Many great minds have plenty of bad things to say about democracy, but what about the people who think it is great?
We have explained before that some of the greatest thinkers in history found reasons to reject democracy. Their critiques were many, and often very well thought out. Even for the most ardent supporter of democratic ideals, their arguments must give us pause and lead us to reflect on our notions of government and society.
Socrates had several issues with democracy, most of them stemming from events that took place during his lifetime in Athens. Some of the decisions made by the Athenian democracy were rather insane and made by a body politic that had no business trying to determine foreign policy. Socrates is depicted in Plato's Republic as favoring a totalitarian regime managed by iron-fisted philosopher kings, in which all citizens are raised to fit a particular role, the state regulates bedtime stories, and harmony between individual and society reigns supreme.
His objections to democracy are countered in the works of John Stuart Mill, whose love of democracy is as great as Socrates' hatred of it.
John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher in the 19th century who is best known for his work on utilitarianism, though his writings span an incredible range of topics. His ideas on democracy, liberty, and the benefits of both are laid out in two of his works; On Liberty, and Considerations on Representative Government.
What does he have to tell us?
While Mill agrees that the unwashed masses should not have absolute power, in Considerations on Representative Government he argues for a giving the votes of the educated more weight than anybody else’s; he counters Socrates' idea of the philosopher king with an observation on what happens to the citizens of a "good" despotism. Seeing the society they would rule as being:
"One man of superhuman mental activity managing the entire affairs of a mentally passive people. Their passivity is implied in the very idea of absolute power. The nation as a whole, and every individual composing it, are without any potential voice in their own destiny. They exercise no will in respect to their collective interests. All is decided for them by a will not their own, which it is legally a crime for them to disobey. What sort of human beings can be formed under such a regimen? What development can either their thinking or their active faculties attain under it?"
The population living in a despotic society would be reduced to unthinking drones who need only enough mental capacity to get their daily chores done. Only a democracy can produce citizens capable of enough cognitive power to maintain a democracy, argues Mill, by requiring them to use that mental ability. He notes with envy that while the typical English voter only had to be prepared to vote and serve on a jury, the typical Athenian had to be ready to serve in nearly any office that existed. Mill sees this as a mostly good thing, as it requires the Athenian to be more fully developed as a person in order to fill those roles.
Could a Socrates have been produced in Sparta? Mill thinks not, despite Socrates' praise for the Spartan government.
Democracy is great and all, but why is freedom good?
In On Liberty, Mill argues that we all need the freedom to choose our lifestyles. This is vital, as without this liberty people will be stifled and unable to explore new ideas, make discoveries, and fully develop as people. In a society where we must all follow the same religion, value the same things, and enjoy the same hobbies, individualism can never flourish. Mill sees this as a horrible situation, explaining that:
"It is only the cultivation of individuality which produces, or can produce, well developed human beings." and "In proportion to the development of his individuality, each person becomes more valuable to himself, and therefore capable of being more valuable to others."*
In Considerations on Representative Government, he notes that the best defense of liberty is an active population working inside of a democratic system. Mill allows us to connect the dots. Only a democratic government can safeguard freedom, and only a free society can hope to promote the development of the individual. The development of the individual is both good by itself and as a means to other ends. We, therefore, need democracy to help individualism and self-development to flourish and the world to progress.
But democracy can lead to such dangerous outcomes! Look to Athens and their mob!
Mill understands that people might make bad choices when they vote. However, he points out that the United Kingdom and the United States of the 19th century were doing rather well compared to the authoritarian states of Eastern Europe and Asia. He also reminded us that Athens, even with occasional lapses in judgment, produced much greater men than did any of the other Greek city-states. Liberty gives positive results, so it seems.
So, was Socrates just wrong about everything?
It is important to remember, however, that Mill was a progressive. He saw the march of history as moving ever forward and the ideal society as one that understood this progress was possible and promoted it. The ancient Greeks were interested in harmony, and in the Republic Plato built a utopia that would remain harmonious for the longest time possible. They even went so far as to define justice as harmony between parts of the whole, both for people and cities. The goals of Mill and Socrates differ considerably, and this must be remembered when comparing their worldviews.
Socrates offers us some excellent critiques of democracy. The problem of properly educating the voters, the threats of demagoguery, and the insistence that the people with direct power should be enlightened are all valuable insights. However, Mill shows us how democracy, flawed as it may be, offers us the best opportunity for growth as individuals and as a society. If, of course, we are willing to do what it takes to make democracy work.
*Mill was a utilitarian. He firmly believed that democracy and freedom lead to better outcomes and more happiness than tyranny. A common objection to utilitarian endorsements to democracy is that if it could be proven that oppression leads to better results, we would be morally obligated to institute that instead. Mill does dodge this problem, somewhat, by placing a high value on individualism. A high enough value, perhaps, to always make the math come down on the side of liberty. If this solves the problem or not is another issue.
Millions of Muslims marched to Karbala, Iraq even after suicide bombing and continued threats by ISIL. The Arbaeen pilgrimage continues to be a show of religious freedom.
While many in America were gathering around the table with family to give thanks this November, many in Iraq were making the pilgrimage to Karbala to mark Arbaeen. Under threat of ISIL attacks, millions of Shia Muslims continue to make the peaceful journey to mark the death of Imam Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammed, in 680 AD during a battle.
This event is considered to be a defining moment, which formed the schism between Sunni and Shia Muslims. ISIL considers Shia Muslims apostates. They have claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing which killed six people near Karbala at the start of the festival on Monday, November 14. But this act did not deter the masses making their way to Karbala.
The people who marched to mourn the death of Imam Hussein continued to do so peacefully, standing against ISIL in this powerful gesture made by millions of Muslims.
Year over year, the gathering in Karbala during Arbaeen continues to grow. In 2014 estimates range from 20 to 22 million and in 2015 the transit department says the number of people at the event could have been as high as 26 million. This event is not to be confused with the Muslim Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca.
“In fact, Arbaeen should be listed in the Guinness Book of World Records in several categories: biggest annual gathering, longest continuous dining table, largest number of people fed for free, largest group of volunteers serving a single event, all under the imminent threat of suicide bombings,” Faith leader and lecturer Sayed Mahdi al-Modarresi wrote for The Huffington Post back in 2014.
“I think the reason the mainstream media hasn’t covered the [march] is because I don’t think it's juicy enough to sell papers,” Mohammed Al-Sharifi, a volunteer at last year’s event, told the Independent in 2015. “It's simply not interesting enough."
"Unfortunately [some] media outlets have gone for stories that to some extent can be divisive. If a group of Muslims do something good, it's not mentioned or the religion is not mentioned. But if someone does something [negative], it is on the front page and their religion is mentioned."
Given the level of anti-muslim rhetoric during the presidential campaign, we might have expected it to be a larger part of the news cycle. Arbaeen has such a deep and profound political dimensions. Under Saddam Hussein’s reign for 30 years, this festival was forbidden in Iraq. After the 2003 invasion, the march held new meaning. It served as a way to mourn the Imam and celebrate the Shias' new religious freedom. Even before the war, many would make the pilgrimage in secret.
This month ISIL tried to stamp out the celebration, threatening this show of religious freedom. But millions of Shia Muslims defied this terrorist organization and walked in peace towards Karbala in a show of defiance and commitment to their faith.