“And he had come to a bazaar of constitutions,” is the way Plato, in The Republic, sets about criticising democracy. In a way and in parts he is right. But Plato is earnestly set against democracy. As long as we do not think of it as necessarily the sort of constitution we have in the Western, so-called "democracies" then we may reject Plato's ideas as the thoughts of a mind set in extreme conservatism and closed to any thought that "the people" are capable of ruling the state, let alone dealing with the complexities of legislation and taking public office.
In the vivid parable of "the ship" he goes further and is almost abusive concerning the people and the necessary factions and opinions current in any state where speech is free and free men and women have their say in the running of the nation or the city. For that is indeed what democracy is. It is the rule of the people, all the people, with everyone equal; an idea which is anathema to Plato and has been to conservatives and authoritarians since before and after his time.
In "the ship" the demos is likened to the master who is short sighted and partially deaf. Factions among the crew are constantly trying, by force or with the aid of drugs or drink, to overcome the master and to take over the helm. From there they go on what seems more like a drunken pleasure cruise than a proper trading voyage. (Bk.VI. P286)
There are uncomfortable truths set forth here which we ought to take to heart. Many people are misled by the political classes and by the factions and parties among them. Many people fail to consider rationally about how and for whom they are to cast their vote and would never think of going for office themselves. This is to be what the Athenians of Socrates' and Plato's time would have called an idiotees. That is someone unfit for the life of the state by lack of education or because of laziness. Our word "idiot" is derived from the Greek word, but the meaning has changed. Basically it means a "selfish person".
Among the political classes, the factions and those who emerge to lead them, are often more motivated by the ambition for power than for the genuine well-being of the nation and of the people. Nor do these folk think that the ordinary people are capable of public service so they are often neglected, despised and made to make do with only a third rate education. The system, then, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where the political leaders and active members of the parties, see themselves, in Plato's terms, as an elite, and the only ones who are capable of political leadership and power.
Another valid point which Plato makes is that liberty, without self-control, easily becomes licentiousness. “They are free men,” he says, “the city is full of freedom and liberty of speech, and men in it may do what they like.” (Bk.VIII. p.355) The end is as in the Book of Judges, where it says, “In those days there was no king in Israel, everyman did that which was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 17:6.) Continuing his argument, Plato paints a picture of selfishness where each man seems to consider himself an island, cut off from any responsibility for the rest of society.
Also criticized are lax methods of child rearing. This does not imply that he advocates harsh discipline and hard chastisement. On the contrary, we see in The Meno, Socrates, patiently and with extreme sensitivity, steering a slave boy through the complexities of geometry. Plato does argue that this permissiveness will cause a decline in the moral, social and political state. He argues, “are not the young people luxurious and lazy in matters concerning both body and soul. Are they not too soft to stand (i.e. to resist) both pleasures and pains, and idle?”
He goes on to argue that this is one of the causes of the decline which he traces in several stages. Starting with the rule of an aristocracy of the elite, that is what we should call "a meritocracy", he sees this decline to a military elite or Timocracy who love honour to an oligarchy of rich men, then, finally, into democracy and tyranny. Of the rule of the few richest men he says they, “care for making money,” and careless of all else. He concludes, they care no more for virtue than the poor do. (Bk. VIII. P.354)
It is a sad thing that many of the young democracies, born after the upheaval caused by world war, have rapidly degenerated from the high hopes invested in them at the time of the “wind of change” speech, into full blown tyrannies. Some are managing to extract themselves from the morass and where this is happening give us hope for the democratic process and for the new breed of politicians and political forms emerging in the developing world.
