One of the earliest well-known Greek philosophers, Socrates was a stern critic of the notion of democracy. He proposed two thought experiments to counter the idea of a democratic system. In one of them, he asked his associate, Adeimantus: who would he rather have lead a sea expedition- a frequent sailor well-versed with sea-faring or just about any layman who holds no expertise in the field? The question was aimed to suggest that the leader’s job requires an expert sailor, and that the faith of people in their leader is a secondary consideration.
In the other thought experiment, he presented an eerily real hypothetical situation where he asks to picture an election debate between two candidates- a sweet shop owner and a doctor. The sweet shop owner would claim that the doctor will administer bitter medicines to everyone and in time, the doctor will dictate what one should eat or drink in their daily lives. In contrast, the sweet shop owner would give a huge feast to people along with many other delicacies. In this scenario, the doctor stands no chance of being elected irrespective of how educated they are or how well-thought out their plans for the citizens are. Here, the complexity and nobility of the doctor’s profession has been turned against them and the sweet-talking sweet seller’s demagoguery has won the hearts of the electorate.
From a contemporary perspective, the first argument by Socrates seems to be based on weak assertions and weaker assumptions. It assumes that only one person is in charge of the situation and the subject-expertise has to be attributed to them; whereas, most modern democracies have dedicated specialists to cater to esoteric subjects. Another inherent flaw which needs to be pointed out is that Socrates demands a specialised sailor to lead the expedition whereas the need herein seems to be of a specialised leader to command the sailors. In a democratic structure, the role of the head of the State is to ensure that the will of the people is reflected in the nation’s policies. They need not roll out these policies themselves but may manage such a process by engaging and consulting the bureaucratic experts. This thought experiment by Socrates may have given his pupils like Plato and Aristippus a lot to ponder upon but with the advent of skilled administrations and administrative law, it leaves much to be desired in the current scheme of affairs.
As for the second argument, it can’t be dismissed prima facie. We see that Socrates was aware of how easily people could be exploited by persuasive tactics of those running for elections. Via this exercise, he wanted to highlight that voting in an election is a skilful act and not everyone should be entrusted with such a mighty power. He propounded that the art of deliberating the merits and demerits of the prospective leaders should be taught to people and only then should they be allowed to exercise their democratic prowess. According to him, any other form of democracy would be imperfect and fallible.
Through his critical appraisal of democracy via the second argument mentioned above, Socrates wittingly differentiated between two forms of democracy – a democracy where voting is a birth-right, and a democracy where the eligibility to vote stems from the ‘cerebral abilities’ of a person. Both these forms may entertain similar restrictions (for e.g., the right to vote may be given when age of majority is attained), but the distinction between the two forms of democracy must always arise from some indication of differentiation with regards to the edification of individuals.
A system of intellectual democracy believes that the opinion of the masses need not always be the correct decision. It is highly possible that the people who possess lesser cognitive abilities but are more in number may dissuade or override the decisions of those who possess higher order cognitive abilities but are unfortunately fewer in number. In order to counter this belief, the masses are segregated on the basis of their general or political acumen. An intelligentsia class is identified and only they are given the privilege of voting. There can be umpteen means of classifying the intelligentsia. It can be a sole factor like educational background or a mix of factors – perhaps an interplay of educational background and experience in lower-level administration. While the system of intellectual democracy believes in consensus based commands of the superior, birth-right democracy does not subscribe to the philosophy of ‘superior-inferior’ altogether. According to the birth-right democracy thought, universal suffrage where everyone also has the right to contest is the only perfect democracy. Each individual has their own interests which need protection and no one’s interest can be said to be less valuable than another’s. This is the essence of democracy.
Which model is conducive to a nation depends on how vast the nation is, how many different people inhabit that nation, how diverse are these people’s interests etc., it also depends on whether these interests are interdependent, mutually exclusive or clashing. There cannot be a ‘one size fits all’ approach. The only way to ascertain which model of democracy will be lucrative for a nation, is to study a nation’s complexities individually, in a vacuum.
In countries where there is a homogenous group of citizenry, every decision affects everyone almost equally. There is seldom a need for separate class based legislation, which allows development to happen uniformly without having to correct for deviations created by imbalanced policy impact. If citizens are alike in their caste, creed and religion, most often their political interests also start to align. The point of difference may arise in economic interests but having education prerequisites to qualify varying economic interests is not unreasonable. Similarly, if a country which is geographically small relies on a bunch of closely-related natural resources, the economic interests would also start to align. In cases like such, Socrates’ ideals would hold true even in contemporary times. Demagoguery will always pose a threat to bonafide democracies and purposeful political education as suggested by Socrates is perhaps the best solution for it. Countries who are suited to the intellectual democracy model and still not choose to implement have only themselves to blame for any political mishaps and underdevelopment.
However, Socrates’ dissent will not capture the imagination of modern-day political philosophers when it comes to dealing with countries which inherently subscribe to the notion of pluralism. Diversity in citizenry will lead to diversity in interests. Let us consider the case of tribal people in a country like ours, India. They are historically not well-educated, but they too have a right to habitation, right to indigenous land, a futuristic right to education et cetera. Since all their rights are subject matters of the law-making authority, the lawmakers should in turn also be under a slight form of influence from the tribals. This example would not hold true in a country only consisting of tribals since any prospective parliament will only cater to the interests of tribals and would not yearn for their representation principally. Such an example can be extended to all kinds of sections of the society. It is therefore a fair argument that by not allowing a section of a pluralistic society to vote or to contest, the system is indirectly violating all their basic human rights. Such a system is antithetical to democracy and ergo, the only way to ensure democracy in a big country with diverse people in its true spirit is to recognize everyone’s right to vote and contest.
In conclusion, both arguments put forth by Socrates against democracy do not hold much significance in the contemporary world. The first one, i.e. advocating for an expert to lead charge loses out, in toto, to the progress made in management of public offices, whereas the second argument is largely inapplicable in modern society which is becoming more accepting of diversity with each passing day.