ichthyoid

Much of the western world today can trace its influence back to the Romans and Greeks of Antiquity. Their social, political, and philosophical views can be felt and seen etched in almost every facet of life — from building architecture down to the way public schools are run. What's interesting is that, despite how much their influence pervades our culture, there there is one mode of thought made by one of their most famous philosophers that is very different from how we may think today.

That man's name is Socrates. And he had a particular hatred for one of the most valued tenets of western culture: Democracy.

Why Socrates is Important

My first exposure to Socrates. Ah, Calvin and Hobbes, you taught me so much. The above comic, of course, has little to do with the real Socrates (whom I called “so-krāts” as a child).

The real Socrates was a Greek philosopher who we now know of thanks to the writings of one of his disciples, Plato. Socrates was known for his exceptional analysis of moral society and thought, including the envisioning of the Allegory of the Cave (which inspired modern works like The Matrix) as well as the creation of the Socratic Method. He is famous for quotes such as, “I know that I know nothing” and “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

Socrates, despite living in Athenian society where democracy was espoused rather than the tyrannical dictatorship sold by their Spartan brothers to the south, had a sort of distaste for the political process. For him, it wasn't about whether people generally should govern, but rather, what kind of people should have the ability to govern. And due to this perspective, he had severe doubts as to whether the majority of a population should have such an ability.

Ironically, he was sentenced to death by the vote of 500 Athenian jurists.

Why is Democracy so Bad?

First, let's look at it from Socrates' point of view.

As he argues with Adeimantus in Plato's Republic, Socrates compared society to a ship. Every ship has different roles, including the captain who is entrusted to know how to get the ship from where it is to where it's supposed to be. Who should be in charge of this job? Can it be just anyone? Or should it be someone who has been educated in the ways of naval navigation?

The obvious answer is, of course, the latter. We want experts to be in charge of the ship. In the same way, why would we let just anyone tell everyone else how to run society? After all, voting doesn't guarantee that the person being voted for has such skills.

Instead, Socrates wisely points out that voting itself is a skill. Knowing what kinds of issues are being raised, and how best to deal with them is a real skill required to know how to best govern people. If people are not properly educated, then what ends up happening is demagoguery, which is when people exploit others' emotions, seducing them with easy answers, so that they could be elected.

In an imagined debate between a doctor and a sweets store owner, the sweets owner will probably say to you, “Look at how the 'doctor' treats you and makes you feel horrible with his medicine. If you elect me, I'll give you all the delicious food you could ever want!”

The doctor, perhaps, would reply with, “I will give you something that will cause you pain, but it's so that I can help you!”

It would be unreasonable to assume that a person uneducated about their own health would ever choose the doctor. In the same way, people who are uneducated about effective governance would be in a poor position to elect the right political authorities for the good of society. In this way, democracy actually exacerbates a problem when the majority of people have no idea how governance works. They would simply vote, en mass, for the sweets store owner, and slowly but inevitably vote their own destruction.

Of course, Socrates himself eventually argued in the Republic that the best ruler for society would be king who was also a wise philosopher, like himself. This is another strange irony, as it turns out that not even wise philosophers can avoid the temptation of wanting to rule over the rest. And even if that person was a good benevolent ruler, there is no guarantee that succeeding ones will be as well, as indicated by nearly all dictatorships in history.

The Ramifications of Pushing Democracy

Let's consider what democracy truly is: mob rule.

It sounds a little harsh, but that's the reality. Democracy, a political system in which the perceived majority of a given population determines the rules by which the entire population should live under, is essentially rule by the mob. It's important to remember that it's the perceived majority, not an actual majority. Why can't society be ruled by an actual majority?

The mob we are talking about is not always the biggest group, or even necessarily a large group. Instead, it's simply the most vocal or visible group. This mob, then, demagogues its way to either inspire or intimidate others into acquiescing to their demands. Since the vast majority of people just want to be left the !@#$ alone, they tend to conform. A smart mob knows to get others to slowly conform, a little bit at a time (a well-known brainwashing technique), using peer pressure and focused targeting. Then, when this mob has a majority of people following what they want, their demands are written into law. Thus, while the actual majority couldn't have cared less about what the mob wanted, because a perceived vocal majority want it, they often go along with it.

When we don't understand that democracy is simply mob rule, we make grave mistakes, like sending military into nations with completely different, and sometimes even adverse, cultural norms with the intention of establishing democracies. By labeling those other nations “dictatorships” or “tyrannical”, we are simply betraying our naïveté about how democracies really work. Rule by one is not necessarily more evil than dictatorship by the mob. In many ways, dictatorship by the mob is actually worse.

And when we invade, and then leave after “building a democracy”, there is a vacuum that is created where a much more violent mob can move in and take over. Thus we have ISIS, the Arab Spring, Egypt after Gaddafi, et cetera.

There certainly are examples where instituting democracy to replace of other types of governance resulted in a better society. These examples include Taiwan (vs. China), South Korea (vs. North), and Japan (vs. what it was before). And we can't really say that they are the exception rather than the norm. So why did some nations succeed with the supplanted political system and others didn't?

This is an interesting topic to explore. Governance and political systems are such intricate and complex subjects, and I certainly don't have all the answers. With that in mind, over the next few weeks, I'll continue to muse over these ideas, and see if there's anything we can definitively say about it all. I'll then be tying it to crypto, and the next big phase of blockchain that I see developing in governance.

So, until then, have a great day!