According to Roskin, there is probably no single word with more meaning than ‘Democracy’. The absolute form of democracy, practiced in the Athenian society around 500 BCE, has drawn criticism from many ancient and contemporary philosophers. Plato criticized it staunchly in his “Republic”. Critics claim that absolute democracy leads to anarchy and paves way for the much feared tyranny. At the same time, Plato’s “Philosopher King” idea is deemed to be Utopian in nature and is condemned by many realists. Taking into account the objections against absolute democracy and tyrannical governments, representative or liberal democracy is the most viable form of governmental structure.
First of all, what does the term ‘absolute democracy’ really mean? Philosopher’s and Political Scientists seem to agree on a few basic properties that describe an absolute democracy. One of these prime properties involves full individual participation in the government and political decision making process. Another notable property is free access to administrative office. Plato, in his “Republic” criticizes democracy as an inept governing system. Both Plato and Socrates are against the notion that all human beings have the ability to make sound political judgments. This is evident from this excerpt from the Republic –
“How a city can engage in philosophy without being destroyed, for all great things are prone to fall, and, as the saying goes, fine things are really hard to achieve… If anything prevents us from doing it won’t be lack of willingness but lack of ability. (Rep. 497 e)”
Here, ‘fine things’ are intellectual capabilities that a person requires to make an informed political decision, and according to Plato, not everyone has the ability to practice it. Later in Republic, Plato strengthens his case by mentioning that the worker class, which made a substantial majority in the Athenian society, had no interest in politics and if given the reign will only plot against the upper class and will take decisions based on inferior ‘goods’. Plus, he also adds that such a form of government will give unprecedented freedom to the people and the majority (the ‘beast’) will work towards satisfying its own hunger and in the process might downplay the well being of the minority. Thus, giving everyone a say in governmental policies would be a mistake. Later Plato makes the claim that the best governance can only come through a ‘Philosopher King’; one who undergoes rigorous training and once selected, works ruthlessly for the well being of the state. All of Plato’s objections against democracy (rather absolute democracy) seem reasonable and legitimate. Without an authoritative power at the top, such systems have known to crumble and lead to total anarchy which further leads to tyranny, derived from the Latin ‘tyrannus’ meaning “illegitimate ruler”, under which a single ruler exercises power for the benefit of self. However, if we dwell realistically, Plato’s “Philosopher King” is not the viable alternative either.
One great phrase in Politics is “Power Corrupts”; and in a realistic sense, this seems to be the problem with “Philosopher Kings”. For example, when we look back at the ancient Roman Civilization, Julius Caesar was trained in all spheres and was elected as one of the two Consuls for the empire. But, he got power hungry and started a quest to gain monopoly over Rome’s governing body. Plato might say that he was not trained the right way, but still, human beings are corruptible and without any check to his power, a philosopher king might well turn into a tyrant. Another argument against the “Philosopher King” ideology is what the political scientists call the “Elite Theory”, where the person in power loses all touch with his/her subjects and stops truly representing the state. This argument was used recently against President Elect Barack Obama by the Republican Party. Plus, Plato also makes a case that the prime concern of the ruler should be the welfare of the state, if it means suppressing some of the needs of the subjects, so be it. At this point, Plato’s “Philosopher King” seems more like a tyrant than a capable monarch. Under such a system where calls of the subjects are frequently unheard and a strict discipline is maintained, rebellion occurs and this further leads to some form of democracy. Thus, we can see that Plato’s “Philosopher King” is not the right alternative for stable and efficient government either.
Now, the question arises – what political system is the most realistically efficient? It must be the one that answers the objections laid out against absolute democracy and “Philosopher Kings”. Representative or liberal democracy seems to overcome all these objections. In a representative democracy, a multi-party (at least two competent political parties) system is endorsed which makes sure that there is no monopoly over the government. A legitimate written Constitution is a major part of such a governance system. Suitable candidates are chosen through regular elections which involve public participation, who in turn tries his/her hand in decision making. This system makes sure that if a ruler (more like a public servant) gets power hungry, another one can be elected by the people. Individual liberties are limited unlike an absolute democracy where people have unlimited freedom. This also limits public participation in a way that people with low moral capabilities (like the felons or mentally challenged individuals) or illegitimate voters (non-citizens) cannot take part in the election process. This kind of Democracy is big on interest groups where minorities can make their own political groups and challenge impositions by the majority in a court of law (like the Supreme Court) which adheres to the constitution. The formation of interest groups creates a balance between minority and majority rights and thus, the majority has limited power. Limited power for both the ruler as well as subjects is the essence of this kind of government.
