Analysis Of Democracy 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?