However, before we consider why Socrates criticized democracy we must understand what democracy is in the first place and what its strenghs are. The Merriam Webster defines Democracy as:
"A government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."
There are several forms of democracy. The two most common forms are direct democracy (also called pure democracy), and representative democracy, which most "democratic” nations today hold to.
In a direct democracy the people of the nation, state, etc. vote directly on the laws that affect them. Ancient Athens was a prime example of this. The Athenian "assembly" (ekklēsia) as it was called, would meet several times a month and any citizen (you had to be a male, over the age of 20) could attend and vote simply by raising his hand.
In a representative democracy, the people of the nation, state, etc. don't directly vote on most laws but rather vote for representatives who will represent them in the law making process. In America (often called a republic which is technically just a representative democracy with a constitution) citizens don’t make the laws themselves but instead vote for senators and representatives from the state they live in who represent them in Congress.
Democracy has many strengths. Its most obvious strength is that it puts the power to govern in the hands of the governed themselves. Rather than a single monarch making decisions for the people, every individual gets a say in the governmental decisions that affect him or her either by directly voting for legislation or by voting for someone to make that legislation for them. In this way, a democratic government is accountable to the people. If the people of democracy feel their government has crossed a line, they have the power to correct that government either directly, or by electing new representatives.
Another strength is that it encourages equality since all people get an equal say in the way how government should be functioning. Rather than only the social and political elite having an influence in government, all people whether they are the CEO of a fortune 500 company or a fast food worker right out of high school get just one vote. In this way, all people are responsible for the government they live under. This responsibility encourages all people to be actively involved in politics even if that involvement is simply limited to casting a vote.
Democracy, however, also has some significant weaknesses. Pure democracy is especially prone to weakness. Although in a small society such as ancient Athens, which had roughly 300,00 people, pure democracy was able to work decently well, when a nation approaches a size such as 300 million like America today, pure democracy becomes incredibly impractical.
For starters consider what it would take to have voting booths installed and maintained all over the country and the amount of time voters would have to spend at these booths. Consider also the time it would take to be counting the votes of an entire nation on an ongoing basis. Also consider how every proposed bill would have to be distributed to everyone across the nation (although some bills are less than 10 pages, some are over 1000 pages). This kind of ongoing national voting would be tedious, slow, and impractical.
Not only that, but consider the complexity of many bills that require trained lawyers to spend hours studying the bill simply to understand its content and nuances. Voters simply wouldn’t have the time and knowledge, even if they wanted to, to learn and be informed about each bill. Understanding legislation requires one be well informed about economics, law, and politics which many voters are not, making rational decisions about every proposed law nearly impossible under a pure democracy.
In addition, a pure democracy would leave minority’s powerless. Because the majority would win in every single decision, no legislation to support minorities would ever be able to be passed. Some have called pure democracy, "two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner." Thus pure democracy is often called “mob rule,” or the “tyranny of the majority.”
A representative democracy tries to solve many of the problems with a direct democracy. For instance, it tries to eliminate the problem of the people’s ignorance by allowing citizens to vote for experts in law and politics to represent in making and voting on laws. This means that the majority of voting will be among a much smaller number of people (in America 535 Congressmen: 435 House and 100 Senate). This also helps to make passing laws a less tedious and more efficient process since the whole country doesn’t need to be consulted each time a law is proposed. Thus, representative democracy is a kind of compromise between citizens being fully involved in government and being fully excluded from government. Even though you don’t vote directly on laws, you still vote on those making the laws for you.
However, even a representative democracy still has problems. First, it depends on the people actually voting for the person most qualified to make laws and lead the nation. Unfortunately, in many cases, the people choose entertainers rather than experts to represent them (one only needs to think of the last US election).
Socrates, who was critical of democracy made this point in The Republic by warning that people are easily exploited by empty promises and easy answers rather than actual solutions. Thus, the people are much more likely to elect a sweet shop owner who promises to give everyone sweets to the detriment of their health than a doctor who can provide real health.
In Book VI of The Republic, Socrates further criticizes the idea of democracy by using the example of a ship. He asks who we would rather have making decisions for a ship: the passengers (who know very little to nothing about the art of sailing) or the captain and sailors (who have made it their life's work to understand how to properly manage a ship)? The answer seems obvious enough. Socrates is making the point that not all people are equally educated to lead a country and, therefore, it seems a strange notion to give those who know nothing about ships equal say in the running of the ship. Voting is a skill which not everyone possesses. Thus Socrates is directly critiquing the idea that all people should have equal say in government. As he himself said it:
“Democracy is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequal alike." (Socrates p417)
To him, voting is something earned through knowledge rather than a birthright. Although I briefly outlined Socrates's reasons for despising democracy, the video below goes into greater depth than I will devote here.
It is important to note that Socrates did end up being executed as a result of a democratic decision, and as such, it is not surprising that his student, Plato, who adored Socrates and recorded all of his thoughts portrayed Socrates as critical of democracy. But even though this bias may be present, Socrates's arguments must be genuinely considered.
What can be said? Democracy certainly has its weaknesses but when properly instituted (such as it was in America in combination with a constitution) it is perhaps the best form of government available. History has shown communism and monarchy to be bitterly oppressive. In the end very few want anarchy and although democracy certainly has its flaws, perhaps Winston Churchill is right in saying:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
