Who Needs Democracy?
Plato didn’t like democracy. He believed that the masses were slaves of foolish passions, not to be taken seriously. Only a ruler who contemplated issues in the full context of their meaning to the State could provide the leadership necessary to guide his people toward the Good, the ideal principle. In Plato’s view, if the Good existed and could be known through contemplation, then the representation of less refined views and the achievement of popular causes through democracy was only a hindrance to the realization of the State’s highest purpose.
Plato was not conventionally religious, but his concepts are even more relevant if you substitute the concept of God’s will for his notion of the Good. In either case, you’re talking about an ideal that exists independent of human consciousness. Our understanding of the ideal can be improved through discussion, meditation or study, but the essence of the Good (or God) does not come from us, does not emerge from a dialogue or a clash of ideas, and cannot be improved upon by human ingenuity. Our moral purpose as humans is simply to find out what it is, then act on it. And that’s where the fun begins.
Everyone who has postulated an idealist moral philosophy has also claimed a privileged insight into the nature of the ideal. In The Republic, Plato concocted an entire civic society based on his supposedly more sophisticated understanding of the goals and purposes of human nature. Plato’s Republic is not a democracy, and why should it be? If the leader, by his very status, knows better about what’s Good, why should he listen to anyone else?
Plato’s philosopher-king earns his status through study and insight, but in terms of Christian religion, all you need is faith. If you have been chosen by God to lead, who are mere people to say any different? If you have faith, and that which you have faith in is both real and omnipotent, what possible purpose could be served by indulging in debates, in entertaining other, less-Godly views, or in sharing decision-making power with anyone not chosen by God? And, absent the tangible presence of God, who but the leader is qualified to make those judgments, because, after all, isn't the leader's position of power simply the manifestation of God's favor? From this basis arises all the autocratic and tyrannical forms of government (including Communism, if you substitute “Marx” for God).
Democracy is therefore by its very nature and conception opposed to the primacy of faith. While idealist philosophy locates morality outside of humanity, its antithesis, humanism, says that all ethics and principles arise from ourselves, and those human institutions that function the best are the ones that are best aligned with the realities of human nature. This is what the humanist philosopher Alexander Pope meant when he said, “The proper study of mankind is man.”
Humanism took root in the West in the 15th and 16th centuries, in direct response to the corruption, oppression and intellectual stagnation that resulted from the claims of Divine Right of royalty (an obvious political outgrowth of idealist philosophy and fundamentalist religion). All of the political thought that underlies American constitutional government – from Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu directly to Thomas Jefferson – can be traced back to this strain of humanist philosophy.
We have made debate and participation the central feature of our form of government precisely because our founders believed fundamentally in the value of every idea, not just the exclusive claims to wisdom by one person or one class of people. Our system is meant to be open to public scrutiny and full of checks and balances to ensure a lively clash of ideas, not simply to indulge participation for its own sake, but because progress and better ideas can only emerge from this kind of process.
Leadership that views itself as divinely inspired, or acting on higher principles than can be discussed with the common people, is operating out of a long and rich tradition of religious and philosophical idealism. But it is not the American tradition. If we are to remain true to our ideals and to the concept of democracy, we cannot tolerate a government that holds itself above debate, above the need to explain and justify, and above the need to account for its actions and misjudgments.
Democracy is about more than going to the voting booth every four years. It’s a philosophy that recognizes the nobility and value of every perspective and sees the accommodation of different views in the formation of public policy as a strength, not a weakness. If we abandon those principles, the institutions of democratic government become mere formalities, and society takes a step back into the darkness of ignorance and oppression.
9:56:12 AM 
|
|
