Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Expertise or Popularity?
Plato criticizes democracy throughout The Republic. In Chapter 8, for example, he compares the state to a ship. He argues that it is better to have a captain knowledgeable about navigation steer the ship rather than untrained crewmembers. The crewmembers may be able to persuade the owners to let them sail the ship, but without the proper expertise, the ship will not reach its destination. In other words, Plato argues that democracy rewards popularity over expertise, but it is expertise that is essential for good government. Is he right? Consider some examples from class. Can democracy deal with such long-term issues as global warming when most people would prefer to ignore them? Can it deal with economic recovery when most citizens don't understand economic theory? Or can you give a point in democracy's favor?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that both the Socratic governmental system and democracy both have their advantages. Ideally, an omniscient benevolent dictator would best run a community in some form of totalitarianism. This would provide the most efficient and smooth government that could fix problems with cooperation from the people. However, this would need the complete and utter support of the people, which in turn would require proof that the dictator is indeed omniscient, as well as an actual omniscient leader. Therein lies the problem. As having legitimate omniscience is night impossible, the whole system crumbles as the people revolt and slaughter the dictator. In a democratic system however, revolutions are a thought of the past. While it may be popularity based, it will have a majority of the people’s support behind it, which allows legislation to happen relatively peacefully and quickly. As long as the leader is honest in their intentions and platform, and maintains that honesty, the people will follow along and the society will flow smoothly. Just because this seems to be a popularity based form of government does not free it from expertise altogether either. The population should be able to decide upon which leader is more competent and fits their needs the most. If not, the population itself is destined to fail anyway. In a society that values morality, a democracy could very well be the best form of government, and is anyway, besides the impossible omniscient leader.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree that a democracy, in reality, has the advantage of popular support, I believe that this is also the intrinsic flaw with democratic government. If you allow the majority of a society to control how the society runs as a whole, the beliefs and priorities of that populace will be reflected in its government. This is the entire point of a democracy. However, this key fact could be both a blessing and a curse. Let’s assume two scenarios; in both scenarios, the largest threat to the nation is an economic collapse. In one scenario, the majority of voters recognizes this, and elects government officials that are capable and willing to solve this crisis before working on anything else. This is a great success, and democracy will prove itself to be a strong form of government. In our other scenario, the voters are more concerned with foreign issues and elect officials that are focused on diplomacy and negations with other nations. Now, we have encountered a problem. Obviously this example is simplified, but I believe that my point still stands. When you’re asking a nation to identify the key flaw in itself, chances are that people will either deny, ignore, or be unable to spot the greatest issue. This is because the majority of people are simply not qualified to examine nations and find these hidden issues. It’s similar to asking a patient to diagnose his or her own disease, and then choose what medication to take. It’s unreasonable, and only allows a nation to skirt around their problems, letting them fester while focusing on other topics. In essence, a democracy requires a populace that is both well-educated (far beyond the public education of our nation), and able to set aside nationalism for the sake of rationality.
ReplyDeletePlato is definitely correct in asserting that democracy produces a government run on popularity where words are said more for the purpose of garnering votes rather than communicating one's plans for office. Democracy has made the government a competition of who can become the more popular running candidate in an allotted amount of time. Expertise becomes a secondary issue that is used mainly to accelerate one's popularity and while it facilitates popularity, expertise is a secondary issue far more removed than what one might expect from any ideal government.
ReplyDeleteHowever, democracy is certainly capable of dealing with modern issues and even more has the advantage of dealing with issues that dictatorship can't. Democratic governments are forced to look at more than just the practical issues concerning the government - through democracy, the old ideas concerning gender roles and other such practices can be deconstructed and removed from society. Feminism and other social advocacy groups are possible in a democracy. A dictatorship, while possibly capable of dealing with material issues better that can be framed objective (e.g. we must deal with the threat of an asteroid) is unable to view these problems from a lens other than their own. As a result, I believe a dictatorship is more prone to social issues.
That isn't to say though that democracy completely neglects these material issues. Lobbyist groups and social activists still bring awareness to the issues of global warming. These issues are able to be brought out and dealt with. In fact, global warming was only brought to light by American scientists and the US is one of the major countries involved in mitigation. While we may be high above other countries in terms of emission rates by the person, I believe this to be a symptom of society rather than one of the government. Energy standards have been raised and science is still being done on the topic.
