Democracy is a type of governance that originated in ancient Athens in the sixth century. This word has a number of definitions one of them being a government in which all of the people in that society enjoy an equal amount of power politically. This government in modern society is exercised through the right citizens have to vote for their leader of choice. This, however, does not necessarily mean that there was no form of democracy anywhere else in the world apart from ancient Greece. In fact, research has proven that there existed democratic governance in one form or the other in various communities and different parts of the world. The word democracy, as expected, originated from two words found in the Greek language. These words are “demos” and “cratos” words which literary mean people and government respectively. This two put together literary mean a people's government. Basically, democracy is simply a form of governance in which the constitution assures basic political and personal rights, independent law courts with free and fair elections.
According to Plato, democracy is as a result of the popular gyration against the affluent rulers. His argument is that due to this up rise the citizens contribute equally in the governance of their nation. This in turn, leads to greed for power and freedom. As a result, the citizens become obsessed with liberty and become even more unreasonable. Plato believes that allowing citizens such freedom would lead to several things that may cause future problems in the society. The first consequence is that, this establishment might end up generating all manner and conditions of citizens, which would be a wider assortment in comparison to all other kinds of authority and governance. This is a serious problem since the citizens living within such a set up would vary considerably and that each individual would go through the variety of individual constitutions and each would end up establishing their own. The second problem Plato states, with this constitution is that the authorities would become motley and anarchic, and uniformity would be assigned without discrimination both to the equals and the not equals alike which Plato believes should never occur. This unfortunate occurrence would then spread into other parts of society and eventually into private life. As a result, there would be equality between men and women, parents and their children and even between slaves and their masters. The result would be a society without any authority, and the law becomes utterly powerless. Finally, Plato argues that this kind of governance would allow its citizens to behave in whichever way they wish, and this would cause its individuals to come up with strategies to lead their lives in whichever way they desire.
Plato's view on such a democracy is that it would create individuals that would vary substantially from other kinds of governance and this would be problematic. He explains that the difference between cravings that are “essential" and those that are "supererogatory" which limited the tendencies of the oligarchical person became abrogated. He then declares that this new generation of individuals would have their lives controlled by desires and cravings that they would make their gods, and see to it that they have satisfied their desires rather than live their lives honorably pursuing knowledge and studies. The egalitarian man thus views every portion of his person equally. This person's existence will thence be led by gratification in the craving of that point in time. As a result, the democratic man will do and say whatever gets into his mind. Basically, there exists precisely no form of compulsion or order in existence.
He thus believes that
democracy develops a society with authenticated people that elude the diminution of their interpersonal purpose and indeed their earthy ability, into a single, sole dimension. On top of this, democracy breeds all of the parts of one's soul evenly, thus refusing compliance to the principles of intellect. Above all, this great hunger for freedom is the authentication of an anti-authoritarian society. This kind of establishment is the origin of cultural upset, emphasis as opposed to curtailment of deviation, individualism, and rebelliousness to the law of understanding. Its quality is based on bullheadedness and indulgence in bodily delight, in a refusal to acknowledge the power structure either within their souls or that found between the body and soul.
As a result of the chaos created by this leadership, Plato concludes that one person alleging to have the interests and needs of both the interpersonal order and those of the unfortunate majority at heart, will forcefully take leadership and rule the land with a heavy hand. This type of leadership is called dictatorship or tyranny. Plato tries to put across his point that though despotism though seemingly started as a result of or against the topsy-turvy of political theory it is, in fact, an extension of the same. Monocracy incorporates the utmost extents of lawlessness and anarchy. First, the initially united, integrated person of the elite group that enjoyed a concordance between the assorted "categories" of his/ her soul is cut into the “dual” person of the oligarchy, then into the "multiplex" being brought forth by the introduction to democracy. This creates a chasm of multiplicity, particularity and relativity that cannot be reduced after all traces of the spirit structure disintegrates in dictatorship or Caesarism.
Aristotle, on the other hand, believes that there are several aspects that are to be considered before a constitution is correct. He says that a constitution must provide room for regulation and for the wellbeing of all its citizens in agreement with “unquestionable” justice, and not for the advantage of those in governance in order for it to qualify calling correct. The audience sees his idea of such constitutions in the following constitutions: polity, which adverts to, the collective governance of the masses of people for the general good of the community, monarchy and finally aristocracy (that is, the convention of the foremost in virtuousness). He observes that there are other types of democratic governance that degenerate from the above. These include dictatorship also known as tyranny that spring up when the head of state rules for personal benefit; on the other hand, democracy develops from polity when the poor (often the majority) rule according to their own interests while oligarchy is as a result of aristocracy when the men of means (usually the wealthy class) rule for their own advantage. Aristotle believes that dictatorship is the worst form of the three and that democracy is the most bearable.
In contrast to the modern form of democratic rule, the view of Aristotle of democracy would literary have meant designating governance to the common and ordinary people as opposed to the modern democratic rule by assigning one person leadership through voting. In such a scenario, political power is left under the control of people and not any person. He claims that the only difference that there exists between oligarchical governance and democratic governance, is the difference in power that the rich have in comparison to the poor. In a democracy, all are equal while, in oligarchical governance, the rich are superior to the poor and make rule to their own advantage.
