In the previous discussions, the strengths and weaknesses of democracy were examined. In the next few sections, however, the focus will shift to the critiques of democracy advanced by both classical and modern Western scholars. The Islamic perspective on democracy, its status, and its legal evaluation will be discussed separately and in greater detail at a later stage.
Political scientists have subjected democracy to rigorous criticism, examining it from various perspectives and questioning many of the lofty claims made on its behalf. Some of these criticisms are presented below.
Socrates once remarked: “Is it not a superstition to believe that mere numbers or a majority can produce wisdom?”
Socrates (d. 399 BC), one of the most renowned philosophers in history, is recognized worldwide as a foundational figure in Western philosophy. Some have even referred to him as the “First Teacher.” He believed that when moral and religious restraints are removed in a political system such as democracy, individuals become free to act according to their own desires. As a consequence, education, instead of healing society, may aggravate social conflict and division. According to Socrates, this is one of the fundamental maladies from which democracy suffers. For this reason, he likened democracy to the rule of ignorance and self-interest.
He further stated: “Is it not a superstition to suppose that mere numbers or a majority can create wisdom? Do we not observe throughout the world that the masses are generally more foolish, more violent, and more unjust than the relatively few individuals whom education and knowledge have distinguished from the rest of mankind?” [1]
Plato said, “Democracy is the symbol of the rule of the ignorant.”
Plato (d. 347 BC), the renowned disciple of Socrates, is almost equally famous in the history of philosophy. He regarded democracy as the rule of the uninformed masses, where people lacking justice, moderation, and self-restraint, yet driven by passions and desires, gather to make decisions. According to him, the outcome of such a system is the execution of wise men such as Socrates and the selection of the members of the Athenian Council of Five Hundred by lot. Plato considered the use of the lottery an irrational method, arguing that just as no one would choose a physician or a cook by drawing lots, neither should political leaders be selected in that manner.
Plato’s criticism was that when a person falls ill, they do not ask the majority to determine the nature of the illness; rather, they consult a physician or a qualified expert. Therefore, he questioned why the governance of a state should be entrusted to the opinion of the majority. As he stated, “Democracy is the symbol of the rule of the ignorant.”
He further asserted: “Democracy satisfies the desires of the masses, and its leaders make popular passions the guiding principle of politics.” [2]
Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), one of the most influential figures in Christian political thought, preferred a monarchy limited by law over democracy. He regarded such a form of government as corresponding to God’s sovereignty over the universe, arguing that monarchies are more closely aligned with the natural order, whereas democracies deviate from that order.
Niccolò Machiavelli (d. 1527), the renowned Italian political philosopher, poet, and playwright, is best known for his treatise The Prince. Francis Bacon remarked: “We are indebted to men like Machiavelli for showing us the world of politics and its rulers as they really are, not as they ought to be.”
Machiavelli maintained that “democracy is an unstable form of government and does not preserve the strength of the state, whereas a strong government requires a leader capable of bringing order and stability to political life.” [3]
Thomas Hobbes stated, “Democracy is impracticable because the people are easily deceived by promises.”
Thomas Hobbes (d. 1679) was one of the most prominent European philosophers and political theorists, whose ideas played a major role in the development of modern political science. He preferred absolute monarchy to democracy, believing that monarchy was better suited than any other form of government to preserve public order, peace, and security.
According to Hobbes, democracy, understood as the direct rule of the people through an assembly, is impracticable because ordinary people are primarily concerned with their own personal interests and are therefore easily persuaded by the promises of ambitious politicians. As a result, those whom they elect are not necessarily their true representatives; rather, they are individuals who merely appeal to popular desires and promise to satisfy the demands of the masses. [4]
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who died in 1778, was a renowned philosopher, writer, and Franco-Swiss intellectual. Some of his ideas can be found reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and even in the constitutions of many countries. Rousseau is regarded as one of the intellectual fathers of the French Revolution. He maintained that only the legitimacy of direct and universal voting (direct democracy) can be justified, and nothing beyond that—that is, the people themselves should vote directly on every matter.
“Democrats cannot justify the legitimacy of representative government, or indeed anything less than direct democracy.” [5]
Oswald Spengler (d. 1936) was a prominent German philosopher whose most famous work is The Decline of the West. Spengler recognized what he considered the true position of the people within the structure of democracy, arguing that the real actors in the democratic process are party leaders and those who control the instruments of mass persuasion.
“The truth is that, with the extension of suffrage to the entire population, elections have lost their original meaning; for the people fall into the hands of new powers—namely, party leaders—who impose their own will upon the masses through the use of every available means of propaganda and persuasion.” [6]
Rene Guenon (d. 1951) was one of the most prominent contemporary French philosophers. Like many other critics, he recognized the inherent contradiction within the concept of government “of the people, by the people” and regarded it as logically impossible.
“If we accept that the same fixed and identical individuals can simultaneously be both the rulers and the ruled, we are faced with a contradiction.” [7]
Hannah Arendt (d. 1975) was one of the most influential modern German political philosophers and historians. A Jewish intellectual, she spent many years teaching political theory in the United States.
