experience and guesswork, in the state Socrates now describes, that temptation is to be corrected by ten years of study in pure mathematics before they are allowed to discuss public policy (Monoson 120).

The case of Socrates demonstrates that when a group of rulers confuses national welfare with national power and honor, the result is a timocratic state, rather like Sparta; in the individual, it produces a man in whom ambition exceeds the limits set by reason (Recco 87). The appetitive motive prevails in a money-loving individual, and in a state ruled by an economic oligarchy that makes policy in terms of national wealth. At least such persons and states have a consistent policy; perhaps because of some past insecurity, Socrates suggests, they are afraid of being in want of necessities. When opinions alternate in their claim for satisfaction and there is no fixed policy, critics have the democracy and the personalityfor whom all desires are equal (Monoson 120). Finally, a mind or state gone mad, dominated by a single insatiable desire for individual power and pleasure, is the domain of the tyrant. A vivid picture of the tyrants terrors and limitations is given as a case studya life of terror, surrounded by illiterate mercenaries, devoid of friends since anyone his superior or equal seems to him a rival for his power (Barrett 82).

Having put before his hearers case studies and classifications of types of society and personality, Socrates finally sums up the case for justice. The good man is best and happiest; and it even turns out that his life, of all the lives examined, is the most pleasant. The pleasure critics find in life depends on the right choice of goals, a skillful selection of means that will lead us to those goals, and an opportunity in the environment people live in to choose and utilize those means. The just man is best in all three respects. Socrates sums up, the just man is then immeasurably better and lives 729 times more pleasantly than the tyrant (Recco 83). Here critics find what the earlier discussion of temperance, courage, and wisdom lacked: a picture of justice and the just man operating in a real universe like our own, not simply being constructed like two-dimensional figures in abstract argument (Barrett 49).

In sum, the execution of Socrates proves that democracy is based on the strict rule of the elite and state laws stipulated by the elite. In Platos State, only the philosopher must rule. These rulers are subjected to discipline. For they are to be the defenders of the State against internal discord and foreign aggression and on their absolute integrity depends on the well-being of the whole community. Their education, therefore, is chiefly concerned to ensure three things. In the first place all personal interests must be suppressed, the desire for wealth, family, bodily pleasures, and so on. For such interests, if they become paramount in a rulers life, will corrupt his administration and make him another wage-earner no better than the civilians. The wise elite must be given a moral training so strict and so severe that nothing can divert them from their service to the State.

Works Cited

Barrett, H. The Sophists: Rhetoric, Democracy, and Platos Idea of Sophistry. Chandler & Sharp Pub, 1987.

Recco, G. Athens Victorious: Democracy in Platos Republic. Lexington Books, 2007.

Monoson, S.S. Platos Democratic Entanglements: Athenian Politics and the Practice of Philosophy. Princeton University Press, 2000.

Plato. The Republic. 1992. Web.

Size and the Two Forms of Democracy

Chapter 20 presents democracy in the society as a component that varies both qualitatively and quantitatively whenever a difference of interest occurs. If there is a conflict of interest, democracy seems to be of a higher value. Stakes are raised at this point with the different lines of argument becoming bolder.

Each group pushes hard for its interests and opinions compared to when it agrees on everything. This case attracts too many assumptions. The writer finds that common interests are easily achievable in small groups because people at this level tend to fine-tune what afflicts them. In large groups, opinion tends to be further divided.

This situation makes it difficult to reach a consensus to a problem. Small groups have a problem since their power is not increased. At the same time, the groups power diminishes when brought to the big stage. As the chapter reveals, whereas small groups have the power to control their small civil order, small political units have remarkably a little effect on them. This claim qualifies the sense for having them.

However, it is evident that this decentralization is costly though empowering to the small units due to economic and ecological interdependence. The protection of citizens interests in terms of equality between small governments and bigger governments is not definite.

