Why Plato Hated Democracy

Democracy, according to Plato, is a system that rewards performance over virtue. In today's essay, we break down exactly what that means.

“Democracy leads to anarchy, which is mob rule.”

Plato wasn’t the biggest fan of democracy.

In fact, he viewed democracy as being nothing more than a step towards anarchy. Plato considered the excessive freedom which is granted through a democratic system to be inherently dangerous. He believed that when you implement a system that allows anyone to throw their hat into the political arena and run to be a politician or ruler, it turns politics into a mere popularity contest and allows greedy, selfish, and unqualified people to attain power. From Plato’s point of view, democracies produce rulers who are simply good orators, are good at persuasion, and are good at winning a popularity contest. This is in stark contrast to people who actually should be ruling; philosophers, intellectuals, and people who are genuinely good leaders.

Democracy plays quite an important role within society, and it’s a form of governance that has undoubtedly influenced the trajectory of the human species. I could easily write a lengthy article in praise of democracy, but as Karl Popper once famously (probably) said; verificationism doesn’t really help us much. In order to improve an idea, or to strengthen it, we have to try our best to prove it to be wrong. This is precisely why I think Plato’s various critiques of democracy, or the democratic critiques of any other thinker, are quite important. They get us thinking about how we should be be improving existing systems of governance, and at the very least, what political qualities and attributes we should be gravitating towards. Many people are quick to label Plato as being ‘undemocratic’, implying that his ideas aren’t worth listening to. However, this disregards the fact that his ideas may be helpful in improving our current system, or crafting any political systems in the future.

In today’s post, we’ll be exploring Plato’s critique of democracy. Let’s dive in.

When you’re competing to be a ruler (or a politician, in the modern age) within a democratic system, there’s basically one thing that matters; getting votes. It’s not necessarily about how smart you are, how moral you are, or how qualified you are to lead a community or a nation. Instead, it’s about how well you can be perceived, if you can tell people what they want to hear, and ultimately, if you can convince a majority to vote for you. Plato thought of democracy as being a political system that places little emphasis on how fit someone is to be a leader or a politician, nor one that places an importance on wisdom, intellect, and other virtues. According to Plato, democracy’s embrace of ‘absolute freedom’ is no different than anarchy, as it is essentially mob rule. Plato goes on to argue that democracies not only elect those who are unfit to be leaders, but they actually inhibit those who should be leaders from attaining power. Individuals who should be leaders, such as philosophers, intellectuals, or those with genuine leadership capabilities, typically don’t want to partake in the political pandering, false promising, and persuasive, illusory verbatim which are required in order to attain power within a democratic system. These individuals typically spend their time honing their intellectual or philosophical craft, and are therefore dismissed politically by society as a whole.

“Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.” - The Republic, Book 8

Democracy is a form of governance that places a lot of importance on participation. This, according to Plato, is what makes it dangerous. Everyone and anyone is allowed to vote and run to be a leader, regardless of if they have relevant leadership experience or are actually fit to rule over a community of people. By allowing anyone to partake in one of the most important aspects of human civilization (politics), regardless of philosophical, intellectual, and political ability, Plato argued that politics becomes almost like a circus of sorts; in which all political candidates are clamouring over each other and trying to convince people to vote for them. According to Plato, democracy allows even the most ignorant, uneducated, and unfit of people to not only vote, but have a chance at becoming a leader as well. It is for this reason that Plato believed that democracy places ‘unequals as equals’ within the political realm.

"Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike." - The Republic, Book 8

To help illustrate his critique of democracy, Plato created a metaphor known as The Ship of the State.

The Ship of the State

I want you to imagine a ship. On this ship, there’s a couple different people. First, there’s the captain - he’s big, strong and has control over the ship’s wheel. However, he’s a bit deaf and near-sighted, and knows practically nothing about navigation. Next, there’s the crew members. The crew members are a greedy bunch, and they spend their time clamouring over each other, each trying to convince the captain to let them have control of the wheel, and ultimately, control over the entire ship. They use a variety of persuasive tactics in order to try and gain control of the ship; they offer him gifts, they tell lies in order to make themselves seem more capable than they actually are, and they might even try to get the captain drunk. Now, the crew members know nothing about leadership or navigation, and they are each unfit to lead a ship. Moreover, the crew members don’t even want to gain control of the ship in order to be great captains, nor to better the ship. Instead, they want this control for selfish reasons; they want access to the food and drink stores and to indulge in the variety of surface-level pleasures that come along with being captain. As Plato puts it, they want to turn the ship into a ‘drunken pleasure-cruise’.

There’s a unique individual on this ship, though. He’s not a regular crew member; he’s a person who is trying to develop his navigation skills (and is currently pretty good at it). He spends his time watching the stars, studying the wind, and carefully observing the sea. He’s labelled a ‘daydreamer’ by the others, and is considered someone who spends his time studying pointless things. He’s therefore ‘brushed off’ by everyone on the ship. Plato highlights the fact that, the one person who’s actually qualified to be the ship’s navigator, is completely disregarded by everyone onboard as being a mere ‘stargazer’, and is even made fun of. The things which everyone considers to be ‘useless’ and ‘trivial’ to study, are actually things which are necessary to properly navigate the sea. The crew members, being in a frenzy to get control, are frantically telling the captain that the art of navigation cannot be taught, and that it’s a skill that they themselves naturally possess (a lie), hence why they should be given power. While they are doing this, the true navigator amongst them is studying the art of navigation, all whilst being dismissed and brushed off by everyone else.

