PLATO

A critical analysis of Plato’s elitist challenge to democracy.

Elitism is arguably the most effective and logical threat to democracy. This essay will begin by providing an introduction to elitist thought by comparing and contrasting the views of Platonic elitism to those of more modern elitist thinkers such as Schumpeter. It will become clear in the first of the essay that elitist thought is not only of one kind and that the Platonic variation was only the beginning. The essay will then attempt to unpick the main features of Plato’s ideal form of society and in doing so, show how a Platonic society could have effectively challenged the democracy of the time. This is before offering a critique of Plato’s arguments through the use of readings from other philosophers such as Aristotle and Popper. These critiques will be questioned on grounds of their legitimacy before concluding that Plato’s view of truth, the core of his philosophical argument, is somewhat speculative.

Part 1 – An Introduction to Elitism.

Elitist thought has become apparent many times within philosophical and political history and is of paramount importance when attempting to critique democracy. Elitism is a political standpoint which prioritises a certain group in society above those of others on the simple basis that they are superior. Even in contemporary society, elitism can be seen to have a certain significance, as Anthony Holiday attempts to justify, “It is no accident that the epithet ‘elitist’ has enjoyed such currency, both in the emergent and in the established democracies of our times. Its popularity reflects our disillusionment with the way power is distributed in contemporary democratic practice…” (Holiday, 1998, p. 243). Elitism, in the context of this essay, emphasises the belief that there are those in society of who command greater stature in the governing of the populace. This could be in terms of their intellect, political wisdom or indeed any attribute which raises their position in society above that of the ordinary citizen. It is this sense of hierarchy that has led elitists and those who believe in the concept, to believe that they should be the ones who control most power in a society and in some cases also, to be the ones who govern. This is the point which Plato picks up on with regards to the notion of philosopher kings; the wise rulers who he believes would be best suited to the job of governance. However, Plato was not the only elitist philosopher and although there are seldom few in contemporary society who may be convinced by such argument, elitist principles were plentiful throughout the history of political philosophy. Thinkers such as Joseph Schumpeter and Max Weber have, far more recently than Plato, showed support for an elitist form of government. Held outlines a Schumpeterian position, “In Schumpeter’s democratic system, the only full participants are the members of political elites in parties and in public offices” (Held, 2006, p. 156). Both from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Weber and Schumpeter were advocates of a system of competitive elitism. Competitive elitism outlines the idea that the best society can hope for is to have strong individual leaders. Schumpeter goes on to argue that political decisions should not be made by the populace as they do not have the required credentials to govern, Held says of Schumpeterian democracy, “The role of ordinary citizens is not highly delimited, but it is frequently portrayed as an unwanted infringement on the smooth functioning of ‘public’ decision-making” (Held, 2006, p. 156). The Schumpeterian argument suggests that the populace should have only one decision to make, that being which of two competing elites they would prefer to govern. Using competitive elitism as an example, it is easy to see where elitist thought stems from as both of these core principles share similarities to a Platonic style of government. Crucially however, it does have a significantly different take on what elitism is especially when contrasted to Plato. This is because Plato believes that rulers were the only members of society who could seek a truth in politics and because of this, were the only individuals capable of governance. Nevertheless, it is still interesting to see that elitist thought and the criticism of democracy still lives strong over two thousand years after Plato’s death. Plato, along with his mentor Socrates, is believed to be the most significant of all early political philosophers and is often credited with being the first to truly challenge democracy.

