A critique of democracy
Charles Apthorp
Democracy is a form of government in which the people participate, either directly or through representatives, in the creation of laws. In other words political power is divided amongst the people equally, as appose to with a ruling elite. Originating from Ancient Athens around two and a half thousand years ago democracy is largely perceived as beneficial to society by most people today. I believe that democracy has a number of intrinsic flaws. Before I outline my problems with democracy we must first examine the purpose of the state and by extension any democracy. However first consider a quote by the political philosopher John Rawls who proposed that ÂJustice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thoughtÊ ( A Theory of Justice ). Keep this consideration to heart during this essay and at every step relate back to this idea of justice. In asking what the state should do, I believe we should first ask why the state is here. John Locke believed that political institutions, in order to be virtuous must be justified by the will of those over whom they have authority. This seems perfectly reasonable and very democratic and is basis for social contract theory, the idea that we all consent to live in our state. Social contract theorists have a number of different arguments, but the main one is that we tacitly consent to the state by enjoying its benefits. However David Hume decisively refuted this idea saying Âwe may as well assert, that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master; though he was carried on board while asleep and must leap into the ocean, and perish, the moment he leaves herÊ (Of the Original Contract). The only other avenue of justification was hypothetical consent theory. The idea that any rational person living in the state of nature, a world
with no governments, would, if given the choice, consent to live and be bound by a state. Furthermore the fact that we have not consciously done this does not mean we have not consented, for example I have always held up until now that my cat does not have 11 legs, however I did not consciously think this up until writing it. However hypothetical consent is very weak and most social contract theorists reject it as in reality there is no real consent. Therefore we can see that it is impossible to justify the state on the grounds of tacit consent or hypothetical consent. I believe that the state can only be justified by utilitarian principles. Utilitarianism is the idea that at any one time the morally right action is the one which yields the greatest good, for the greatest number of people. First proposed by Jeremy Bentham but expanded by John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism seeks to maximize the net benefit of any given situation. However I believe a utilitarian justification to the state was proposed long before Bentham by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes proposed that Âa government to be legitimate must be in response to the needs of its peopleÊ. This seems easily acceptable at first glance; however, on closer inspection, it is obvious that Hobbes has specifically said needs instead of wants. One might ask why this distinction is so great. Surely the people would want their needs catered to, making the two the same? I do not believe this is the case and I strongly agree with Hobbes distinction between the wants and needs of the people. Firstly let us distinguish between wants and needs themselves. I would certainly agree that the people have both wants and needs and that often they can be very similar, but I would propose that needs are finite and wants infinite. In HobbesÊ Leviathan he outlines how humans
101
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker