Jackson Saffold

August 11th, 2019

Elements of Political Theory

Professor Hartman

Democracy Reflection

In Plato’s The Republic, Socrates discusses with various Athenians and foreigners about

the meaning of justice and whether the just man is happier than the unjust man. They consider

the nature of existing regimes and then propose a series of different, hypothetical cities in

comparison, a city-state ruled by a philosopher-king. This focuses on the individual while also

understanding the state as a whole. Hobbes goes through The Leviathan focusing on how good

and evil are nothing more than terms used to denote an individual's appetites and desires, and

focuses on how these desires can shape a state. Finally, Tocqueville in Democracy in America

believed that the Puritans established the principle of sovereignty of the people in the

Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. While Tocqueville speaks highly of the U.S. Constitution,

he believes that the mores or the citizens of the U.S. people play a more prominent role in the

protection of freedom. These include Mores, laws, and circumstances. Tyranny of the majority as

well as religion and beliefs. The family, Individualism, and associations. When dissecting these

three thinkers you can see similarities and differences between all of their viewpoints on

democracy.

Plato in book six of The Republic argues that democracy is not equal to other forms of

monarchy, aristocracy and even oligarchy since democracy tends to undermine the expertise

necessary to properly governed societies. Democracy to Plato tends to focus on expertise at the

expense of the necessary smarts to properly govern societies. The reason for this is that most
people do not have the kinds of talents that enable them to think well about the difficult issues

that politics involves. But to win office or get a piece of legislation passed, politicians must

appeal to these people's sense of what is right or not right. Due to this idea, the state falls into a

system where the individuals are guided by very poorly worked out ideas that are used by

individuals who are good at manipulation and mass appeal to help themselves win office.

Plato saw democracy as the bad form of government by the many. In this, he created a

mass democracy, where society as whole votes on everything. The reason he wasn't in favor was

that this government would be a tyranny of the majority, with the minority subject to the whims

and wants of the masses The good counter to democracy was a republic, with elected

representatives who discussed and debated in a forum on behalf of the electorate.

To Plato, the ideal state is an aristocracy in which rule is exercised by one or more

distinguished people. Unfortunately, due to the nature of man, the ideal state is unstable and

liable to degenerate into an oligarchy, democracy, and, finally, tyranny. Aristocracies are made

of people who are just and good; democracies of proud and honor-loving people; oligarchies of

are full of people who are consumed by greed; democracies of people who are overcome by

frivolous desires; and finally the tyrannies are consumed by people who are overcome by

harmful desires.

Plato provides a detailed account of the reduction of the state from aristocracy to tyranny

due to oligarchy and democracy. Democracy to Plato, in particular, arises from the revolt of the

weak in an oligarchy. The state contains freedom and every citizen can live as he pleases.

Oligarchy then is reduced into a democracy where freedom is the highest good but freedom is

also slavery. In a democracy, the lower class grows bigger and bigger. The poor become the
winners. People are free to do what they want and live how they want. People are also able to

break the law if they so choose.

In book eight of The Republic Plato uses the "democratic man" to represent democracy. The

democratic man is the son of the oligarchic man. Unlike his father, the democratic man is filled

with unnecessary desires. Plato describes necessary desires as desires that we have out of instinct

or desires that one must have to survive. Unnecessary desires are desires we can teach ourselves

to resist such as the desire for riches or fame. The democratic man takes great interest in all the

things he can buy with his money. Democracy then degenerates into tyranny where no one has

discipline and society exists in disarray. Democracy is taken over by the longing for freedom.

Power must be taken to maintain order. A victor will come along and experience the power,

which will cause him to become a tyrant. The people will start to grow against him and

eventually try to remove him but will realize they are not able. The tyrannical man is the son of

the democratic man. He is the worst form of man due to his being the most unfair and thus the

furthest removed from any joy of the true kind. He is consumed by unlawful desires which cause

him to do any unlawful things such as murdering and theft. He comes closest to complete

lawlessness. The idea of moderation is not something that exists to him. He is consumed by the

basest pleasures in life, and being given these pleasures at a whim destroys the type of pleasure

only attainable through knowing pain.

During the basis of his writing, Plato differentiates between desires that are necessary and

unnecessary. Necessary desires are desires we can not overcome, such as our desire for shelter

and sustenance. Unnecessary desires are desires that we could do without, yet refuse to. These

desires include luxuries and lavish possessions. These types of desires are a result of a rapid

increase of liberty into the population. Plato predicts that people will demand freedom
constantly, whilst fighting any form of authority and longing for more liberty. We become

consumed with our freedom and become willing to sacrifice necessary things like social order

and structure to attain it.

Plato compares the state to a beautiful and expensive ship. An ignorant and untrained

person at the helm of a ship would endanger vessels, cargo, crew, and passengers alike.

Similarly, Plato suggests, the ship of state needs experienced rulers at the helm, governors who

are well informed about such things as law and economics. Ignorant and incompetent governors

can be and have been negative for citizens and states. Democratic self-government does not

work, according to Plato, because ordinary people have not learned how to run the ship of state.