Born in Athens, around 429bc, Plato was brought up by a family who were deeply involved in the politics of the time. It was imagined that Plato himself would follow his father’s path, in order to participate in Athenian democracy. Much changed however, as Plato developed his own ideas and opinions on what Athenian democracy was and what he believed the alternative model should be. As with any human being, life experiences shape who that person becomes and certainly there were particular events in Plato’s life which may have changed the way he viewed the world. Chief among which was the death of his mentor Socrates, this devastated Plato and ever since appeared to determined to revolutionise the political system and create sound foundations for the future (Boucher, 2009). Socrates, despite his apparent influence on Plato, never once wrote a single piece of literature. Nevertheless, Plato bases much of his democratic argument on the teachings of Socrates which were made all the more powerful and relevant when he was put to death at the hands of the Athenian political system. Boucher says of Socrates, “His ideas, especially those depicting in the so-called Socratic dialogues of Plato, raise crucial questions concerning ethics and politics which have become the abiding themes of political theory from more than two thousand years” (Boucher, 2009, p. 48). Socrates was killed because of an accusation that he was corrupting youths; Plato strongly disagreed with this verdict and thus developed a hatred for the democratic system that had executed his mentor. Many of Socrates’ actions were intent on inspiring the established order and rising above the government, although this did often mean combating many who opposed him (Tarrant, 1993). Tarrant comments, “Socrates was an outstanding Athenian, and he paid the price for being one” (Tarrant, 1993, p. 30). So instead of following the predicted path into Athenian politics, Plato turned to philosophy where Socrates’ death taught Plato two things. Firstly, he believed that the citizens of Athens did not have the ability to govern and secondly that philosophers should govern instead; these two factors then become the centre piece of a Platonic society, his ideal form of democracy.

Part 2 – Plato’s critique of Athenian democracy and his ideal form of society.

This section will demonstrate Plato’s opposition to Athenian democracy before outlining the main aspects of Plato’s alternative system of government. The section will also show how radical Plato’s philosophy must have been, especially when contrasting his position to that of the system in place at the time. Athenian democracy is, although heavily criticised by Plato, of paramount importance when explaining his alternative model of government. This is because many of the features of a Platonic society come from Plato’s critiques of the Athenian form of a direct democracy. Athenian democracy was based around the idea of citizenship and ensured that all judicial or political decisions were made by the citizens of Athens, although citizenship itself was extremely limited to just a select few in society. In order to become a citizen at this time, you had to be born in Athens, be over twenty years of age, male and have plenty of spare leisure time to enact your duties. Such was the citizens’ domination of governing process, Held describes it as, “The legendary democracy was intimately connected to what one might call the ‘tyranny of citizens” (Held, 2006, p. 19). That is to say that the citizens were the dominant entity in society and fully controlled the democratic system especially in decision making, such were the properties of this form of direct democracy. Political power at this time truly was spread around the populace. Plato disagreed with this rule by citizenship as he believed that the ordinary citizens did not have the correct credentials to govern, this being just one critique that Plato later uses to form part of his ideal form of society. Kaplan argues a point that, “…the polis itself can be understood as a system regulating the expression of such passions by citizens, not by suppression but through the elaborate choreography of anger and pity in arenas of collective decision.” (Kaplan, 2002, p. 452). This point expands on the issue of the tyranny of citizens as it emphasises that the system in place did not suppress the desires of the citizens, rather it encouraged their decision making through any means possible. Athenian democracy demanded unity and solidarity from its member citizens however, whilst also seeking participation and public deliberation in its decision making. Speaking from the position of a typical Greek citizen, Dahl says, “…so that all citizens can meet together in the assembly and thus act as rulers of the city, but also in order that all citizens may know one another. To seek the good of all, citizens must be able to apprehend the good of each and thus be capable of understanding the common good…” (Dahl, 1989, p. 16). Together with this sense of inclusion and collectiveness of the governing citizens, women, immigrants and slaves were excluded along with many others from Athenian citizenship, meaning that they could take no part in the governing of the populace. Plato challenges this divided society, claiming that no one should be excluded from governing given the correct depth of knowledge, Phillips says, “The ancient Greeks did not see democracy as promising a more general human equality, and it is interesting, in this context, that it was the anti-democratic Plato who queried the exclusion of women from politics, and considered them as legitimate candidates for his elite of Guardians.” (Phillips, 1993, p. 125). Plato instead criticised the citizens whose job it was to govern at that time, Dahl says, “…claiming to represent Socrates, about how silly it is to expect ordinary people to rule wisely and how much better Athens would be if it were governed by wise philosophers…” (Dahl, 1989, p. 15). Plato believed that figures known to him as the Philosopher Kings should instead govern as they were in many ways different to ordinary members of the populace.