She observed, “What we today call democracy is a form of government in which a small number of people—at least in theory—govern in the interests of the many. Nevertheless, such a government may be described as oligarchic in the sense that the public good and common freedom have once again become the exclusive privilege of that small minority.” [8]
“Many of the supposedly liberating activities and beliefs of modern society (liberal democracy) are, in reality, the further institutionalization of subtle forms of disciplinary control within a vast prison archipelago.” [9]
John Rawls (d. 2002), often referred to as the philosopher of justice because of his highly influential work, was one of the foremost political philosophers of the twentieth century. Some scholars even regard him as the most prominent figure in twentieth-century political philosophy. For more than fifty years, his influential and widely debated writings have profoundly shaped political philosophy around the world. [10]
“There is no argument demonstrating that whatever the majority wills is necessarily right.”
Alain de Benoist (b. 1943) is a well-known French philosopher, writer, and journalist, widely recognized as one of the leading figures of the Nouvelle Droite (New Right) movement. Like Rousseau, he argues that the legitimacy of democracy cannot be conclusively established.
“All those thinkers who have claimed that democracy is the best form of government have avoided proving the concept of democracy itself. Instead, they have generally relied on comparison, arguing that although democracy has flaws, its flaws are fewer than those of other political systems.” [11]
“Elections and parliamentary politics often enable mediocre and less capable individuals to rise to power. Because large numbers of people participate in political activity, politics tends to become a struggle for the pursuit of personal interests, which in turn encourages demagoguery and ultimately leads to the neglect of the public interest.”
Michael Sandel, a professor at Harvard University, has stated: “In a democratic system, people lose the ability to govern themselves and shape their own destiny.”
Michael Sandel (b. 1953) is a contemporary American political philosopher and professor of government at Harvard University. In 2008, the American Political Science Association (APSA) honored him for his outstanding contributions to teaching. Sandel argues that stripping public life of moral and religious discourse has had disastrous consequences, creating a moral vacuum that is filled by narrow and dogmatic forms of moralism. In light of the current condition and the weaknesses of public life in liberal societies, he maintains that only a return to moral values can fill the void at the heart of modern politics. [12]
“In a democracy, people lose the ability to govern themselves and determine their own destiny.”
Andrew Levine (b. 1948) is an American political theorist and professor emeritus at the University of Maryland, specializing in political theory and the philosophy of the social sciences. He regards democracy as largely rhetorical, arguing that it ultimately leads to the tyranny of the majority, a form of domination that differs little from monarchical dictatorship.
“If we closely examine the defining institutions of liberal democracies, together with their indispensable institutional support—the party system—we find that popular sovereignty exists in theory rather than in practice.” [13]
Those with the deepest knowledge of any discipline are best equipped to understand its strengths, weaknesses, and underlying complexities. Every field contains both visible and hidden advantages and disadvantages, and specialists reveal them according to the needs and purposes of their inquiry. [14]
Democracy is one of the many complex subjects that has both admirable and problematic dimensions. Political thinkers and scholars have examined it from every angle, uncovering both its strengths and its shortcomings. This discussion brings together a number of critical observations drawn from the writings of prominent political philosophers and theorists. Consider the following statements on the perceived limitations of democracy in the sphere of governance:
Edmund Burke stated: “Democracy is the most disgraceful form of government.” [15]
Edmund Burke (d. 1797) was an Irish statesman, orator, and political thinker, widely regarded as the founder of modern conservatism. In his work Reflections on the Revolution in France, he described democracy as the most disgraceful form of government because he believed it elevated popular opinion to the highest authority and regarded law as nothing more than an expression of the people’s will, while the masses, in his view, often lacked wisdom and sound judgment. He also argued that democracy undermines traditions—the very foundations of social stability and national strength—and that its principles of liberty, equality, and human rights may weaken long-established social values. [16]
Immanuel Kant stated, “Democracy is the worst form of despotism.”
Immanuel Kant (d. 1804) is widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers in the Western tradition after Aristotle. His ideas profoundly shaped modern philosophy across numerous fields. He argued, “Democracy is the worst form of despotism.”
Auguste Comte stated: “Popular sovereignty is a disgraceful falsehood.”
Auguste Comte (d. 1857) was a renowned French philosopher and sociologist, widely recognized as the founder of modern sociology and the doctrine of positivism. [17]
“Popular sovereignty is a disgraceful falsehood.”
John Stuart Mill (d. 1873), one of the greatest English thinkers of the nineteenth century and a leading advocate of liberal democracy, nevertheless acknowledged a fundamental distinction within democratic government:
“The people who exercise power are not the same people over whom that power is exercised.” [18]
Ernest Renan (d. 1892), a distinguished French philosopher, linguist, and one of Europe’s best-known Orientalists, observed: “Elections bring together people of mediocre ideas, and the combined result of those ideas falls below the intellectual level of even the most ordinary kings.”
The list of critics is much longer. Extending it would include such notable figures as Herodotus, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, William James, James Bryce, Vilfredo Pareto, Emmanuel Mounier, Harold Laski, John Dewey, Charles Merriam, Walter Lippmann, and Leo Strauss. However, the present discussion limits itself to the examples above.
Examining democracy through the perspectives of these scholars and political thinkers, according to the author’s argument, provides insight into its nature and underlying principles while bringing its perceived shortcomings into sharper focus.