Plato’s metaphor is powerful because it illustrates his critique of democracy in a fascinating way. The strong but near-sighted and slightly deaf captain represents the mass population within a democratic system. We (the people) have all of the power, but due to our size (and perhaps the many ignorant people amongst us), we’re a bit clumsy and cannot lead ourselves (the captain doesn’t know any navigation). A mass of people without organization or leadership typically delves into chaos and disorder, which is why the captain doesn’t have any navigation skills. The crew members represent the politicians or leadership candidates - they’re constantly trying to win over the captain’s support and persuade him into giving them power through acts of verbal persuasion, acts of gift-giving, and other deceiving methods. They’re not selling themselves based on their ability (in Plato’s metaphor, they have none), instead, they’re simply trying to be good orators. Lastly, the ‘true navigator’ who spends his time studying the stars and the sea, and ultimately is teaching himself the art of navigation, represents the intellectuals, philosophers, and other ‘true’ leaders within society. These individuals are often brushed off as being mere daydreamers who spend their time studying trivial things, yet when it comes to the world of politics, they’re the actual people who should be leading.

The Cook and the Doctor; Plato’s Example in Gorgias

In addition to his ‘The Ship of the State’ metaphor, Plato also illustrates his thoughts on democracy through a thought-experiment known as ‘The Cook and the Doctor’. This thought-experiment appears in one of Plato’s lesser-known works, Gorgias, which is a text that discusses the art of persuasion. Within the text, Plato asserts that himself, along with any other true philosophers, relentlessly pursue wisdom, virtue, truth, and ultimately, things that are the ‘best’ rather than the ‘most pleasant’. He claims that due to this pursuit of genuine goodness, he practices ‘true politics’;

“I’m the only one, but the only one among our contemporaries — to take up the true political craft and practice the true politics. This is because the speeches I make on each occasion do not aim at gratification but at what’s best. They don’t aim at what’s most pleasant.” - Gorgias, 521d-e

Plato then introduces the “Cook and the Doctor’ example. Now, this example is primarily understood as being Plato’s way of highlighting the danger that skilled rhetoricians can cause, but I believe that it can also be extrapolated to support Plato’s critique of democracy.

Shortly after making the claim that he practices ‘true politics’, Plato claims that if he were ever to be tried in court, perhaps for his controversial ideas, he’d surely be executed. He points out that he’d be sentenced by skilled orators, or in other words, people who are really good at verbally persuading people. The people who’d sentence him in court would focus more on persuasive rhetoric rather than logic, wisdom, or reason in order to decide his punishment, as perhaps a philosopher would.

Plato goes on to state that his trial would be no different than a doctor being put on trial in front of a jury of children, with a pastry chef or cook bringing forth the accusations. The pastry chef, being a skilled rhetorician, would say things like; “Children, this man is inherently evil. He cuts, burns, and causes pain to people. He forces people to eat and drink weird things, and he can cause hunger and thirst. Unlike me, he doesn’t provide you with candy or sweet things to eat, nor does he make you feel good’.

Plato goes on to explain that due to a skilled orator bringing forward these accusations, paired with a jury that is easily swayed by rhetoric rather than wisdom, logic, or reason, the doctor doesn’t really stand a chance, regardless of the immense amount of good that he provides for society. The doctor strives and works towards the long-term ‘good’ of the community, whereas the pastry chef provides instantaneous, short-term pleasures (many of which actually harm the long-term health of his customers). When you write it out on paper, the doctor probably sounds like a terrible person in the short-term, or from a ‘surface-level’ perspective, and the pastry chef sounds like a person who does a lot of good. However, when you apply a bit of critical thinking, wisdom, and reasoning, these roles quickly switch. To boil it all down; wisdom, virtue, and reason are keys to being able to cut through persuasive rhetoric and are tools which allow you to reach the truth in life.

This example is connected to Plato’s critique of democracy because it highlights a democratic society’s draw towards gratification and embrace of oratory persuasion rather than reason or wisdom. The jury of children represent the general population. This isn’t to say that all of us lack critical thinking skills, or that we reason like children. Instead, Plato is essentially saying that wisdom and the ability to think critically isn’t a gift everyone possesses, and so when you average the level of ‘critical thinking ability’ from a mass population, it probably isn't going to be that high. Therefore, it’s only natural that a large group of people are easily swayed by rhetoric rather than wisdom. Additionally, it’s equally harmful that democracy is a system which promotes and rewards ‘leaders’ who act like the pastry chef, rather than the doctor. Political candidates can take advantage of our ability to be swayed by carefully crafted rhetoric, and they’re actually rewarded for this within a democratic system. Reason, logic, and virtue are often left behind, because they don’t garner votes.

Plato’s ideas regarding democracy are quite extreme, controversial, and arguably even outdated for the modern age (they’re over 2000 years old), but I think they’re fascinating ideas to ponder nonetheless. Even we don’t necessarily agree with his extreme political recommendations, like barring people from being involved in politics, I still think that his critiques can be used to better our current political system and the systems of tomorrow. There’s a lot of pastry chefs in today’s world, and they can be found within every political party, regardless of political affiliation or ideology.

Regardless of whether you agree, disagree, or simply don’t know what to think, I hope you found today’s post interesting, and I’ll see you next week. All the best!

---