According to Plato, people were split into three categories according to their most dominant desires. Whether having appetitive, spirited or rational desires, all had significance when distributing power across the just city (Boucher, 2009). An appetitive desire would be the simple things in life or basic necessities such as wealth, food, drink and sex with the typical occupation being a worker or farmer. Plato argued that everyone in society had these kinds of desires, and indeed all three types, but it was those who prioritised their rational desires that should be considered the most important in this context. Someone who prioritised spirited desires would most likely be a soldier or police and would aspire to succeed, be victorious, whilst also taking great care of their reputation (Boucher, 2009). Someone who prioritised their rational desires however, as Plato argues, would care little for these more personal of victories and were more likely to emphasise the bigger picture in their quest for a truth. As Boucher argues, “Without rational order, then, there would be no truth, and so no knowledge.” (Boucher, 2009, p. 67). Indeed, according to Plato, it was only those who valued rational desires who could find the truth in politics and thus it should be only the philosopher kings who are allowed to govern. Plato says in his work ‘The Republic, “Anyone who is going to be a truly good guardian of our community, then, will have a philosophers love of knowledge, and will be passionate, quick on his feet, and strong” (Plato, 1993, p. 69). This epitomises Plato’s craft analogy which in fact originates from the teachings of Socrates.  It is based around the idea that only those who are skilful in their work or craft have the capacity to realize a truth. Socrates, in a more liberal fashion, argues that these positions are open to anyone in society, whereas Plato argues that only political elite should rule (Plato, 1993). Plato’s idea of the noble lie also helps to explain the need for this sense of hierarchy; it does this by attempting to justify the positioning of the people in Plato’s ideal society. Plato says of the purpose of the noble lie, “so that with a single noble lie we can indoctrinate the rulers…” (Plato, 1993, p. 118). The noble lie would be expressed by the rulers of society and states that somebody’s status in a Platonic society, determined by their desire, was out of their control and is not due to their upbringing or depth of education. Instead, the noble lie claims that these positions were determined by god and that only god can distinguish between the people. Plato says, “God included gold in the mixture when he was forming those of you who have what it takes to be rulers, silver when he was forming the auxiliaries, and iron and copper when he was forming the farmers…” (Plato, 1993, p. 119). Plato believes the noble lie to be deeply necessary and that it would have to continue in order to keep the peace in his perfect society, or the Kallipolis.

This then, brings in the notion of the state as the individual writ large. Plato believed that the most important people in society were those that valued reason and as such, it should be this impulse that governs all internally. The analogy of the cave is a good explanation of this. It depicts a group of slaves who have been tied down to one position in a cave for their entire lives and left to stare only at a blank, back-lit wall. Through the use of fire and random objects, the prisoner’s captors could portray a form of life to the prisoners by using the shadows on the wall. Without ever being able to move, the prisoners would believe this to be the real world. As Barnes argues, “Plato appears, then, to oscillate between two thoughts: the puppets are truer than the shadows, or the puppets are closer to the truth than the shadows” (Barnes, 2011, p. 82). What distinguishes a philosopher king, according to Plato, is that they would always seek the truth from whatever world they found themselves in. As the analogy continues, one of the prisoners one day is released from his capture and leaves the cave to discover the real world; leaving the rest of the prisoners behind as he slowly begins to believe in the real world. Plato also knew however, that not everyone was capable of achieving this and here brings about the divisions he sees in society. Nevertheless, Plato still believed that it should be the impulse to find a truth or an individual’s rational desires that should govern the individual internally. Therefore, those who did value this should also be the ones governing in society in order to achieve effective government. Plato believed that more people needed to start thinking in this way and the way in which to achieve this would be through education, a large factor in Plato’s ideal society. Indeed it is believed that all member citizens were to receive some form of education, otherwise producers such as farmers would never learn how to farm (Barrow, 1975). Barrow goes on, “All we can safely say is that Plato chooses to concentrate on outlining the education of the Guardians…” (Barrow, 1975, p. 22). The young in society were of particular importance to Plato as they are more easily influenced and could potentially adapt to more rational thoughts, all of which could help them to eventually reach the status of a philosopher king. As Benson explains, “The young guardians who will be responsible for the city’s well-being must receive an education that properly forms their characters. In Plato’s view the young soul is impressionable and capable of being molded by any material that comes its way.” (Benson, 2006, p. 389). Another reason for targeting young people was that Plato was afraid of them developing new revolutionary ideas for themselves and causing rebellion. The job of governance under a Platonic style of government would therefore, for the time being, be kept well away from the young for this very reason.

