Analysis Of Plato's Republic: The Bad Cons Of Democracy

1841 Words8 Pages
In Plato’s Republic he offers several critiques of Democracy believing it is inefficient and leads to these known bad forms of government such as tyranny and oligarchy. Plato drives hard on Democracy’s excessive freedom and inherent class tensions, which both lead to issues within the state. These critiques Plato reveals will provide a persuasive case considering the well-known Democracy as an actual inherently bad form of government.
Plato had a large problem with the tensions Democracy would bring to the city. Plato believed in a hierarchy principle more so then feeding into our desires. Our desires here would be freedom, which Plato also sees as a threat to society in that excessive obsessions with freedom will lead to anarchy and tyranny.
…show more content…
Either way in an unstable government, the poor people will get angry that they are not being helped and will rise and rage until the unmotivated leaders give in. In any case, it seems these people have a considerable influence on what happens next, revealing the first signs of a Democracy. The reason these people have the influential power is because of the poor state of the government, their obsession with money weakens them and the power of the poor majority have spoken. Democracy follows the majority opinion, it is being explained above and, in this case, where the poor people in an oligarchy are calling out for help, those with the most money and appeal will take charge, because who else is. This is Plato’s first problem with Democracy as it calls for a leader and role models to be the people with the most appeal. Anyway, this “leader” in a Democracy is trying to appeal to the pubic and the poor, but who is to say these people have the true and honest opinion that Plato’s…show more content…
Where the majority is ruling, the people must now be examined even further of course to determine the condition of the state, since Plato believes the care of the soul and the care of the city to be alike. Socrates imagines three types of people in a Democracy, the lazy extravagant people, the wealthy, and the average citizens who work and don’t have much money. These three people categorize the differences in opinions and motives of freedom in a Democracy. With the lazy extravagant people, they contain no city power, its simply people fighting for their power if they even bother to care. The wealthy are again the most powerful, and finally the working class, not having much assets or money, the majority and vulnerable part of the state. The working-class live on the idea that all appetites are equal and should be respected and Plato would also argue they are paid enough money and taxed less enough so the government can now run their business side of the city. Considering the political aspect now, these people are still the majority, the voters to decide how the state is run and who is to protect them. Socrates explains after he mentions the difference between unnecessary and necessary appetites: “At all these assertions he shakes his head. He lives from day to day to the end in the gratification of the casual appetites—drinking himself drunk while
Open Document