Philosophy and Democracy

From the early 1840s to the present day, a democracy can be described as a flawed establishment which has been shaped by the power of wealth and control, complex social relations, and most importantly the people’s desire to live a fulfilling life. Throughout this time period the principles of democracy, such as equality, protection of the people’s interest, and promotion of human rights were shifting in order to increase the democracy efficiency. Therefore the continued importance of the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and Constitution remain significant since, in American today, democracy is a system that is continuously being shaped by the people within it.

What makes a political authority legitimate? A legitimate political authority, in this essay, will be taken to mean that there is a justification for an individual or a body to have power over other people in determining such things as laws and protection of freedom. To consider this question, three theories shall be looked at – Hobbes’, Rousseau and finally Locke and determine which gives the most persuasive account of legitimate political authority. To begin with, their hypothetical starting point, the state of nature, shall be discussed to establish the foundations of their political authority. Secondly, the reasons that shall lead man to get out of the state of nature will be examined in order to see if these logically follow on from

The United States is known for its many liberties to all, liberties that lead to all sorts of bad according to Socrates and Aristotle. Plato-Socrates in The Republic and Aristotle in Politics criticize democracy, a form of government that tries to equalize all. Centuries have passed and many of the democratic elements described in their works apply to current democratic regimes in particular the United States.

In the era of the contemporary United States, a country that has had the longest standing democracy, we are used to thinking very highly of its system. However, throughout our history, there have been a couple of critics to the system of democracy. It comes as no surprise that democracy does have its issues. One of the first pieces of literature where democracy was mentioned and analyzed at a deeper level was The Republic by Plato. This ancient Greek philosopher did not completely agree with democracy, regardless of the fact that ancient Athens was the first civilization that gave rise to it. In fact, in a numerical list that he composes on which are the best ways of ruling, Plato puts democracy at one of the lowest levels. In order, Plato’s list of types of government from most desirable to least desirable looks like this: 1.) Republic (The ideal city) 2.) Timocracy 3.) Oligarchy 4.) Democracy 5.) Tyranny. Additionally, In The Republic, Plato tells us his beliefs and values on certain aspects of life through the eyes of Socrates. So, even though Plato himself does not appear in The Republic and instead Socrates does, nonetheless, Plato and Socrates shared the same ideology when it came to democracy. As we know, Plato did not agree with democracy. As a result, in this paper, I will explore the greatest intellectual strengths and weaknesses of Plato’s view on democracy.

A democracy is when the common people are considered as the primary source of political power. Although democracy and absolutism had advantages and disadvantages, democracy was a more effective type of government for it limited royal power and protected the rights of the people socially, politically, and economically. Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, tension arose between the two different types of governments, the democracy and absolute monarchs.

Perrin defines democracy as, “the back- and- forth interactions among citizens and institutions of government, structured through rules, ideas, and technologies”. In the prominent book, American Democracy, sociological professor Andrew J Perrin analyzes the current discussions and concerns about the core of American Democracy. Perrin studies and teaches democratic citizenship in the United States and focuses on what people should know and do in order to make democracy work. The main purpose of the book is to show that democracy along with representation are first social and cultural concepts, then they are political ones. This book is vastly significant because it demonstrates an ingenious approach to democracy and the role that the citizens should have.

Whether this decision by the rulers would be a valid one to make – whether this noble lie is one which a government can justly tell its citizens – is a crux of the legitimacy of

Democracy: a government by the people, in which citizens rule either directly or through elected representatives - the latter description more relevant to today’s societies. Quite evidently, democracy is not perfect; like any other political system, it is subject to a plethora of flaws. For instance, it is no secret that voters tend to make illogical decisions – not out of sheer malice, but as a result of being wrongly informed. Politicians also make erroneous choices, whether they do so because they are dishonest or simply out of touch with the true will of their constituents. Further, anyone who has studied the government of a parliamentary democracy knows gerrymandering can have a powerful say in determining elections. Despite these and

In the fifth-century BC, Athens emerged as one of the most advanced state or polis in all of Greece. This formation of Athenian ‘democracy’ holds the main principle that citizens should enjoy political equality in order to be free to rule and be ruled in turn. The word ‘democracy’ originates from the Greek words demos (meaning people) and kratos (meaning power) therefore demokratia means “the power of the people.” The famous funeral speech of Pericles states that “Our constitution is called democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people.” However, only citizens (free adult men of Athenian descent) could participate in political matters. Women and slaves held no political rights, although they were

one essential conviction, expressed in the word democracy itself: that power should be in the hands of the people. Although democracy today has been slightly inefficient in this idea, with the wealthy, elite class challenging this right, “it nevertheless claims for itself a fundamental validity that no other kind of society shares….” To completely understand the structure of democracy, one must return to the roots of the practice itself, and examine the origins in ancient Greece, the expansion in the Roman Empire, and how these practices combined make what we recognize as today’s democratic government.

Democracy varies in every country depending on the type of government or regime they have. There is the liberal democracy, which is all about giving people their rights and liberties; everything is done through fair voting and electing. The people are aware of everything that happens in their government. Illiberal democracies are basically the same as liberal, but the people in power are more secretive of their activities, and there is less civil liberty. It is essentially a partial democracy. Now Authoritarian regimes designate any political system that concentrates power in the hands of one leader or a small elite. There are no free elections and very little regard for the law. Political institutions, social structures, and the democratic rule of law all affect liberal, illiberal, and authoritarian regimes democratic quality differently.

During elections in countries with corrupt governments, for example, it has to be decided whether the guarantee of every individual’s right to vote or who wins is more important. (Wong, Lecture, October 24) Moreover, deep divides continue to exist and separate groups in democratic countries by race, religion, language, and class, resulting in tension and, in some cases, oppression. Thus democracy, despite its emphasis on liberty, equality and plurality, can still be problematic.

According to one of rational choice theory’s prominent and more thoughtful contemporary exponents, Peter C. Ordeshook, “four books mark the beginning of modern political theory: Anthony Downs’s An Economic Theory of Democracy (1957), Duncan Black’s Theory of Committees and Elections (1958), William H. Riker’s A Theory of Political Coalitions (1962), and James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock’s The Calculus of Consent (1962). These volumes, along with Kenneth Arrow’s Social Choice and Individual Values (1951), began such a wealth of research that political scientists today have difficulty digesting and synthesizing all but small parts of it. Consequently, the full value of this research often goes

“Truth is anything society deems it to be” is considerable right when our society believes that the only method of determining the “truth” is through laws and ideologies, which have been administered by the upper class Europeans. Our laws have been constructed to support the interest of the majority population, which supports their interest rather, then the general citizens. That being said, who created the legislation and administers laws, and who has the resources and inclination to challenge these laws? (Branch, 129). This question will be answered through the theories of Max Weber and Karl Marx who will be compared in regards to the construction of the legal knowledge, how law has become the truth in societies with the help of the