Plato’s ideal form of society would follow a reasonably strict structure, according mostly to an individual’s appetitive, spirited or rational desires. According to Plato, although this point is much disputed, philosopher kings would never govern in the name of themselves. Instead they would act for the good of the city, with Plato claiming that the idea of justice would have a massive impact upon their decisions, as White explains, “But it turns out that he does not think that there is no other motivation working in favour of justice. Indeed, he thinks that being just can involve clear-cut sacrifice of one’s own good” (White, 1979, p. 103). Consequently, the lives of the philosopher kings would be severely compromised such is the cost of wielding power. In order to become a philosopher king in a Platonic society, one must not have any possessions and be able to accept an almost communist lifestyle. A philosopher king would not be allowed to have family or own a property or indeed anything which could influence their decisions as a ruler. Dahl summarises  the nature of the philosopher kings, “… be completely devoted to the search for truth and, like true philosophers, discern more clearly than all others what is best for the community, but they must also be wholly dedicated to achieving that end and therefore must possess no interests of their own inconsistent with the good of the polis.” (Dahl, 1989, p. 53). A Platonic style of government would have been a big departure from what was currently in place at the time and as such, these measures would have been necessary at the time in order to avoid any complications. Plato’s suggested form of society plays heavily on his belief that there is a truth to be found in every aspect of life and especially politics. Plato argues that in order for something to exist as an object, or idea, there must an ideal form of it. This brings around Plato’s theory of the forms and the form of the good, White explains the forms in relation to the philosopher kings and their responsibilities, “Understanding of the forms is said to be necessary for the rulers to know the Good and to perform their task of ruling properly” (White, 1979, p. 30). That is to say that Plato believes that there is a right and correct way to govern, he prophesises about an ideal form of government but also many false versions of government. As white explains, “… Plato is willing to say that in a certain manner sensibles are copies or imitations of Forms, suggesting that they have a resemblance to the Forms but that they fall short of perfect likeness” (White, 1979, p. 37). Plato argues that the only wise philosophers can distinguish between a correct and incorrect form of government. Therefore the ideal form of government would be controlled by those who could seek a truth and were internally governed as such, the philosopher kings. As Plato argues, “…if we can show that some people are made to practice philosophy and to be political leaders, while others shouldn’t engage in philosophy and should follow a leader” (Plato, 1993, p. 193). This area of the essay has examined how an Athenian democracy conflicts with the ideas behind Plato’s ideal form of society, with Plato laying out an extensive argument as to why he believes the Athenian system is wrong.

