now that we should not judge the states purpose as solely maximizing utility. What then is it, and how does democracy serve it? I believe that apart from for utilitarian reasons the only evident purpose of the state is to distribute power justly between individuals while protecting their rights. This was the conclusion drawn by John Rawls and if I expand upon his quote earlier, ÂJustice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjustÊ ( A Theory of Justice ), it is evident that he is directly attacking utilitarianism and providing an alternative. However I do not believe that democracy necessarily protects the interests and rights of these individuals. Taking into account that we cannot merit an action based upon its impact but rather the specifics of it, does democracy encourage the protection of rights and promote justice? I do not believe this is the case due to a flaw proposed by De Tocqueville then developed by John Stuart Mill, Âthe tyranny of the majorityÊ. He pointed out that although it is assumed that democracy will never result in oppression as if the people governed themselves why would they pass repressive laws, this is not the case. This is because it is illogical to think of the people as a homogenous group. We are all individual and have our own wants and needs, in fact it is actually very hard finding large scale agreement on the majority of issues. For example our current government is a coalition with surprisingly little support and yet they have still been
able to implement a regime of economic austerity upon a huge amount of people who oppose it. Is this really the fairest or best way of managing our economy? Furthermore I would argue that any action taken by our political machine may in fact have even less support due to our party system. Even though a coalition a majority was formed there is an assumption that everyone who voted for the party supports every decision. I believe there are a number of people who voted for the conservatives in the last general election who actually disagree with their economic policy, but neither the less voted for them due to their other policies. This means that when exercising power there is no real assurance that a majority of voters even support the given action. That is not to say that I would have direct democracy, rather I would point out that representative democracy is simply a crude compromise between direct democracy and having experts make the decisions, and does not in reality fully serve either purposes. In conclusion I believe that the purpose of government is to serve the needs of the people and I do not believe democracy does this best. I believe it corrupts the true action with popular sway making fallacious decisions seem just and recognizing any move against the peopleÊs wishes as undemocratic and wrong. I must therefore conclude that there will be no peace on earth while the uneducated rule. We need those who do not rule for the sake of glory or personal riches, but out of a duty born of their knowledge, not illusions of service to the whims of those who not know what they need. I therefore have to agree with Plato and await the day that Âphilosophers become kings or kings genuinely and adequately philosophizeÊ ( The Republic) .
Bibliography
Mill, J.S. (1946) Four Dialogues of Plato. London (2007) Utilitarianism. London Stone, I.F. (1997) The trial of Socrates . London Wolff, J. (1996) An introduction to Political Philosophy. Oxford
103
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker