Representative Democracy – The Only Viable Form of Democracy

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.