Part 3 – The Critiques of Plato

This part of the essay will now examine some critiques of Plato’s philosophy, put forward by other thinkers such as Popper, Foucault and Aristotle. Aristotle, a student of Plato’s until his death, criticised some of Plato’s philosophy. Even though his own work ‘Politics’ shares more than a passing resemblance to Plato’s work ‘The Republic’ (Davis, 1905). Aristotle takes opposition to Plato’s theory that there can only be one true form of government, as Aristotle argues that there can be many; such are the liberties of freedom. Aristotle says, “Of democracy and all other forms of government there are many kinds” (Aristotle, 1905, p. 237). Aristotle also rejects Plato’s mentor Socrates and his position on this, “Finally, although there are many forms of oligarchies and democracies, Socrates speaks of their revolutions as though there were only one form of them” (Aristotle, 1905, p. 236). Unlike Plato then, who claims that Philosopher Kings are the only controllers of society, Aristotle speaks of a possible revolution against the state. He argues that should man be wronged or deprived of honours, they are likely to cause revolution; revolution which could change the form of government (Aristotle, 1905). Therefore implying that there cannot be a true form of government as Plato depicts, as such a system may be subject to change. Foucault also has objections to there being an idea of one single truth in politics. Foucault argues that there are truths to be found within the systems of society, surrounding the issues of power, but that there is no universal truth that could govern society or the individual internally as Plato claims. Foucault understands truth as, “…a system of ordered procedures for the production, regulation, distribution, circulation and operation of statements.” (Foucault, 1980, p.131). This leads onto Foucault’s claims about a regime of truth, which claims that our visions of truth may change with the progression of society. That is to say that what could be viewed as true today might not be in years to come. Foucault also says, “Truth is a thing of this world: it is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of constraint.” (Foucault, 1980, p. 131). Thus meaning that, according to Foucault, truth as a concept is limited by society rather than society being limited by truth; the notion which shapes Plato’s philosophy. There are many critiques of Plato scouring political philosophy, with opposition attacking most aspects of his ideal form of society. However, it is Karl Popper who offers up perhaps the most substantial critiques of Plato in his book ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies’.  Rather than having a specific objection to Plato’s usage of the word truth, Popper claims simply that Plato’s philosophy is untrue for a number of reasons. Firstly, Popper has much objection to the governance of the philosopher kings, claiming that this regime is totalitarian, “In spite of such arguments I believe that Plato’s political programme, far from being morally superior to totalitarianism, is fundamentally identical with it” (Popper, 1945, p. 87). Furthermore, Popper claims that the philosopher kings would, despite the idealistic view of Plato, eventually govern in the name of themselves. Popper also indirectly critiques Plato on the notion of the noble lie, claiming that someone who values truth so much could not also include a lie in his philosophy, without ulterior motives. In turn Popper believes that Plato’s whole philosophy, including his ideal form of society, is nothing more than propaganda or a manifesto for himself. Popper says, “To me the only likely reply seems to be that he wanted to make propaganda for his totalitarian state by persuading the people that it was the ‘just’ state” (Popper, 1945, p. 92). Of the many critiques that Popper labels Plato with, it is this one which suggests that Plato’s work ‘The Republic’ is simply a personal step towards power which is the most significant. It could be viewed however, that such is the difference between ancient Greek society and that of today, that more modern critiques from such as Foucault or Popper may lack credibility due to the fact that they were formed long since the relevant context. It is Aristotle then who has the greatest platform on which to critique Plato but seeing as, rather ironically, that his teachings bear much resemblance to those of Plato, his standpoint lacks a little authenticity also. Nevertheless, this part of the essay has outlined a small number of many critiques levelled at Plato, all of which are significant and could be used to legitimately critique Plato’s ideal form of society.

This essay has analysed elitist thought at different stages throughout philosophical and political history. Schumpeter’s more modern preference towards a system of competitive elitism could be viewed as taking inspiration from a Platonic style of elitism. Plato offers up a distinct and measured approach in his elitist critique of democracy. His view that philosopher kings should rule along with the interesting sociological theories such as the craft analogy and noble lie provide, what could be seen as, an effective alternative to ancient Athenian democracy. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the ancient Athenian democracy of which Plato speaks of was somewhat flawed in its democratic outlook due to the level of inequality in its citizenship. There have been nevertheless, many critiques levelled at Plato from differing era’s and philosophical perspectives; all of which offer substantial literature in their undermining of Plato’s view of an ideal form of society. To conclude, although Plato outlines an extensive alternative to what he viewed as unfair Athenian society, it is my opinion that his fixation with certain elites discovering a truth is somewhat idealistic in his hatred of Athenian democracy.

Bibliography

Books

Aristotle. (1905), Politics, London: Oxford University Press.

Aristotle. (1959), Politics, London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.

Boucher D (2009), Political Thinkers From Socrates to the Present, Second Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cartledge P. (2009), Ancient Greek Political Thought in Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dahl R. (1989), Democracy and Its Critics, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Foucault M. (1980), Power/Knowledge, New York: Pantheon Books.

Held D. (2006), Models of Democracy, Third Edition, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Phillips A. (1993), Democracy and Difference, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania University Press.

Plato. (1993), Republic, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Plato and Tarrant H. (1993), The Last Days of Socrates, Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd.

Popper K. R. (1945), The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 The Spell of Plato, Fifth Edition, London: Routledge & Keegan Paul Ltd.

White N. (1979), A Companion to Plato’s Republic, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Inc.