Present day United States of America is a prime example of such a government. One might argue that despite the form of a representative democracy, US still has economic and foreign relation issues that seem to have stemmed out of the system. A political answer to this question would be the organized power of special interest groups in America. There are minority groups such as AIPAC, NRA, AARP and several others that seem to have a great influence on US politics and an intent for the welfare of state is sometimes hard to find. They seem to yield more power than such a group should possess in a liberal democracy, but the only reason for this is the US election funding process and the lack of awareness among the general public. Since most elections are privately funded by select few, the US government seems to lean towards authoritarianism rather than representative democracy. This problem can be fixed by setting up a proper election process and generating more awareness among the public. In this case, the system is not at fault, but the few clogs that have been put subtlety there. These can be removed after an unbiased scrutiny and after that, the US example of Representative democracy would be a viable form of an efficient governing structure.
Thus, we can see that absolute democracy and “Philosopher Kings” are two ends of the political spectra. Representative democracy falls somewhere in between, and if we go by Aristotle’s “Doctrine of the Mean”, it is the right place to be if one is in need of a viable form of governing system.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Socrates vs. Barone: Gadfly as gift or “covert enemy”
Wikipedia describes Gadfly as “a term for people who upset the status quo by posing upsetting or novel questions, or attempt to stimulate innovation by proving an irritant.” According to this definition, it can be argued that Gadfly can be both a gift or according to Barone, “a covert enemy”, based on the intentions the upsetting or novel questions are asked with. The first part of the conclusion (Gadfly as a gift) can be argued based on Socratic philosophy, and the second part (Gadfly as a “covert enemy”) can be argued based on both Socratic philosophy as derived from Plato’s “Apology” and “Crito” as well as Barone’s stance in the article ““Our covert enemies”.
Socrates’ philosophy is based upon his ideal that the unexamined life is not worth living and the role of philosophy is to help one lead a fulfilling life. Challenging traditional faiths and beliefs can be considered part of the Socratic Method. Although, from Plato’s records, Socrates seems to have faith in the existence of Greek Gods, he still seems to challenge accepted ideas and superstitions through the process of inquiry. When Socrates is tried in court for charges of corrupting the youth by his philosophizing, Socrates states that he, Socrates, is an invaluable gift from the Gods to the Athenians because his constant questioning forces the Athenians to engage in the most fundamental question, namely, what it means to be a good life. This seems to hint at our commitment to something greater than the human law. However, Socrates also refuses to escape from prison, stating that it would be unjust to the people and the city of Athens, and as a citizen of Athens, he has some commitments and duties to abide by the city laws or accept the punishment. Although Socrates defends his philosophizing in court, he also agrees that exposing people to philosophy can be harmful and destructive.
“I don’t suppose that it has escaped your notice that, when young people get their first taste of arguments, they misuse it by treating it as a kind of game of contradiction. They imitate those who’ve refuted them by refuting others themselves, and like puppies, they enjoy dragging and tearing those around them with their arguments . . . . Then, when they’ve refuted many and been refuted by them in turn, they forcefully and quickly fall into disbelieving what they believed before. And, as a result, they themselves and the whole of philosophy are discredited in the eyes of others” (Rep. 539a-c).”
This quotation seems to indicate that while following the method of inquisition, the intention is very important. Since Socrates’ whole philosophy is with a fulfilling life as the intended end, being a Gadfly would be a gift according to Socrates, but only if the intention of the Gadfly is noble, not just breaking the opponent’s article and making a weak argument strong. However, if the Gadfly’s questioning leads to civil unrest (although unintentional), and if the polis thinks he is accountable according to law, one must be ready to take the punishment too. Although one might say that accepting punishment for something that one considers “unjust” is wrong, one must keep in mind that the Gadfly was aware of what he was doing (responding to his higher beliefs or moral code) and must be ready to accept the consequences of his actions. Thus, if the intent is right and if the Gadfly is able to persuade the polis to side with him, he can really bring change in a stagnant society and prove to be a gift.
However at the same time, if the intent is wrong, a gadfly can be classified as a “covert enemy”. Barone defines “covert enemy” as someone who does not consciously harms the society, but questions traditions and established systems to undermine faith in one’s society and confidence in its goodness. He claims that most of these covert enemies are “elites” who think they know more than the masses. Although Barone does not necessarily give a clear cut definition of the term “elite” in his article, but it is evident that these are the people who question established beliefs and try to push new ideas in just because they think that their ideas are superior to the existing ones. According to Barone, this kind of attack on a society’s beliefs and ideals undermines people’s faith in the working of the system and leads to civil unrest. Barone might agree with the claim that such kind of questioning creates a false sense of insecurity in the mind of the masses and weakens the foundations of a society. So, keeping Barone’s views in mind, it seems as if Barone would see a Gadfly as a “covert enemy”. From the above paragraph, we can see that even Socrates considers people who use the Socratic method of inquiry to just make weak arguments strong and try to humiliate one’s opponent as disgrace to philosophy. But, again intention in this case matters. Earlier, it was showed that a Gadfly can be a gift, but given the wrong intentions, a Gadfly can be a “covert enemy”. For example, if in court the congress tries to pass a bill, but one lobby does not like the bill, not because the bill is unjust, they just don’t like it. One Gadfly questions the legitimacy of the bill and stalls the bill and thus halting the progress of the society. Here, the action was not intended for a just end. Although the method used was clever and innovative, but achieving a wrong end through a right action does not make the end right. Thus, we can say that given the intentions are flawed, a Gadfly can be a “covert enemy”
Finally, it seems like it all comes down to one’s intentions. A Gadfly can be a gift if he has a noble intention for the betterment of society, but at the same time should be ready to accept the consequences if something goes wrong. This action can be classified under fighting the system from within, a lot less messy than its opposite number. At the same time, given the intentions are immoral, a Gadfly can be a “covert enemy” and parasitic to a society.