Aristotle believes that there are various levels and degrees of democracy. The first is formed in a way that both the wealthy and the hapless enjoy the same benefits. The intermediate form of democracy guarantees a fair qualification of assets for the assigning of office. Finally in the tertiary and quaternary forms of the same, the governance is in such a way that every member of society is and can be in charge and can rule as long as he or she meets the set standards and passes examination. However, every member must maintain the high pattern of jurisprudence. As a result, the entire community becomes a government one body constituting of several independent persons. He adds that this form of the constitution is impractical, and cannot be found in any real community as all the members of that society are above the law and, therefore, see no point of following it.
It is, therefore, true to say that both Plato and Aristotle agree on the fact that democracy may have severe consequences. Nevertheless, it is critical to realize that Aristotle’s criticism of democratic governance are chiefly directing towards that which he believes to be to the highest degree an immoderate form of democracy. He, however, has nothing against the regular forms of democracy and in fact, commends them. However, he does not view democracy as the best choice of governance and personally advocates for polity as the ideal form of government. Plato, on the other hand, perceives democracy as chaos and sees nothing compelling about it at all as he believes that it would end in dictatorship.
According to Thucydides (26), democracy in the best form of governance. In the speech, Pericles' "Funeral Oration" written by Thucydides, the achievements of Athens is as a result of democratic governance. His definition of democracy is a government that is not owned by specific individuals or groups, but rather a government shared by the people irrespective of social status. The speech begins by bringing praise to Athens, its people and cultures. Pericles speaks of the loyalty of every citizen living in Athens and commends them for it. He explains why people in other countries refer to their government is as democratic and explains how it works. According to Pericles, all citizens are equal. He explains that Athens does not discriminate its individuals regardless of social status. All people receive access to the chance to serve the country regardless of whether or not they belong to the class of the rich. He also mentions that justice is always serving in their community, to all people and disputes solved fairly. This can be seen from his words, “When it is a question of settling private disputes, everyone is equal before the law”.
In Athens, leadership was based on the qualities that a person had and not the membership of any class. Choosing these leaders were by the people based on their leadership skills for various public responsibilities, as opposed to other places where the leadership was taken over by the wealthy class. According to Pericles, this type of leadership worked best due to the fact that the people of Athens were highly responsible, and all gave maximum respect to their leader and to the law. In his speech, he also mentions the freedom of pleasure and lifestyle; Plato was particularly opposed to this. Here, the audience learn that people of Athens do not tamper in other people's affairs and that every person was let to live their lives in a way that pleased them as long as it did not infringe on the rights of fellow citizens.
At this point, Pericles praises the citizens of Athens and declares that they have no equal. He describes how hospitable and generous they are and commends them. He also touches on the issue of how hard-working and loyal they are to their country and comments about their formal education system in comparison to that of their enemy. Here, Pericles alters the subject and starts to speak about the departed souls. He praised them for their bravery and noble death. He then criticizes their enemy country for cowardice and maintains that Athenians did not need to spend much of their time preparing for battle as they believed in themselves. His belief was that the loyalty and love that the people of Athens had for their country was more than that of their lives, prosperity and happiness. He, therefore, commends the departed souls for their noble action choosing to fight and die for the love that they had for Athens. In spite of the fact that they had lost the battle, Pericles encourages fellow citizens by telling them that what those soldiers had done was commendable and worth emulating. Therefore, he concludes his speech by telling those who had attended the mass burial of the fallen soldiers to follow the footsteps of those soldiers since they loved their country more than they loved their own lives.
Both Thucydides and Aristotle believe in democracy. Their views are not exactly similar as they are both based on different arguments and background. Thucydides gives a much stronger and unquestionable argument in support of democracy in comparison to Aristotle. While Thucydides is a hundred percent for democracy and believes it to be essential for the well-being of any nation, Aristotle views more than one type of governance. He then concludes that democracy is the best in comparison to the other forms of governance. However, he also concludes that democracy is only acceptable to a certain degree, but has its drawbacks if overdone. Plato, on the other hand, is downright against democracy as he believes that does not have any advantages and leads to a totally chaotic society.
In conclusion, the discussion of democracy by the three prominent philosophers Thucydides, Aristotle and Plato and has proven to have both beneficial and destructive traits. Both Thucydides and Aristotle agree that this is the best form of governance and that, in comparison to the other forms of government, democracy wins the prize and is the friendliest government. However, it is vital for one to note that Plato strongly disagrees with these views and believes that democracy would only lead to a life of indulgence and eventually, tyranny
Works Cited
Frank, Jilll. A Democracy of Distinction: Aristotle and the Work of Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Print.
Held, David. Models of Democracy. Palo Alto, CA : Stanford University Press, 2008. Print.
Ober, Josiah. Political Dissent in Democratic Anthens: Intellectual Critics of Popular Rule. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011. Print.
Shanske, Darien. Thucydides and the Philosophical Origins of History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Print.
Thucydides. Thucydides: The Peloponnesian War. Ed. Jeffrey S. Rusten. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Print.