Zakopoulos A. (1975), Plato on Man, New York: Philosophical Library Inc.

Journals

Holiday H. (1998), ‘Political Education and Platonic Elitism’, Studies in Philosophy and Education, Vol 17, pp. 243 – 250.

Kaplan M. (2002), ‘Rethinking Athenian Democracy’, Political Theory, Vol 30, No. 3, pp. 449 – 453.

Online

Barnes J. (2011), Method and Metaphysics, Google Books [online], Available at: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=28h6x7HQosgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=method+and+metaphysics&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Jd2eT5yIJMSq0QXPp6jjDg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=method%20and%20metaphysics&f=false

Barrow R. (1975), Plato, utilitarianism and education, Google Books [online], Available at: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Kdo9AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=plato+utilitarianism+and+education&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2d2eT_fCIaX80QXM0O2WDw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=plato%20utilitarianism%20and%20education&f=false

Benson H. (2006), A Companion to Plato, Google Books [online], Available at : http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4ppmQoLfvhUC&dq=A+Companion+to+Plato+benson+2006&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WuKeT4j6JuO10QWd-9jwDg&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA

Schumpeter and Democracy

Is having competing elites the best that we can hope for in a democracy?

The views of Joseph Schumpeter offer an interesting perspective on democracy. He is of elitist thought and believes that only elites in society should govern. Schumpeter sets out a credible argument as to why he believes this, looking at the role of the citizen and the way a democracy should be run. Schumpeter believes that the only purpose of democracy in society is to aid in decision making. In many ways, the democratic theory set out by Schumpeter can be likened to the model that is representative democracy. This is because the representative view sees one individual being allowed to represent many in a political system, the individual being the elite as in Schumpeter’s ideals. It will also be important to offer the contrasting views of philosophers such as Burke and crucially Rousseau, a proponent of direct democracy. This essay will attempt to balance the argument between Schumpeterian elitism and the more direct approach to democracy but also to examine how closely related representative democracy is to Schumpeter’s ideals.

The Austrian Joseph Schumpeter worked and lived for most of his life in the USA and is considered as one of the major political thinkers in the twentieth century, with regards to economics and most prominently democracy. His most famous work written in 1942, ‘Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy’ debates how socialism and democracy could coexist but also outlines his theory on democracy or as he claims the ‘theory of competitive leadership’ (Swedberg, 1991). Schumpeter therefore lays claim to being an elitist; that is to say he favours the rule of knowledgeable elites in society. He shares this view with Max Weber who determined a system of ‘competitive elitism’, the model that Schumpeter’s theory on democracy is closely aligned to (Held, 1987). It would be inaccurate however to brandish all elitists as one and the same as elitist thought has come about at many different points in history, where the meaning of elitism might be slightly different given the relevant contexts. Schumpeter also claims to be a realist in outlook, a point that cannot be contested given that all his opinions are based on fact. Wedberg adds, “… but he also took a certain pride in not letting his prejudices interfere with his better judgement” (Swedberg, 1991, p. 141).