They are not comfortable enough with major parts of the government such as economics,

military strategy, conditions in other countries, or the confusing intricacies of law and ethics.

Hobbes in return argues that democracy is inferior to monarchy because democracy

creates destabilizing dissension among the various. Hobbes’ critiques are not based on a

conception that most people are not intellectually fit for politics. In his view, individual citizens

and even politicians are unable to have a sense of responsibility for the quality of legislation

because no one makes a significant difference in the outcomes of decision making. As a

consequence, citizens’ concerns are not focused on politics and politicians succeed only by

making loud and demonstrative appeals to citizens to gain more power, but the politicians do not

have incentives to consider views that are genuinely for the common good. Due to this, there is a

sense of a lack of responsibility for outcomes undermines politicians’ concern for the common

good and inclines them to make dissident and divisive appeals to citizens. For Hobbes, then,
democracy has damaging effects on subjects and politicians and consequently on the quality of

the outcomes of group decision making.

The case of democracy and its supposed alter ego anarchy is slightly different. Indeed,

the term “anarchy” is usually given to the form of government known as a democracy by those

opposed to democracy. But unlike the terms tyranny and oligarchy, the term “anarchy” is not a

mere subjective expression of disapproval. On the contrary, Hobbes argues, there is an objective

state called anarchy but it `is equally opposite' to all three forms of government.

Hobbes talks about what is necessary for democracy. The initial meeting wherein the multitude

forms itself into a unity, or people may properly be called a democracy providing two things that

are established. First, there must be an agreement to accept the will of the majority: “For in that

they willingly met, they are obliged to the observation of what shall be determined by the major

part(Hobbes, Leviathan 265).” The second condition that is essential for the creation of

democracy is also an agreement, but this time to appoint regular times and places for assembly

and discussion. If this is not done, then “the public weal returns to anarchy and the same state it

stood in before their meeting, that is, to the state of all men warring against all (Hobbes,

Leviathan 265).”

Hobbes's problem with democracy does not stop at the institutional level. Combined with

the institutional critique, there is a larger problem with regards to the stability of the regime.

Hobbes suggests that although we may properly call democracy a form of government, as unique

from the absence of government altogether, nevertheless democratic forms of government

recreate within themselves the instability that is characteristic of the state of nature.
 Hobbes's case against democracy is very much extensive and does not end with the

criticisms discussed above. Hobbes believes that a well-ordered state will be one where the

sovereign can draw upon a choice of advisors or leaders; however, in a democracy, the advisors

will also be members of that which is to be counseled. Hobbes believes democracy to be an

unstable form of government. As a form of government, it is less like aristocracy and monarchy

than it is like anarchy, the absence of government, and for this reason, it will only ever be the

form of government that stands between the relative stability of aristocracy and monarchy, and

the outright chaos that is the state of nature. Hobbes's complaints against democracy is still

useful as it allows for one to reconsider the character of a democratic government.

On democracy, Tocqueville looks at the future of democracy in the United States,

discussing possible threats to democracy and possible dangers of democracy. These ideas include

his belief that democracy tends to degenerate into a sort of soft dictatorship as well as the risk of

developing a tyranny of the majority. He sees that the strong role religion played in the United

States was due to its separation from the government, a distancing all parties found agreeable. He

compares this to France where there was what he perceived to be an unhealthy rivalry between

democrats and the religious, which he sees similarities between church and state. Tocqueville

also outlines the possible excesses of passion for equality among men, foreshadowing a future

totalitarian state.

Tocqueville's concept of democracy evolved. He regarded democracy as a dynamic

process, which required a set of conditions that had to be met. In his view, the democratic

process would come to a halt when all political privileges were left away. In the second part of

Democracy in America, a more negative idea of democracy was seen as more prominent. The
idea that took over was the idea of a leveling power which would not be restricted to social

order, but which would also challenge the right of material property. Continuing, he saw the

recklessness that democracy could create on any intellectual or individualistic distinctions. The

notion of 'tyranny of the masses' formed in Tocqueville's mind.

Besides this sociological observation, liberty is very prominent in Tocqueville's

understanding of democracy. The way he uses this notion implies that he interprets liberty not

only as protection from the harassment of governmental power but more as the positive idea of

liberty as an asset which each citizen is required to take advantage of. Contrasting, he sees the

necessity to restrict individual liberty and to regulate the people’s mores. Tocqueville's liberalism

is characterized by the defense of liberty against authority, but also by a defense of authority

against liberty.

Tocqueville views democracy or equality of conditions as the central, irresistible

tendency in modern western societies, and the idea of this is alarming to Tocqueville. Though it

seems inevitable, there are negatives this aspect of western society. Tocqueville believes that a

new refined science of government would be much more suitable for a government rather than

staying in tune with democracy. This shows that all three of the enlightened thinkers had

negatives with democracy but were still able to see how there were aspects of their existing

government forms that could improve with the introduction of democracy.

 Works Cited

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Pan Books, 1978.

Plato. Republic. Harvard University Press, 2013.

Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Library of America Paperback Classics,

2012.