Democracy, Theories of

Ancient Critics of Democracy

In ancient political theory, “democracy” was a polemic and negative concept. In the late 5th century BCE, Pseudo-Xenophon, the first Athenian critic of democracy we know of, calls it a regime in which the many rule in a selfish and destructive manner. Democratic men strive for their personal gain, and to this end, they not only suppress the aristocratic best and the population of the naval colonies but also rule without regard to the common weal. According to Pseudo-Xenophon, this leads to an unjust political and moral order. However, he does not deny a certain rationality of the democratic regime insofar as the many live better in a democracy. Thus, he ends with the paradox that from an aristocratic perspective the democratic regime is clearly unjust, whereas the same order seems at least internally rational from a democratic point of view.

It is in Plato's work that this paradox is resolved inasmuch as he develops a metaphysical foundation of the political order. In concurrence with [Page 572]Pseudo-Xenophon, he describes the supposed shortcomings of the democratic regime, such as rhetorical betrayal and demagoguery. Because the many cannot know the political areté, they are merely a pawn for the sophists who are interested only in their personal gain. To counter these democratic practices, Plato formulates his model of the philosopher-king, which is founded in an epistemic understanding of politics. For Plato, good politics is based on higher knowledge, which only the few with special philosophical talent and training can attain.

There are at least two problems with this fusion of politics and philosophy. The first is its metaphysical character. Plato bases his political philosophy in an idealistic framework dubious even to his contemporaries. The second problem is the utopian character of the philosopher-king, as Plato himself mentioned in the Politeia. Democratic practices and norms are very widespread in the Athenian demos, so his model is simply not realizable. Therefore, Plato argues in the Laws for a second-best regime. It is no longer the philosopherking who is to guarantee the good order but a system of laws that regulate even the smallest details. To integrate the many into the regime, he considers democratic modes of decision making, such as the participation of the many in elections and even drawing lots. However, these concessions to democratic practices do not mean that Plato has abandoned his aristocratic ideals. Democratic institutions are subordinated to exclusive ones, thereby thwarting the rule of the many.

...