History
Over the course of history, nations that once despised the thought of democracy gradually acquired a taste for this type of rule. Many democratic states would assert that they were not initially believers of such a government, most of them previously being from a monarchical rule. Although many governments and theorists contend that democracy is the best type of practice, they understand that it, like its predecessors, is imperfect. This essay uses the writings of Euripides and Niccolo Machiavelli to prove that democracy is not the Utopia people believe it is, but rather, a way of government with numerous defects. These authors also provide solutions to the problems brought forth by democracy. Both Euripides and Machiavelli have compelling points of view on the issues of democracy. The former strongly believes in the critical nature of democracy in national rule, but uses a play, The Suppliants, to prove that there are loopholes to the regime. The latter shows a distaste for both democratic and monarchical leadership but contends that a rule by the people is necessary for an effective government in his book The Discourses.
The second chapter of the book, Ideologies and Ideals provides Euripides’ play. In this act, the author reveals the contracts between democratic and despotic types of rule. Surprisingly, Euripides’ manuscript religiously supports democracy in Athens, even with the knowledge that the regime was not as fair as Athenians expected it to be. According to Ball, Dagger, O’Neill, & Daniel, the play, performed in 422 BCE, alludes to the difference in Athenian and Thebes rule(Ball, 16). Euripides used his play to explain the difference between tyrannical and democratic leadership. Although Euripides writes this play in an attempt to praise democratic leadership, he inadvertently sheds light on the negative aspects of democracy.
Euripides uses The Suppliants to critique the authenticity of democracy. The Theban messenger sent to speak to the Athenian ruler in the play is shocked to hear that Athenian people have no tyrannical leader. Comparing Athens to Thebes, the messenger states that “No one there uses high-sounding words to pander to the crowd, manipulating them for his own advantage while cloaking his crimes and failures in fair-sounding phrases(Ball1, 17).” Euripides uses these words to imply that democracy only allows the people in power to manipulate the nation and its resources according to their self-interests. Moreover, Euripides uses the play to show that giving control to common people only leads to disillusionment, since ordinary citizens are poor judges in both legislative and personal matters(Ball1, 17). Further, the messenger in the play probes as he states that ordinary people have little political understanding and would, thus, make inadequate leaders. The messenger asserts that ordinary people have numerous other responsibilities to handle, and ruling a nation would only be an inconvenience to them. The Theban says “Even if he had been educated, a poor working stiff would have no time or energy left over from his labors to learn about political affairs.” (Ball1, 17).
Athenian democracy significantly differed from the current state of democratic rule. First, to have the rights given to Athenian citizens, one had to be male, free, and an adult. Nonetheless, all Athenians were equal in the eyes of their law. However, although the Greek nation feigned democracy, it had overlooked the rights of the minority. These citizens were denied of freedoms of expression and faced great punishment if they spoke wrongfully about democracy.
Moreover, these citizens were banished from the nation without going through a trial or any legal process(Ball2, 50). For instance, Socrates, a Greek philosopher, faced accusations of heresy and wrongful influencing of the youth by feeding them with ideas against democracy(Ball2, 50). Therefore, Euripides critiqued Athenian democracy, which was highly praised by Pericles during the Funeral Oration, because it gave ordinary people the power to control Athens negatively.
In the book Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, the authors assert that many reasons bring confusion on the true meaning of democracy. The authors state that although many people believe that democracy is functional, they do not know the true meaning of the word. Some leaders tend to use the phrase democracy deceptively, leading to national chaos and disintegration. Due to its popularity, different leaders try to use the word democracy, in installing their ideologies in a nation. Just like in Athens, East Germany, a democratic country, outlawed the competition for political office and limited its citizens’ freedom of speech(Ball2,20).
Moreover, Ball, Dagger, & O’Neill contend that different leaders have different ideologies about the means of attaining democracy. They give an example of Mao Zedong, a Chinese leader, called his communist party a “people’s democratic dictatorship” (Ball2,20). Even though his government was tyrannical, Zedong still believed that he was practising democracy. Athenian leaders also thought that they practised democracy even after barring people from giving opinions on their government and disregarding foreigners, women, and children.
In the article What is a Republic? John Adams agrees with Euripides. The author asserts that the happiness of society causes the end of government. He also avers that the satisfaction of a single person leads to the end or destruction of the man(Ball1,35). Adams says this to imply that democracy (giving power to the ordinary people) makes individuals satisfied, as it reduces their restrictions to attaining their goals. However, Adams worries that giving people such control would destroy the imperial laws that unite states. Moreover, those placed in power may abuse it, using it for their good.
Similarly, Plato, a Greek philosopher, concurred with Euripides, because just like the Theban messenger, he believed that democracy placed power into the hands of ignorant and covetous people(Ball2,23). He contends that since these people are unaware, they may not know how to use democratic power for the good of the nation. Moreover, Plato states that due to envy, these ‘leaders’ would covert the lands and resources of their betters, leading to a disintegrating society.
