Democracy 2 Essay, Research Paper
George Bernard Shaw once said: “Democracy substitutes election
by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few…”, and
while I don’t have nearly such a bleak outlook on our method of
government, Mr. Shaw does hold an iota of truth in his quotation. In a
perfect world, where everyone is informed, intelligent, and aware of
their system of administration, democracy would work perfectly. In a
world where there are different personalities, dissimilar concerns and
divergent points of view, democracy falls short of the ideal of having
all people being equal. Similarly, having a Philosopher-King or an
equivalent in control of a country sounds fine on paper, but there
would be different philosophies, disputes within the philosopher-king
hierarchy itself, and of course, the never-ending task of stabilizing
an entire country would daunt even the most qualified person.
It is a mechanical fault of democracy itself, and not the many
leaders caught up in a democratic bureaucracy that causes a country to
stumble. A democracy is where the government is run by all the people
who live under it. To have a true democracy, everyone must vote.
People vote to exercise their democratic rights; if only 70% vote,
then 70% control 100% of the government. Voting without adequate
understanding and choosing candidates for the wrong reasons are
symptoms of voting for the sake of voting and not taking an active
interest in how our country is run. Instead of making an effort to
understand issues and party fundamentals, too many ignorant people
actually base their decisions on what the candidates tell them. The
result is that everybody feels “burned” by the government, never
realizing that they could have tipped the election simply by paying
attention. Another problem with democracy is the structure of any
government’s bureaucracy.
Vote for a party/candidate only in principle, because in
practice, they act completely the same. Imagine bureaucracy as a great
fast-moving train; even if another engineer takes control, it is
incredibly hard to make any large adjustments without severely
unstabilizing the train. Similarly, it wouldn’t matter if any
political party is in power, because any fundamental change would
upset a lot of people (one of the unwritten laws of politics: to make
a drastic change is to invite political suicide). In the case of a
philosopher-king, a lot more could be done because he would have the
power of a monarch, yet his judgment would not be watered down through
bloodlines (like how decadent the British monarch has become from
their stable position of power).
It would appear that the idea of a philosopher king has the
best of both worlds: The control of a dictatorship, but the freedom of
a (controlled) democracy. (The philosopher king is not defined as
concisely as I’d like, so I’m taking some liberties here). Someone who
is bred specifically to lead a country would be better than any
politician; they would be specialized in the physics of politics, they
would have unique insights into old political problems, and could
master political double-speak by age 10! No question, a more stable
country would develop under a purebred leader, but there could be many
more unseen problems that would come along with an absolute ruler. The
term, philosopher king would create an image of a monarchical rule,
where his word is law. That would have the advantage of streamlining
the government, with the absolute leader making quick, summary
judgments. Any problems that could develop through a monarchy would
not be anything new; more than a few countries have felt (and have
rebelled against) the stranglehold of a king holding absolute power
over them. Another problem with the philosopher king: which
philosophy? A Socrates indoctrinated ruler would have different
viewpoints from an existentialist philosopher king. Would people vote
for different philosophies as well as their favorite king? There would
be as many problems with the mechanics of a philosopher king as there
would be with a democracy.
I’m not saying that either is better: Both the philosophy of
democracy, and the concept of a philosopher king both sound good in
theory, but once the human factor is introduced, an incalculable
variable is introduced into any equation, political or otherwise. It
may appear that a philosopher king may have a short term upper hand,
but eventually, that system will fall under its own bureaucracy; as
badly as a system where the ignorance of nation would rule themselves.
John Lowell is quoted as saying “Democracy gives everyone the right to
be his own oppressor…” so why put more oppression in a country?