|
George Bernard Shaw once said: "Democracy substitutes election by
the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few...", and while
I don't have nearly such a bleak outlook on our method of government,
Mr. Shaw does hold an iota of truth in his quotation. In a perfect
world, where everyone is informed, intelligent, and aware of their
system of administration, democracy would work perfectly. In a world
where there are different personalities, dissimilar concerns and
divergent points of view, democracy falls short of the ideal of having
all people being equal. Similarly, having a Philosopher-King or an
equivalent in control of a country sounds fine on paper, but there
would be different philosophies, disputes within the philosopher-king
hierarchy itself, and of course, the never-ending task of stabilizing
an entire country would daunt even the most qualified person.
It is a mechanical fault of democracy itself, and not the many
leaders caught up in a democratic bureaucracy that causes a country to
stumble. A democracy is where the government is run by all the people
who live under it. To have a true democracy, everyone must vote. People
vote to exercise their democratic rights; if only 70% vote, then 70%
control 100% of the government. Voting without adequate understanding
and choosing candidates for the wrong reasons are symptoms of voting
for the sake of voting and not taking an active interest in how our
country is run. Instead of making an effort to understand issues and
party fundamentals, too many ignorant people actually base their
decisions on what the candidates tell them. The result is that
everybody feels "burned" by the government, never realizing that they
could have tipped the election simply by paying attention. Another
problem with democracy is the structure of any government's
bureaucracy.
Vote for a party/candidate only in principle, because in practice,
they act completely the same. Imagine bureaucracy as a great
fast-moving train; even if another engineer takes control, it is
incredibly hard to make any large adjustments without severely
unstabilizing the train. Similarly, it wouldn't matter if any political
party is in power, because any fundamental change would upset a lot of
people (one of the unwritten laws of politics: to make a drastic change
is to invite political suicide). In the case of a philosopher-king, a
lot more could be done because he would have the power of a monarch,
yet his judgment would not be watered down through bloodlines (like how
decadent the British monarch has become from their stable position of
power).
It would appear that the idea of a philosopher king has the best of
both worlds: The control of a dictatorship, but the freedom of a
(controlled) democracy. (The philosopher king is not defined as
concisely as I'd like, so I'm taking some liberties here). Someone who
is bred specifically to lead a country would be better than any
politician; they would be specialized in the physics of politics, they
would have unique insights into old political problems, and could
master political double-speak by age 10! No question, a more stable
country would develop under a purebred leader, but there could be many
more unseen problems that would come along with an absolute ruler. The
term, philosopher king would create an image of a monarchical rule,
where his word is law. That would have the advantage of streamlining
the government, with the absolute leader making quick, summary
judgments. Any problems that could develop through a monarchy would not
be anything new; more than a few countries have felt (and have rebelled
against) the stranglehold of a king holding absolute power over them.
Another problem with the philosopher king: which philosophy? A Socrates
indoctrinated ruler would have different viewpoints from an
existentialist philosopher king. Would people vote for different
philosophies as well as their favorite king? There would be as many
problems with the mechanics of a philosopher king as there would be
with a democracy.
I'm not saying that either is better: Both the philosophy of
democracy, and the concept of a philosopher king both sound good in
theory, but once the human factor is introduced, an incalculable
variable is introduced into any equation, political or otherwise. It
may appear that a philosopher king may have a short term upper hand,
but eventually, that system will fall under its own bureaucracy; as
badly as a system where the ignorance of nation would rule themselves.
John Lowell is quoted as saying "Democracy gives everyone the right to
be his own oppressor..." so why put more oppression in a country?
|
|
|
(0 vote)