As Euripides is a firm believer in democracy, he is quick to give solutions for its defects. In The Suppliants, Theseus (the Athenian leader) dismisses the Theban messenger’s opinion on democracy. He asserts that Creon’s tyranny or any other tyrannical ruler disrespects the law, making it useless in governance. Theseus says that with democratic laws, all citizens, rich or poor, can have an equal ground in their quests to success. Therefore, through the play, Euripides avers that all democratic problems can be fixed using better and more viable rules. He states that freedom from tyranny and oligarchy is the only way people can live in peaceful political states. Therefore, although Euripides’ solution to the problems of democracy is increasing laws and finding better ways to enforce them, the author asserts that the regime is worth fighting for.
Nicollo Machiavelli is an Italian author, best known for his books The Prince and The Discourses. The author’s work and opinions on the political rule are very compelling, as he writes contrasting messages in both books. In The Prince, Machiavelli highly advocates for the government of a single leader, who must use all his power to ensure that the nation avoids war or poverty. However, Machiavelli uses The Discourses, takes an entirely different route in determining the perfect mode of the ruling. The book criticizes both anarchical and democratic rule, stating that both have their defects. Machiavelli has very radical and controversial political views, but his theories on leadership coincide with those of numerous other philosophers.
According to Machiavelli, both people and princes who rule states make political decisions that do not serve the common good. Machiavelli’s opinions are very different from those of Euripides. He states “Contrary to the general opinion, then, which maintains that the people, when they govern, are inconsistent, unstable, and ungrateful, I conclude and affirm that these defects are not more natural to the people than they are to princes.” (Ball1, 31). The writer also asserts that princes and people alike would recklessly govern if they are not bound to any laws. Machiavelli concludes that although both parties make grievous mistakes in their ruling, a nation under the control of many people is more likely to succeed. However, the author clarifies that these nations, like France, only become successful due to many laws imposed on their leaders.
Machiavelli indirectly critiques democracy and monarchies in his review of the writings of the historian, Titus Levius. He states that both these modes of governance are useless without adequate laws. For monarchical leadership, Machiavelli says that the follies committed by a prince can only be mitigated using violence. In democracy, on the other hand, missteps made by the people, however, may lead to confusion and apprehension among citizens. Since these citizens would lose hope in their leadership regime, they will seek a more robust rule. At such times, tyrannical leaders arise, as they pacify citizens with false hopes of promise and political freedom. Taking advantage of the nation’s apprehension, such a tyrant would take over and forget about the needs of the people. Therefore, Machiavelli believes that democracy predisposes nations to the governance of tyrannical leaders(Ball1,32). Furthermore, the author asserts that although mass populations can make informed choices together, giving political control to the entire nation would cause mass delays in decision making.
Machiavelli asserts that the only solution to the problems imposed by democracy is a republic state. He also contends that allowing either a prince (monarchy) or the people (democracy) a chance to rule, even with better amendments, would eventually lead to political chaos. Although the republican rule is similar to democratic government in some aspects, Machiavelli avers that the more conservative rules imposed by the former lead to disciple in leadership. Consequently, Adams agrees with Machiavelli as he says that a Republic is an empire of laws, not men. Therefore, republican rule disputes power to the people but ensures that these people follow these rules. While democracy lets the people rule, republican regimes let the laws govern. Both authors believe that the eradication of democracy and monarchies is the only way to succeed in politics. Moreover, both writers provide solutions similar to aristocracies, where only a few people with political intelligence rule over nations.
Aristotle also uses the same arguments as Machiavelli and asserts that democracies can turn into tyrannies due to a lack of regulations. Additionally, Aristotle concludes that polity (the rule by many with the use of laws) is better than democracy. He asserts that democracy, especially in a state when there is a significant difference in socio-economic classes, would gradually lead to tyrannies. According to Aristotle, polity is a ruling system where the elite few (aristocracy) and the people keep an eye on each other and ensure that both classes play their role(Ball2,24).
While Euripides believes that democracy is the best rule and deserves to be saved, Machiavelli contends that Republican leadership is the only solution to problems imposed by democracy. However, both authors, with the support of many other theorists, argue that democracy is better than tyranny and oligarchy. As both these writers offer viable reasons for their opinions, a reader may reach an impasse in trying to understand which regime best suits international governance. Democracy, for instance, focuses on liberal views like minimum wages, progressive taxation, same-sex marriages, abortion rights, and governmental control over the market. In contrast, Republican rule is more conservative and believes in strict policies such as death penalties and increased spending on the military. In my opinion, both authors are right about the demerits of democracy. However, destroying democratic rule would only lead to the governance of conservative leaders, who oppose people’s economic, sexual, religious, and political freedoms.
In the past, people believed that democracy condoned ‘mob’ rule. However, the current world enjoys the liberal views of democracy, as it places more emphasis on people’s rights. Nonetheless, the writings by Euripides and Machiavelli prove that democracy is not the world’s perfect savior to political problems as it also faces challenges of its own. Nations should, therefore, find ways to remedy the negative aspects of democracy through making better policies and voting for elite and intelligent leaders, who respect democratic laws.