WHO WANTS TO BE A DEMOCRAT?

Are we good enough for democracy? (Jonathan Wolff, 10/01/2002, Royal Institute of Philosophy)

What do we want from our governments? Just and efficient legislation would be a good start. How will we get it? If you think that democracy is going to be at least part of the answer, then, according to Plato, in The Republic, you are making a huge and dangerous mistake.

Consider an analogy. Suppose you were worried about some aspect of your health. Perhaps you have a severe pain in your arm, which has also turned a peculiar shade of green. What should you do? Get to the doctor as quick as you could, no doubt. What you wouldn't do is rush off to local supermarket, describe your symptoms over the public address system, and then take a vote of the shoppers to decide whether to treat your arm by drugs or to amputate. When we need advice, we should ask an expert. The people simply don't have the knowledge to make an informed medical decision. It would be an act of madness to put yourself in their hands. But, says Plato, the health of the state is of no less importance than the health of the individuals within that state. Taking a vote on matters of state is just as mad as taking a vote on matters of health. Democracy, then, is utterly irrational.

We can put Plato's argument somewhat more precisely in the following terms:

1. Ruling is a skill.
2. It is rational to leave the exercise of skills to experts
3. In a democracy the people rule.
4. The people are not experts.

Therefore:

5.Democracy is irrational.

This apparently a rather powerful, argument. It seems vital for the defender of democracy to find a reply. As in the case of any argument, there are two primary ways of finding a response. First, we can try to show that one (or more) of the premises is false. Even a valid argument from a false premise proves nothing. Second, we can try to show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises, and thus the argument is invalid, proving nothing. Which strategy should the democrat attempt? Of course many could be attempted. But we have to start somewhere.

Let us look again at the fourth premise: that the people are not experts. Now in the parallel example we accepted readily enough that the people do not have sufficient expertise in medical matters to make it rational to rely upon them. They don't have the training and haven't acquired the specific medical knowledge to qualify them to have their opinions taken seriously. But should we assume so quickly that the people don't have the right sort of knowledge to qualify them as political experts?

At first sight, attempting to establish this positive case looks like a fool's errand. The people, in general, seem to have little interest in political matters, and don't show much inclination to spend the time and trouble necessary to come to terms with the detail of policy or principle. They have little knowledge, real experience, or interest. How on earth can we justify relying on the decisions of such a group?

Interestingly there is an answer. Although we may rightly have little confidence in any one person taken individually, if we take the group collectively we may do rather better. Indeed we might put it this way: although no individual in the group is an expert, nevertheless under the right conditions the group as a whole is an expert. An example will spring to the mind of anyone who has watched television in the last year or two: 'ask the audience' on Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Although it would hardly be rational to stake much on the opinion of a stranger, picked at random, when 80% of a group of strangers are urging one choice over, say, three others, then you somehow feel entitled to have a great deal of confidence in the group decision.

But why should this be so?

It would seem that the real genius of democracy is not that the decisions it renders are any better than those of other systems--though that can be argued--rather it is that responsibility and blame for the bad decisions is shared so widely that the system remains more stable than those where smaller groups or individuals can be scapegoated. In a democracy, we're all the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 8, 2003 6:53 PM