Plato's Democracy Persuasion

Richard Neustadt stated in his book Presidential Power that “Presidential power is the power to persuade.”(Neustadt, pg.11) Persuasion and bargaining are techniques that presidents can use to influence policy. Neustadt explains how persuasion can help a president get laws passed and to get favorable public opinion.Neustadt explains that

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.

Plato describes the degeneration to democracy in Book VIII of The Republic as the relationship between man and the city. There are five stages starting with the first being and aristocracy led by a philosopher king who is wise and makes the decision for all and his soul is considered to be that of gold. Aristocracy stage leads to timocracy which would is the new generation of leaders and their souls are not considered to be made of gold as the philosopher king would be in the previous stage leading to a stronger lust for wealth. Timocracy then goes to oligarchy which leads to wealth and poverty, while the wealthy write laws to help them continue to be wealthy. Oligarchy then degrades to the democracy stage where wealth and freedom, a lavish of riches so to speak is desired in this stage. Democracy degenerates into tyranny where the people give into their desires and is considered to be chaos.

What are tyrants, one might ask. In the current sense of the word a tyrant is pejorative term, applied to an individual in power who is selfish and self preserving. A tyrant is an immoral being, ruling over those around him through force, a tax on the freedom of those he subjugates. Yet the question that one should be asking is where do tyrants come from? Plato proposed that tyrants are a product of democracy, that the liberty inherent to a democracy allows the self interested to manipulate the system(generally through appealing to the population at large) causing a system with little liberty. This paper aims to defend the claims of Plato concerning tyranny, particularly the origins of tyrants, as well as to propose the safeguards that

Plato recommends that democratic is not best for the state on the grounds that it doesn't convey information to the cutting edge, yet rather, the most well-known government official or best speaker. In this belief system the state is not being administered by the most qualified but rather by the individual with the best picture. Plato has a privilege to be baffled with Athenian vote based system on the grounds that Socrates was killed by a component of that administering body.[11] In Plato's eyes majority rule government is not a sound government in light of the fact that the administration is not looking for information. The leaders of the city-state are looking for riches and renown and not putting the needs of the group over their own. Ogochukwu

Plato continually attempted to enter the world of politics, but after being let down time after time and seeing the execution of his beloved mentor Socrates, Plato criticized the regime of his time (Athenian democracy). He sought to draft his own representation of the ideal constitution, outlined and explained in his work Republic. Plato’s critique of democracy is expected since democracy embodies the opposite of his ideal regime: A government controlled and ruled by the uneducated masses that easily slips into chaos and tyranny. According to Plato, democracy cannot function efficiently due to its unnatural, weak leaders, disordered functionality, and its appetitive citizens. He defines his conception of democracy through its deviation

Plato, according to his writings and others record of him, was an avid critique of democracy and his critiques if reflected upon rationally are very thought provoking. In the words of historian John Wild “The most serious charge against Plato from a modern point of view is that he is an enemy of democracy.”(Thorson 1963, p.105). In his

workers, so that they do not desire to be in the ruler's position. It is seen

These are the words of Socrates, who spoke before the Athenian jury in the trial that would, ultimately, condemn him to his death. Through works such as the Apology and The Republic, we can see Plato’s distaste of the concept of democracy. Why does he consider democracy to be so flawed? Let us look through his own eyes and see what his individual criticisms are, and determine

‘The Republic’ is a Socratic dialogue written by Plato around 380 BC, concerning about the order of justice, the order and character of just men and just city/states. The Republic is considered as the best known work of Plato and is considered one of the world’s most influential works of politics, history and philosophy. In this Socratic dialogue, Socrates discusses about the notions of justice and whether the just man is very happy when compared with his unjust, Athenian and foreign counterparts. Socrates considers the various facets of the existing regimes and proposes a series of hypothetical cities that are entirely different from his considerations. Such heated discussions result in the culmination of discussing kallipolis, a hypothetical city-state that was ruled by a philosopher king. In this paper, we are going to consider Socrates arguments about democracy by examining whether the concept of democracy always remains inconsistent with philosophical goals.

Socrates – put to death – If the people are stupid they impact everyone (mob rule)

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.

believes that the son will realize to be just is only worth it if you can get a

"Unless," I said, "the philosophers rule as kings or those now called kings and chiefs genuinely and adequately philosophize, and political power and philosophy coincide in the same place, while the many natures now making their way to either apart from the other are by necessity excluded, there is no rest from ills for the cities, my dear Glaucon, nor I think for human kind, nor will the regime we have now described in speech ever come forth from nature, insofar as possible, and see the light of the sun."(THE REPUBLIC OF PLATO By Allan B- 473d - 473e)

Democracy is often referred to as the rule of the many, but Aristotle called this definition incomplete. In his book “Politics”, he explained that in a city if the majorities are aristocrats and if they have political authority, then it is an aristocracy not a democracy. He therefore defined democracy as when “free people have authority and Oligarchy as when the wealthy have it” (1290b). Plato viewed Democracy as a flawed system with too much inefficiency that would make any implementation of a true democracy not worth it. While Aristotle viewed democracy as a system that could work if it is limited to certain restrictions and if it is the regime that best fits the culture of the people to be governed. In this essay it will be argued that Plato’s view on democracy as a flawed system is more prevalent or more compelling if the current political arena around the world is observed.