The Republic is ancient Greek philosopher Plato’s most famous work, written around 375 BC, and has shaped Western political thought. Greece is now known as the “birthplace of democracy”. Not only was the world’s first democracy practiced in Athens, but the word itself is derived from the Greek words demos (people) and kratos (rule). However, Plato’s Republic is persistently opposed to democracy.
This may be surprising, given that Westerners generally think it is very important to live in a democracy. Almost all Western countries are democracies. In the recent US election, both Trump and Harris supporters claimed to be “defending democracy.” And in the UK, the current Labor government has promised to extend voting rights to 16-year-olds.
So what was Plato’s argument? And does it hold the key to understanding why trust in democracy is declining across the Western world?
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a hand-picked selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions delivered straight to your inbox every two Fridays. Sign up here.
Plato’s arguments for democracy in the Republic are articulated by his teacher and mentor, the philosopher Socrates. But the system that Socrates rejects, the Athenian democracy of the 5th and 4th centuries BC, is very different from modern representative democracy.
In Athenian democracy, only male citizens could vote on laws and elect officials. Men also had to fill several positions randomly selected by lottery.
Women, slaves, and foreigners did not have a voice even though they made up the majority of the population. Athenian democracy may become barbaric. Every year, citizens could vote to banish someone from the city for 10 years, and democratic governments made horrific decisions such as executing Socrates himself and ordering public massacres.
Raphael’s wall fresco “School of Athens”. The philosophers Aristotle and Plato are depicted in the center. Viacheslav Lopatin/Shutterstock
But Socrates does not focus on the injustice of Athenian democracy. His argument is simpler and more general. Governance is a skilled job. And like any other profession, he argues, not everyone has the talent or training to be good at it.
Imagine that when passengers board a plane, there is a mini-election where they choose one of the numbers to pilot the flight. A qualified, experienced pilot who happened to be on that plane might be able to make a good case that he should fly.
But what if they are good pilots but can’t make their case? What if other passengers claim that they can’t learn aviation, anyone can? falsely claimed that he was always looking at charts and making calculations and had no regard for the concerns of everyday passengers. Or garnered the most votes from passengers through bribes, deals, or lies.
At first glance, this analogy, taken from a similar analogy in The Republic, appears to be saying that democracies do not guarantee leaders capable of governing. But so do other systems. If a country is lucky, it may produce a ruler capable of governing, but it is just as likely to be unlucky and produce a brutal, incompetent dictator.
Imagine passengers boarding a plane and needing to choose one of them to fly the flight. Pro Stock Studio/Shutterstock
Therefore, Socrates needs a discussion that focuses more on democracy. Books II-IV of The Republic present a more focused discussion. In it, Socrates states that government is a skilled occupation that the majority of people lack. Only those who are skilled in their trade should rule. But we shouldn’t have a democracy because in a democracy the majority rules.
This version of the argument seems to work against democracy in general, not just the Athenian version or the modern version. Just like flying a plane, so is governing a country. Just as we want skilled pilots to fly planes rather than a majority, we want our states to be ruled by skilled rulers rather than a majority.
holes in this discussion
There are three obvious problems with this argument. First of all, is adjudication really a skill like flying an airplane? What does this skill amount to? Plato’s answer that skilled government essentially involves knowledge of what he called “the truly good” is not very convincing. I don’t think so.
Second, even if governing is a skill, it does not follow that most people lack this skill. There are many skilled rulers who make decisions in all areas, not just politics. Indeed, we might think that collective decisions can be more subtle because they are less likely to reflect the knowledge, experience, and biases of a small group.
A mosaic depicting Plato’s Academy in Pompeii. National Archaeological Museum of Naples
Third, even if governance is a skilled profession and most people lack that skill, there is reason to include people who lack political decision-making skills. You may be able to train their skills by including them. Perhaps it is simply fairer to involve everyone or most people in decision-making, and fairness may be more important than always making the “best” decision.
Socrates is right that democracy sometimes results in immature rulers who make wrong or even evil decisions, but that does not mean we should reject democracy.
Suppose we accept Socrates’ conclusion that only the politically skilled should govern, and that the majority are not. Develop everyone’s political skills and make the most of everyone’s talents and experience, remembering that it is fair for people to have some say in the decisions that affect them. And we can maintain democracy.