Given the wide array of topics that the government is required to deal with, I believe there inevitably will be advisers regarding how to deal with these issues. While a democratic government may not be capable of dealing with these issues as efficiently as a dictatorship would, I think the issue of societal problems is important enough that it is an even bigger issue. People are marginalized on a daily basis in countries ruled over by a dictator. The people in North Korea effectively live in an enclosed system and have their lives stripped bare. These people are unable to combat the pressing societal issues they are confronted with simply because of the government. While the US has its set of societal issues to deal with, as a democracy, the US is also better equipped to solve these issues than a dictatorship would be.
Unfortunately, Plato points out a key flaw with the democratic system that we have come to know and love. What Plato proclaims is by no means false. Elections often run on a popularity-based contest. This is supported by the fact that parties often resort to “mud-slinging”, a term used to refer to simply trying to belittle the opponent. It gives credence to the claim that instead of trying to sell themselves as the better choice, making the opponent seem less intelligent will boost their own popularity.
ReplyDeleteAnother downfall of democracy is when there is an uneducated populous. This results in choices that may not be best for the community as a whole. In a recent election (I will try not to name any names to avoid political arguments) people in New York were asked about a certain candidate. The fast majority exclaimed that they loved said candidate and would vote for him in a heartbeat. The interviewer then asked what they thought about each individual plan put forth by the candidate. Again, the plans received overwhelming support. In reality, the interview actually asked about policies from the OTHER candidate. Although the people said they were in love with one candidate, they apparently enjoyed the policies of the other. This clearly shows how elections in democracy can become a popularity based contest. They pick a candidate for one reason or another, which absolutely have nothing to do with the actual policies.
Plato is definitely correct when he criticizes democracy for its shortcomings. However, with an educated populous, his argument no longer holds. With people who are able to think on their own and make informed decisions on the situation, democracy is surely the winner. The biggest advantage of democracy is that it grants the most amount of freedom to the people. With governments that are controlled by a single, small group of people, it is very hard for common people to voice their opinion, should they become educated on the situation or aware of what is happening.
Each situation has its own form of government that would suit it best. Would a democracy be good in a class room? Of course not, all of the children would elect for no homework and would not learn anything. In this case, a dictator or overarching absolute authority is needed to facilitate the community in the direction it should be run.
Although Socrates is correct in saying that a ship will sail better and arrive at its destination sooner when it is manned by an expert sea captain rather than lowly deckhands, expertise is not the only factor when discussing government and economy.
ReplyDeleteIn the scenario of the global warming predicament, for example, a dictatorship will not necessarily have a better environmental policy than a democracy by any means. Consider the following: It is true that if one single person (the dictator) feels strongly about preserving the environment he can change his countries policies on a whim. While this is true, however, the act of being a dictator does not make one more likely want to save the environment in the first place. I would even argue that in a democracy, environmental preservation acts are more likely to be passed due to collective (and therefore more balanced) representation from the people, such as Congress or the House of Representatives.
To determine the supposed "best" form of government, we must step back to take a look at the role of a leader. First of all, it is almost undeniable that [one of] the most important role[s] of a state is to survive, to stay stable, and to perpetuate itself. Then, looking at the role of the leader, we see that a good leader will provide the means for his state to survive. Historically speaking, most dictatorships have died out far quicker than democracies have. By the aforementioned definitions of the roles of a state and a leader, dictatorships are vastly inferior to democracy. Applying this to the previously stated example of global warming – assume that a dictatorship actually does have a better environmental plan than a democracy does. If the dictator's dies out before he can apply the environmental plan, the dictatorship can't be helpful at all, proving democracy to be more useful anyway.
With respect to the citizens of a state not knowing about governmental policies; again, this will happen in both of the two types of governments. The only difference is that in a democracy, the popular vote decides the candidate, who in turn decides how to tackle certain issues. In an idea country, all the citizens would be perfectly knowledgeable and know the truth about the issues with which their selected candidates are dealing. Unfortunately, this is impossible. This sets up the case for another argument; it is true that internal rebellion is one of the biggest causes of a government being overthrown. What is one surefire way to prevent rebellion? To keep the citizens happy. A dictatorship will not only not keep some of its citizens happy, but in fact almost everybody will be unhappy due to some aspect of the dictator being flawed (and having the dictator not accommodate for those flaws). In a democracy, however, at least half of the citizens will be happy due to the definition of democracy. Therefore, democracies simply have a higher chance of surviving and therefore doing good than any dictatorship.
