Munaza Kazmi
In the ancient of times, Socrates (469-399 B.C.E) the Greek philosopher, in the known world known as the Father of Western Philosophy, once asked his fellow Adeimantus, “If you were heading out on a journey by sea, who would you ideally want deciding who was in charge of the vessel? Just anyone or people educated in the rules and demands of seafaring?”
The later of course, replied Adeimantus, so why then, responds Socrotes, do we keep thinking that any old person should be fit to judge who should be a ruler of a country?
In the conversation, Socrates’s point is that voting in an election is a skill, not a random intuition. And like any skill, it needs to be taught systematically to people. Letting the citizenry vote without an education is as irresponsible as putting them in charge of a trireme sailing to Samos in a storm.
However, Socrates was to have first hand, catastrophic experience of the foolishness of voters. Since, in 399 BC, the philosopher was put on trial on trumped up charges of corrupting the youth of Athens. A jury of 500 Athenians was invited to weigh up the case and decided by a narrow margin that the philosopher was guilty. He was put to death by hemlock in a process which is, for thinking people, every bit tragic.
Crucially, Socrates was not elitist in the normal sense. He didn’t believe that a narrow few should only ever vote. He did, however, insist that the only those who had thought about issues rationally and deeply should be let near a vote. Which is obviously rational.
However, if we consider we have given the vote to all without connecting it to that of wisdom. While Socrates knew exactly where that would lead: People Leading. And here the fundamental trouble lies in, we have passed the power mainly in the hands of the unthinking, unconcerned and uneducated lot inspired by mere personal relations or gains.
Let’s understand this with an example. Imagine an election debate between two candidates, one who was like a doctor and the other who was like a sweet shop owner. The sweet shop owner would say of his rival:
Look, this person here has worked many evils on you. He hurts you, gives you bitter potions and tells you not to eat and drink whatever you like. He’ll never serve you feasts of many and varied pleasant things like I will.
Consider the response of public….However, do you think the doctor would be able to reply effectively? The true answer – ‘I cause you trouble, and go against your desires in order to help you’. Only if the public can understand. We have forgotten all about Socrates’s salient warnings against democracy. We have preferred to think of democracy as an unambiguous good – rather than a process that is only ever as effective as the education system that surrounds it. As a result, we have elected many sweet shop owners, and very few doctors.