Representative democracy is the core foundation for Schumpeter’s theory on democracy and is still present today in varied forms all around the world. It is often seen as a response to a more direct system of democracy as Held states, “Representative government overcomes the excesses of pure democracy because elections themselves force a clarification of public issues…” (Held, 1987, p. 64). The ideal behind representative democracy is that one person or politician should be able to represent many people in an institution such as a parliament. It could be suggested that these people are similar to the elites of which Schumpeter speaks of and could enact any of the three main underpinnings of representative democracy as single entities. These are the mandate to govern, the ability and power to speak on behalf of others and the literal representation of people like themselves, this could be racial or gender specific for example. In contemporary society, constituents rely on mandated representatives to bring their views and specific topics to Parliament. Although as Phillips says, “Democracy as we know it emerged through a dual shift – from direct to representative democracy, and from a politics of the common good to a politics of individual protection” (Phillips, 1993, p. 124). Many of today’s mp’s are influenced by greater powers such as their party and the opinion of the general public. Just because a topic may be important to a particular constituency doesn’t mean it is to the rest of the country or that the issue is in accordance to the party line. This is so often a critique of singular rulers and so can be applied to a Schumpeterian argument. Pitkin explains that, “The representative must act independently; his action must involve discretion and judgement; he must be the one who acts” (Pitkin, 1967, p. 209). The ultimate decision on whether to raise an issue to parliament is left down to one single individual who may have an alternative opinion on the matter and therefore does not fairly represent the majority. Edmund Burke, seen as an elitist and as one of the founding fathers of conservative thought, picks up on this critique of mandated representatives. Pitkin states, “For Burke, political representation is the representation of interest, and interest has an objective, impersonal, unattached reality” (Pitkin, 1967, p. 168). Burke, who despite being known to show a disregard for public opinion, claims that this system would create a parliamentary battleground where nothing gets done, which in turn could prove problematic for the interests and unity of a country. Despite this view, the representative argument still remains strong especially when taking into account contemporary politics. As a nation we appear broadly happy with the level of democracy that we currently have. It also allows the electorate a certain platform on which to scrutinise the government. This is mostly through media outlets and question sessions for which representatives of each major party can display their party policies. Thus, a Schumpeterian argument that claims that elitist rule is the best we can hope for, certainly does have contemporary relevance and can be likened towards today’s society.

Schumpeter’s argument does well to build on the basic underpinnings of representative democracy despite certain critiques on the core foundations of the system. For Schumpeter, democracy is simply a method or a way in which to arrive at a political decision. At his time of living, Schumpeter thought that political was too normative and did not represent the reality of what was going on in society. Wedberg says, “Schumpeter, as we know, develops his own theory of democracy in contrast to what he called ‘the classical doctrine of democracy’” (Swedberg, 1991, p. 162). He also claims that democracy should be fought out between just two political entities. That is to say two political parties and its leaders or, as Schumpeter would argue, political elites. Schumpeter’s view on the role of the citizen in a democratic society is what is often thought to set him apart. Similarly to Burke, Schumpeter believes that citizens do not have credible enough opinions to allow them access to directly influence democracy. Instead, the role of the citizen is simply to choose which one of the two available candidates they prefer and give them a mandate to govern. According to Schumpeter, “Democracy does not mean and cannot mean that the people actually rule in any obvious sense of terms ‘people’ and ‘rule’. Democracy means only that the people have the opportunity of accepting or refusing the men who are to rule them.… Now one aspect of this may be expressed by saying that democracy is the rule of the politician.” (Schumpeter, 1942, pp. 284-5). As such, Schumpeterian democracy avoids any left wing ideals that would prefer more public participation. Instead the elites in a Schumpeterian society would govern on behalf of the people, as in representative democracy, where, as Schumpeter claims ‘democracy is the rule of the politician’ (Held, 1987). That is to say that the populace should have no fear of an elitist society and that Schumpeterian democracy will always avoid tyrannical leaders as the public vote will always have the initial choice between two candidates. Held states, “The development of competing parties irreversibly changes the nature of parliamentary politics. Party machines sweep aside traditional affiliations and establish themselves as centres of loyalty, displacing others as the key basis of national politics” (Held, 1987, p. 156). Schumpeter argues that once this choice is made, politicians or the elites left in charge should be allowed to govern as they see fit. This view could be likened to Plato and his theory of the philosopher kings as Schumpeter believes that future decisions should be left to those who know best and have the greatest knowledge. Held comments on Plato, “Plato’s position, in brief, is that the problems of the world cannot be resolved until philosophers rule; for only they, when fully educated and trained, have the capacity to harmonize all elements of human life under ‘the rule of wisdom’” (Held, 1987, p. 31). Although Schumpeter does not claim that elites have a god given right of power in the same way Plato claims, Schumpeter does claim though that an elitist form of democracy is the best we can hope for. He argues this not simply because it favours those seen as greatest in society but because democracy does not imply that people should have direct access to power, just that they can choose who has it. It should be important to the people thereafter that society is run effectively and thus, those who have the most knowledge should govern to ensure success.