Thus, the size of government cannot be clearly evaluated on this case. The participation gap between the rich and the poor in small constituencies is almost equal due to the narrowed approach and limited consensus between the two groups. The author reveals that self-selection increases the groups homogeneity in terms of interests especially in small groups. On the other hand, expanding the group reduces the saliency of common interests during recruitment.

Common interest cannot be viewed as the preserve for original members only in a group. It can also be acquired when members join the group because people acquire interests as they move. However, as the author points out, the strengths of an acquired common interest in a group are inversely related to its size.

Therefore, they will tend to diminish as the size of the group grows. In this case, what seems so fundamental to a small group will tend to become diluted as the group grows with other issues coming in to compete for the same attention from the group. This case leads to further fragmentation of the group since the larger group is divided within itself based on the arising finer common interests.

In the achievement of unanimity, small groups are better off doing this role by producing changes that will influence more on their interests. This move can be attributed to the groups ability to find consensus in a disagreement. The ease in the achievement of consensus among small groups is adverted to the placement of a higher value of harmony of the whole group, as well as the ease with which members of the groups move into one direction.

In avoiding conflict, small groups are usually driven by the fact that they are vulnerable when exposed to the large groups. They cannot cope with the sanctions that might be vented on them by the large groups. This strategy becomes a proper survival tactic for self-preservation.

At the same time, lower levels of conflict in small groups enable them find solutions faster due to their ability to allow members enough time to give suggestions from which a solution is found. Therefore, the ability of people in the groups to identify each other face-to-face or to meet face-to-face gives them the feeling of empathy, which is a binding factor.

The Conditions of Modern Democracy

Chapter 6 that addresses The Conditions of Modern Democracy presents democracy as a participation of the people in the election of their representatives to govern them. It is also described as a mass consent of the people to be ruled. Although peoples representatives are elected to make laws on behalf of the people to govern them, democratically made laws must adhere to the respect of individual liberties, as well as human rights.

At the same time, it is difficult to gauge the true democratic governance compared to gauging undemocratic governance. Thus, democracy is simply a political rule to the author. The writer finds that it is easy to evaluate democracy in governance by comparing its ideals with the worst form of government in relation to when one compares it with the best ideals that are supposed to define it.

In the real sense, true democracy (perfect democracy) is not achievable at any time due to the realities of nature that also govern peoples lives. Democracy flourishes in truth, openness, and criticism when compared to autocracies since a change of governance does not lead to a change of a system when a particular group exits a democratic society.

The systems will undoubtedly remain. Although parliaments elected by the people are supposed to represent them, they are perfect tools for mobilizing consent at the same time besides representing the already existing consent. A democratic society allows a free flow of information as well as its usage. The society has come up with better solutions compared to autocracies because the retribution for making a mistake in a democratic setting is less severe in relation to the same in an autocratic society.

The Trilemma of Democratic Reform

The Trilemma of Democratic Reform represents democracy as a process that offers a chance for political equality. However, political equality is not the only option to inclusion. A democrats perfect belief lies in political equality, mass participation, as well as deliberation as ways to achieving the inclusion.

The author interrogates the credence of democratic institutions that do not give mass participation an equal chance to elect leaders. In this case, he cites the United States of Americas Electoral College system as one of the democratic institutions that do not allow mass participation thus inhibiting mass consent.

The author cites three processes that would make the democratic process complete. Starting with deliberations, the author finds that people will vote from a misinformed point of view without proper deliberation on issues, which negates the purpose of democracy as a way of coming up with the best decisions. The decision of voting in a certain direction is influenced by so many things that the voter does not vote as per his/her intuitions in the end.

The influence of the elite and the chances of ones party winning have been cited by the author as some of the issues that drive voters in certain directions. The author breaks down some issues under reflection that should be used as parameters for measuring deliberation on matters that are subjected to poll.

The author further says that there will be varying issues during deliberation in both the large and the small groups due to perceived competences. Therefore, without information flow in a deliberation, all decisions reached by the voters might be biased due to misinformation.