DEMOS KRATOS

I'm getting more & more concerned about letting stupid people vote. In this, it seems that I am not alone.

From Wiki:-

The word "democracy" originates from the Greek dēmokratia, meaning "rule of the people," combining dēmos ("people") and kratos ("rule").

Democracy is a form of government in which political power is vested in the people or the population of a state. Under a minimalist definition of democracy, rulers are elected through competitive elections while more expansive or maximalist definitions link democracy to guarantees of civil liberties and human rights in addition to competitive elections

The term appeared in the 5th century BC in Greek city-states, notably Classical Athens, to mean "rule of the people", in contrast to aristocracy (ἀριστοκρατία, aristokratía), meaning "rule of an elite". In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship was initially restricted to an elite class, which was later extended to all adult citizens. In most modern democracies, this was achieved through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Could Universal suffrage be a major setback?

2,500 years ago, in the fifth century BCE, it seems Socrates was having similar thoughts (From Bing) :-

Socrates was critical of democracy, believing it allowed unqualified individuals to make important decisions and enabled demagogues to manipulate the masses.

Skepticism Toward Majority Rule

Socrates questioned the wisdom of allowing all citizens to participate equally in governance. He argued that voting and political decision-making require knowledge and skill, much like navigating a ship safely requires an experienced captain rather than random passengers. In his allegory in Plato’s Republic, Socrates compares a state to a ship, suggesting that entrusting leadership to the uninformed is akin to letting untrained sailors steer through a storm. He believed that democracy, by giving everyone a vote regardless of competence, risked societal “shipwreck” due to poor decisions. 

Concern About Demagoguery

Socrates feared that democratic systems could empower demagogues—leaders who exploit public emotions, prejudices, and false promises to gain power. He observed that such figures could manipulate citizens who lacked the education or critical thinking skills to discern truth from rhetoric, potentially leading to instability, chaos, and injustice. Historical examples in Athens, such as Alcibiades and Cleon, illustrated the dangers of charismatic but unwise leaders. 

Preference for Knowledgeable Leadership

Socrates argued that rulers should possess virtue, wisdom, and understanding of the state, rather than simply being popular. He admired the Spartan system for its disciplined and knowledgeable leadership, contrasting it with the perceived recklessness of Athenian democracy. While he was not elitist in the sense of excluding citizens entirely, he insisted that only those capable of rational and informed judgment should participate in voting or governance. 

Contribution to Democratic Thought

Despite his critiques, Socrates’ insistence on questioning authority, seeking truth, and promoting critical thinking contributed indirectly to democratic ideals. His method of dialogue encouraged citizens to examine their beliefs and reasoning, highlighting the importance of education and informed participation in a functioning democracy. His trial and execution also underscored the risks of mob rule and the need to protect individual rights within a democratic society.

In summary, Socrates viewed democracy as inherently flawed due to the potential for uninformed decision-making and manipulation by demagogues, advocating instead for governance guided by knowledge, virtue, and rational judgment. His critiques remain influential in discussions about the balance between popular participation and competent leadership.

Philosopher-Kings as the Ideal Rulers

Socrates proposed that the best form of government is one led by philosopher-kings, individuals who possess wisdom, virtue, and a deep understanding of the state. These rulers would govern not for personal pleasure or gain but for the welfare of the citizens, ensuring that decisions are guided by reason and ethical principles. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates describes an ideal city-state, Kallipolis, structured hierarchically with three classes: philosopher-kings (guardians) who make decisions, auxiliaries (soldiers) who protect the society, and producers who provide goods and services.

I' m not sure the idea of Philosopher Kings would cut the mustard for me. Boris Johnson & Donald Trump proving examples of would be modern "Kings" 

Orwell saw a danger to this odea, too:-

Incidentally, how democratic are today's nations?

Key:-

From:-

V-Dem Democracy Indices - Wikipedia

Interesting that USA & UK are not in the highest bracket. I guess USA is a 2 party state, with huge corporate interference, as was the UK. How has that changed with the rise of Farrasshole's UKIP/Brexit/Reform chimera is for another post.

To summarise, democracy is flawed, but I can't for the life of me think of how to replace it.

Ideas on a postcard to the usual address please....