Works Cited
Barone, Michael. "Our Covert enemies." 21 August 2006. www.townhall.com.
Socrates’ philosophy is based upon his ideal that the unexamined life is not worth living and the role of philosophy is to help one lead a fulfilling life. Challenging traditional faiths and beliefs can be considered part of the Socratic Method. Although, from Plato’s records, Socrates seems to have faith in the existence of Greek Gods, he still seems to challenge accepted ideas and superstitions through the process of inquiry. When Socrates is tried in court for charges of corrupting the youth by his philosophizing, Socrates states that he, Socrates, is an invaluable gift from the Gods to the Athenians because his constant questioning forces the Athenians to engage in the most fundamental question, namely, what it means to be a good life. This seems to hint at our commitment to something greater than the human law. However, Socrates also refuses to escape from prison, stating that it would be unjust to the people and the city of Athens, and as a citizen of Athens, he has some commitments and duties to abide by the city laws or accept the punishment. Although Socrates defends his philosophizing in court, he also agrees that exposing people to philosophy can be harmful and destructive.
“I don’t suppose that it has escaped your notice that, when young people get their first taste of arguments, they misuse it by treating it as a kind of game of contradiction. They imitate those who’ve refuted them by refuting others themselves, and like puppies, they enjoy dragging and tearing those around them with their arguments . . . . Then, when they’ve refuted many and been refuted by them in turn, they forcefully and quickly fall into disbelieving what they believed before. And, as a result, they themselves and the whole of philosophy are discredited in the eyes of others” (Rep. 539a-c).”
This quotation seems to indicate that while following the method of inquisition, the intention is very important. Since Socrates’ whole philosophy is with a fulfilling life as the intended end, being a Gadfly would be a gift according to Socrates, but only if the intention of the Gadfly is noble, not just breaking the opponent’s article and making a weak argument strong. However, if the Gadfly’s questioning leads to civil unrest (although unintentional), and if the polis thinks he is accountable according to law, one must be ready to take the punishment too. Although one might say that accepting punishment for something that one considers “unjust” is wrong, one must keep in mind that the Gadfly was aware of what he was doing (responding to his higher beliefs or moral code) and must be ready to accept the consequences of his actions. Thus, if the intent is right and if the Gadfly is able to persuade the polis to side with him, he can really bring change in a stagnant society and prove to be a gift.
However at the same time, if the intent is wrong, a gadfly can be classified as a “covert enemy”. Barone defines “covert enemy” as someone who does not consciously harms the society, but questions traditions and established systems to undermine faith in one’s society and confidence in its goodness. He claims that most of these covert enemies are “elites” who think they know more than the masses. Although Barone does not necessarily give a clear cut definition of the term “elite” in his article, but it is evident that these are the people who question established beliefs and try to push new ideas in just because they think that their ideas are superior to the existing ones. According to Barone, this kind of attack on a society’s beliefs and ideals undermines people’s faith in the working of the system and leads to civil unrest. Barone might agree with the claim that such kind of questioning creates a false sense of insecurity in the mind of the masses and weakens the foundations of a society. So, keeping Barone’s views in mind, it seems as if Barone would see a Gadfly as a “covert enemy”. From the above paragraph, we can see that even Socrates considers people who use the Socratic method of inquiry to just make weak arguments strong and try to humiliate one’s opponent as disgrace to philosophy. But, again intention in this case matters. Earlier, it was showed that a Gadfly can be a gift, but given the wrong intentions, a Gadfly can be a “covert enemy”. For example, if in court the congress tries to pass a bill, but one lobby does not like the bill, not because the bill is unjust, they just don’t like it. One Gadfly questions the legitimacy of the bill and stalls the bill and thus halting the progress of the society. Here, the action was not intended for a just end. Although the method used was clever and innovative, but achieving a wrong end through a right action does not make the end right. Thus, we can say that given the intentions are flawed, a Gadfly can be a “covert enemy”
Finally, it seems like it all comes down to one’s intentions. A Gadfly can be a gift if he has a noble intention for the betterment of society, but at the same time should be ready to accept the consequences if something goes wrong. This action can be classified under fighting the system from within, a lot less messy than its opposite number. At the same time, given the intentions are immoral, a Gadfly can be a “covert enemy” and parasitic to a society.
Works Cited
Barone, Michael. "Our Covert enemies." 21 August 2006. www.townhall.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)