Reaching the Reason

I am charged with the burden of refuting one of Socrates' arguments from Plato's Republic. This is no easy task, but for the sake of finding the truth, I must persevere. I have chosen to argue that democracies are the best constitutions to have, which is to say that democracies will not lead to tyranny. My points to support this claim include that human beings will listen to reason; that democracies have a characteristic of constancy that other constitutions lack; and that the unwise can make useful contributions by participating in the government.

Human beings will listen to reason. Socrates thinks that democracies are worse than aristocracies because they give each person, regardless of his or her capability as a ruler, equal ruling responsibility. I tell you this must be wrong because while all the people have votes to cast, their votes can be affected by those with the greatest reason. Socrates would then say that they would not be affected because their irrational appetites lord over their reason. To say such a thing is to mean that their reason is no better than if it were not there. However, their reason surely exists, as this is what makes them human beings, and something in existence can be reached.

The reason of each person, or of a significant number of people must be reached. Somewhere in each person, his or her reason resides. The effort it takes to reach it may vary, but it is well worth the effort. Only if the people consent to their government by their own reason is their city truly a city of human beings. If an elite group of those who reason things out rule over a group who do not, human beings rule beasts that resemble human beings only in appearance.

Secondly, democracies have a characteristic of constancy that other constitutions lack. While all the governments described by Socrates, in theory, seem to have a way to be destroyed, democracies in their most reasonable practice seem to have a fail-safe. It is because they are democracies that this is so.

By including all the people in ruling, all the wise are included. In aristocracies and other forms of government where some are excluded from ruling, the wise can be excluded by mistake or choice. In democracies, no such mistake is possible. Upon hearing that, Socrates would surely say that by including all the people, all the unwise would be included as well. That is true. As has already been established above, however, the wise can reach the reason of a significant number of the people by showing their reason in many examples. When the wise adequately present their reasons and the unwise try to oppose them without reason, the people, having reason somewhere in them, will surely side with the wise and make the correct decision.

Another point to show why democracies preserve themselves is this. If everyone is a ruler and everyone is ruled, no one remains to oppose the government. There is no need for a revolution because the people who would be revolting have a say in the government. In aristocracies, dissolution comes about when some of the wise are excluded from ruling while some of the unwise are included and they disagree but come to a compromise that moves their government down through the theoretical governments toward tyranny. In democracies, everyone already has an equal say in how things are to be. As long as the wise take care to make sure the reason of a significant number of individuals is reached, the democracy will continue.

Democracies are also based on reality. Socrates says himself that aristocracies and all the theoretical governments will fail because unfit people will be made powerful. Democracies realize that there are no people who can be purely wise. There can be some who come close, but then there is also the problem of making sure they are made rulers.

The unwise may also have worthy contributions for the ruling of the city. The wise, so high in their thinking, can easily neglect some practical matters. Left to themselves, they might move the whole city to theory where everything works better. When the wise pitch their ideas to everyone, the unwise will not understand. This will cause the wise to elaborate and expand their ideas so that they can gain the support of the unwise. After all, being made more understandable can necessarily make something that is good better.

Socrates said that it is easier to tell what a thing is when a larger version of it is looked at. That is true. When the entire society is looked at, it is easier to tell what thing a well-run society, which is most a city, is. A democracy looks at the entire society to define a well-run society instead of a smaller society of rulers.

I have shown to the best of my ability that democracy is not actually as Socrates describes it. A valid representation of democracy, in theory, seems vital to his claim that democracies lead to tyrannies and are thus not the best kind of constitution to have. My description of democracy too is a theory, but one that because of the reasons presented seems that it is a more accurate representation of the actual democracy, as one would encounter it.


Written October 8, 2002