The alternative to a representative form of government such as Schumpeter’s would be to involve more people in politics and increase participation. This brings the theories on democracy back to Schumpeter’s rather specific critique on what democracy is and what he believes the alternative should be. Nevertheless, direct democracy is a well known and credible model of democracy and can be used to further critique Schumpeter and representative democracy. As Dahl argues, “These institutions of representative democracy removed government so far from the direct reach of the demos that one could reasonably wonder, as some critics have, whether the new system was entitled to call itself by the venerable name of democracy” (Dahl, 1989, p. 30). Direct democracy offers up a form of democracy in its purest form and allows for a completely fair society. In a direct democracy, political participation would be of vital importance in order to come to decisions which could affect the lives of the populace. This is in stark contrast to today’s society which offers little in the way of participation for the ordinary member of the community. Furthermore as Rousseau argues, there would be increased deliberation to ensure the safe passage of changes to constitutional law; a power which would be vested in the people. Medding argues, “Democracy, it is claimed, demands the direct participation of all citizens in decision making, with issues being decided after careful reasoned, informed, and widespread public discussion” (Medding, 1969, p. 642). Issues of importance would be weighted in accordance to the amount of support showed for it by the people. Boucher says of Rousseau, “He argued against the principle of deputies, or representatives, ridiculing the British system in being free only at the time of elections. He argued that sovereignty cannot be represented…” (Boucher, 2009, p. 275). Above all a direct democracy would introduce at least a sense of equality which would allow everyone in a society to be heard. The Schumpeterian argument would take issue with allowing such political freedom to the people, as he believes only those with knowledge on issues should be allowed to take action regarding them.

To conclude, Schumpeter makes a compelling argument that competing elites are the best we can hope for in a democracy. Schumpeter is perfectly justified in making this claim, as he believes that this is the better compromise in order to achieve an effective form of government. Schumpeter’s model of democracy shows similarities towards a Platonic style of government, Max Weber’s vision of competitive elitism but mostly toward representative democracy, the model on which it is based. Schumpeter believes that a democracy is simply a method toward decision and that the populace should be happy to choose who they want to make such decisions, without having to make them themselves. Schumpeter’s theory therefore would be opposed by proponents of direct democracy such as Rousseau and would be criticised for not offering enough public participation. Although it is difficult to apply a theory like Schumpeter’s to contemporary society because of the relative contexts, it is easy to take the view that we are currently living in a similar system or at least one where we are represented by individuals. Although the elites in society are not so pre-determined, the electorate is still often left with a choice between just two realistic candidates for election. Despite this, representative democracy still lives strong today and does give the electorate a well exercised platform on which to scrutinise a government. On the whole we have very little problems with the current level of democracy, with governments remaining strong and decisive. According to Boucher, “Given what we know about human nature and its ability to exploit the institutional opportunities of government, a representative democracy with the appropriate liberal constitutional structure is the only appropriate way for the greatest happiness to emerge” (Boucher, 2009, p. 358). In my opinion a Schumpeterian theory is perhaps too extreme for today’s society and as such a representative form of democracy, from which Schumpeter’s theory stemmed, is probably the best we can hope for considering the repercussions of an alternative system.

Bibliography

Books

Boucher D. & Kelly P., (2009), Political Thinkers From Socrates to the Present, Second Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dahl R., (1989), Democracy and its Critics, London: Yale University Press.

Held D., (1987), Models of Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Phillips, (1993), Democracy and Difference, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Pitkin H., (1967), The Concept of Representation, London: University of California Press.

Saward M., (2007), Democracy, London: Routledge.

Schumpeter J., (1943), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Google Books [online], Available at: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6eM6YrMj46sC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Swedberg R., (1991), Joseph A. Schumpeter His Life and Work, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Journals

Cunningham S., (2010), ‘Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, socialism, and democracy’, International Journal of Cultural Policy, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp. 20-22.

Medding P., (1969), ‘Elitist Democracy: An Unsuccessful Critique of a Misunderstood Theory’, The Journal of Politics, Volume 31, No. 3, pp. 641-654.

Medearis J., (2002), ‘Joseph Schumpeter’s Two Theories of Democracy’, American Political Science Review, Volume 96, Issue 04, pp. 805-806.

Websites

J S. Mill, (1861), Representative Government, [online] Available at: http://www.constitution.org/jsm/rep_gov.htm.