According to Plato’s Republic society should be run by the philosophers, or at least academics and intellectuals as opposed to war lords or the democratic masses. And indeed there is an extent to which this has been the case throughout the ages. Rome was run by the politician and indeed the kings of old had a body of advisers to aid them in social matters or to inform them of the wider consequences and repercussions to their actions. Moreover, rule by heritage has, to a large extent, become extinct from today’s world. But what of the democratic masses? How strong should their voice be alongside the intellectual elite? To what extent should politicians listen to the public? To what extent should we be democratic?
The question of most fundamental importance in this debate is whether anyone, apart from oneself, can know what is best for one. In the time of Plato and indeed until relatively recently the education of the masses had been ignored. So it fell to the educated to rule. This makes perfect sense for I, a reasonably well educated man, would not think to advise anyone on how to build a bridge so why would someone totally uneducated in the social demographic be obliged to, or even want, have a say in how many houses get built, or where they get built? Consider the NHS. I’m sure we’ve all heard people complaining about its inefficiency, about waiting times etc. Now, I’m not saying that we should not complain, but I, again a reasonably well educated person, am saying that I do not presume currently to hold enough relevant knowledge to suggest viable solutions. This is not to say that I think one should not raise one’s voice to highlight the problems and protest if one’s voice is not met with some sort of positive response but that is all I will do. I do not, in my protest, assume that I have any further right to suggest how the NHS is to solve its problems. Of course I have the choice, opportunity and right to become an authority on the NHS and the running of public enterprise. I could go on a course, I could read all the news and all the published reports and, that completed, be at a level where I may advise. But, short of undertaking such specific education, I have to be willing to put the responsibility into someone else’s hands; someone who is relevantly educated and hope they will be capable. However I do not presume that someone well educated will be faultless, make only the correct decisions or be by any means perfect, but they do know more than me and until I know more my voice on the topic is comparatively small.
If everyone new every fact about every issue then it would be right to have a referendum on every issue. However this simply is not feasible. Most people have full time jobs in a specific area in which they become experts and simply do not have the time to become experts on all areas relevant to all social policy. Therefore, short of having time to become experts, they must put the power into someone else’s hands and hope that they use it well.
The more important the issue however the more obliged I think people are to make themselves aware of all the facts and share their opinions. For it has long been said that where power corrupt, absolute power does so absolutely. So we cannot assume that those in power will always be right, or are not subject to review and challenge. Just as God, if he existed, would not be subject to serious questioning. But in areas of less epic repercussions; in areas of social policy and even much foreign policy it is, and can only practically be, for those with in depth knowledge on a subject to make decisions (it is for others to review those decisions and keep politician’s power in check).
So is it true that someone other than one can know what is best for one? Well, yes when one does not know all the relevant information.
As a final example consider that the law in this country is that the motorway speed limit is 70mph. However it is possible that were a referendum given tomorrow perhaps the majority would opt to raise it to 80mph. However were it to then be revealed the following day that a 10mph increase in the speed limit would result in 200% more road related deaths the people would, I am sure, retract their vote and change their opinion. Now, the average person does not have time to become knowledgeable of all the facts of all the issues so cannot always know what is best for them; what they would choose if they knew all the facts; that they would not have voted for the speed limit increase had they know of its consequences. Still, it is true I think that if voters knew all the relevant facts and the vast majority simply did not care about the 200% increase in death rate so still voted for the speed limit change the referendum would RIGHTLY pass: the majority, in full knowledge of all the facts and consequences, would know what they want (whatever that may be.) What is best for one is what one wants for one's self when one posses all the relevant facts.
Democratic power to the educated people. The right to education for all. Unlimited power to no-one.