Socrates points out the flaws in democracy in his argument against and while those are valid, we must realize all government systems have major flaws. Democracy has a main goal and that is to give all citizens freedom and equality. That is the best and worst part of democracy because, as Socrates points out, people may make the wrong decision. What he fails to state though is the importance of citizens morale. Personally, I do not believe there is such thing as a "best" form of government. I believe the success of a government is a circumstantial matter. Throughout history democracy has had the longest sustainability but many countries have been successful in other forms. Saudi Arabia, for example, has run a successful monarchy for hundreds of years. Other countries such as China have enjoyed continued success with communist ideals. Countries like Sweden have enjoyed much success with socialism. The reasons for these systems being successful is the circumstance they are in. In Sweden, for example, the reason socialism is successful is because they have a relatively small population which is easier for a socialist format. However, in the United States socialism might not have as much success due to a much larger population.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the premises of Socrates argument because I feel it is an invalid argument to make. In conclusion, I disagree with Socrates in part because I believe a democracy is able to solve world problems and it is not always a popularity contest and can be very effective.
I agree with most of the arguments being made, especially Marty’s. Sad as it is for us flag-waving hog-tying American patriots, we as a society have somehow overlooked a major flaw in our system celebrated as “by the people and for the people”. Ironically, this flaw is that it’s a system by the people and for the people. Plato is completely correct in asserting that our governments officials are elected based off popularity rather than expertise, although, again as Marty pointed out, expertise helps facilitate popularity. Even so, expertise appears an after-thought with all the campaign mud-slinging, scandals, and candidate endorsements once election season rolls around. It sometimes seems a billion dollar advertising campaign and a catchy slogan is all it takes to be residing comfortably at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC.
ReplyDeleteBy exposing the popularity contest our election system has become, I’m assuming the best possible leader is an expert. In the case of the ship scenario, we of course want a knowledgeable captain well versed in navigation and sailing, yet for the ship to sale successfully there must be harmony between the crew and its leader as well as expertise. Harmony is one of the four values Plato believes essential for his ideal city state. In his perfect city, the philosopher king rules, and as an expert does so well, ensuring prosperity for the nation. Plato assumes that all peoples of the kingdom are satisfied with the ruler and every one of his policies and morals, and here overlooks the benefit of a democratic government. Everyone does not abide by the same moral compass! Democracy, at the very least, is a system that reflects the values and beliefs of the people. In this sense, it, generally, avoids uprising and dissent within the nation. However, to contradict myself though there was a civil war… All in all, I believe there is obvious benefit to an expert ruler, however I do not believe it is possible to find such a ruler as the one in Plato’s ideal city, an incorruptible, all knowing, saint unconcerned with material goods . Even if it were, there are still advantages of democracy, namely the happiness of its people. Do I believe democracy is perfect? No, far from. But I also think Americans are happy to be a part of their government, so that counts for something and really can't be overlooked.
Similar to many of the comments above, I agree with the idea that elected officials in our system of government are chosen based on popularity. Even though I see this as a potential flaw, I have two objections to Plato’s theory about the ruling government.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Plato asserts that “unless communities have philosopher kings…there can be no end to political troubles or even human troubles….there is no other was for an individual or a community to achieve happiness (473 d-e). I whole heartedly disagree with the stamen above. Plato acts on the assumptions that one everyone will want a philosopher king, and two that a philosopher king has all the abilities to rule a community efficiently. Not only should a ruler be knowledgeable and incorruptible, a ruler should be passionate, empathetic, and charismatic. People want to have someone in power that reflects their own beliefs or someone in which they can see themselves. If Plato’s definition of moral fit today’s common understanding of morality, it would be a better fit for the ruler I envision to be the best for a community. When I picture Plato’s philosopher, I see an old stuffy man that thinks he knows it all. Majority of people would be offended and soon overthrow a condescending ruler. Simply because he has knowledge does not mean he has the answers. The concept of having knowledge that people are angry doesn’t mean that you have the ability to calm them down. This takes someone with empathy and someone that people can find similar to themselves.
Secondly, Plato rules under the assumption that popularity and expertise cannot go hand in hand. Yes, I do think that the majority of people who vote do not have the “knowledge” or “expertise” to pick a ruler that has all the answers, but I do not agree that democratic leaders are incompetent fools. It is impossible to find someone who knows everything even if they have the desire to search for all the knowledge in the world. Plato searches for a rule that is perfect. Even past presidents that I don’t fully agree with their policies had good ideas that fit their area of expertise. It may occur that those individuals deemed as the popular candidates have the most expertise, since perfection is not possible.