Stop That Crow!

We’ve all heard the famous saying that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. In this post I will briefly mention some of the problems which Plato brings against democracy, primarily in the Republic. I will then attempt to provide an account of the potential problems which religious beliefs bring to a democratic society.

While the problems which Plato raises against democracy are quite numerous, they can all be categorized, more or less, under three principle objections according to Robert Kane:

1. “Democracies encourage mediocre leadership… [because] leaders must pander to the wishes of the electorate… [It tends to a] tyranny of the majority… Citizens put more emphasis on rights to do as they please while being less willing to accept responsibilities or make sacrifices for the common good.” All these problems Kane identifies with the conflict between a participatory and a representative democracy.


2. “Democratic political debate over time would become more superficial and focus less on substantive issues… Image politics would come to dominate the electoral process… A society which focused on images rather than issues was easy prey to manipulation by those more interested in winning arguments and manipulating beliefs than finding the truth… More emphasis would be placed upon emotion in public debate than upon reason.” These are part of what Kane sees as the tension between informed political discourse and debate and distorted and manipulated political debate.


3. “Democratic leaders are tempted to focus on short-termed goals at the expense of the long-term needs of society… Democracies have an inbuilt tendency to spend more than they take in... Democracies are prone to unrestrained growth and a factionalism of competing special interests seeking to influence leaders in order to fulfill private desires at the expense of the public good.” This is the issue of long-range goals and the common good versus short-term gains and private interests.

Two other criticisms of Plato which do not fall cleanly under any of these categories are that “people would gradually lose a sense of shared values – values that are held in common and upon which all agree … [and that] there would be a value vacuum at the center of democratic societies that would be filled by a succession of intellectual and social fads and fashions.” (See Robert Kane, Through the Moral Maze)

Now of course some of these tendencies are not native to democratic societies, and most would also argue that even stronger criticisms can be brought against other forms of government. Nevertheless, it is not too difficult to see that these flaws of democracy are more than mere possibilities; indeed, it is not difficult for most people to identify at least some of them in our modern society.

My main point in bringing these criticisms to attention, however, is not to criticize the democratic system of government. Instead, my main point is to conclude that in a democracy what other people believe really matters. While one may argue that what a person does, so long as they do not harm others by an act of commission or one of omission, is of no concern to those around them, it is my contention that such is NOT the case for what people believe.

Yes, people have the right to believe whatever they want, and we should respect this right. But this does not mean that any belief is equally right or that we should respect all beliefs. Some beliefs are simply wrong, dead wrong, and it is our responsibility of citizens of a democratic society to see that such beliefs are kept in check.

But of course the word “wrong” is ambiguous. While we should indeed attempt to argue against those beliefs which we see as being morally wrong, one wonders if it is equally our responsibility to argue against those beliefs which are simply incorrect. Of course on this note, one wonders if any beliefs are really morally wrong in and of themselves, rather than merely serving to justify or promote morally wrong acts. This is a question which I will leave unanswered for the moment.

Naturally, the beliefs which those around us hold which either potentially or actually influence our lives by way of a democratic government are religious in nature. Thus, it is the religious beliefs in a community which not only can but ought to be subjected to the most intense scrutiny. One will notice that this is merely a politicized version of Dennett’s main argument in his book “Breaking the Spell” wherein the spell which is to be broken is not religion itself, but the social taboo against putting religious beliefs on trial.

It should be trivially obvious that, historically speaking, the religious beliefs of many communities have led them to commit horrible crimes, or have at least served as justification for such. It also seems to be the case that religious has also played many positive roles in political movements and discourse. Indeed, the modern distinction between church and state is a relatively recent one which would have made little, if any, sense prior to the Axial period.

Thus, like Dennett, I am not claiming that religious beliefs are bad, nor am I sounding the battle cry to eradicate such beliefs from our society. For all I know, religious beliefs might make for the best solutions to some of the problems raised by Plato, in particular those concerning shared values. Nevertheless, it should also be clear that such is not always the case; not by a long shot. In fact it should not be at all difficult to imagine or even recognize how religious beliefs in a democratic society can or has realized Plato’s fears.

My claim is that it is our responsibility, especially those of us who live in democratic societies, to engage religious beliefs. Ask others to justify their beliefs and be prepared to justify your views on the same subjects. Our respect for a person’s right to believe what they want does not imply that we should respect what it is that they believe, especially in the public sphere.