[noemon]

The propensity of the people in Western countries seem to take it as self-evident that democracy is the supreme form of government, and this is because they have been so well taught to believe their own founding myths.

"Herodotus wrote:

[80] Five days later, when things had settled down, the conspirators against the Magi met to discuss the general state of things. There are those in Greece who are not convinced of the authenticity of the speeches that were delivered there, but they did take place. Otanes recommended entrusting the management of the country to the Persian people. ‘It is my view’, he said, ‘that we should put an end to the system whereby one of us is the sole ruler. Monarchy is neither an attractive nor a noble institution. You have seen how vicious Cambyses became and you have also experienced similar behaviour from the Magus. How can monarchy be an orderly affair, when a monarch has the licence to do whatever he wants, without being accountable to anyone? Make a man a monarch, and even if he is the most moral person in the world, he will leave his customary ways of thinking. All the advantages of his position breed arrogant abusiveness in him, and envy is ingrained in human nature anyway. With these two qualities he has in himself every evil: all his atrocities can be attributed to an excess of abusiveness or envy. Now, you might think that an absolute ruler is bound to be free from envy, since there is nothing good that he lacks, but in fact his natural attitude towards his people is the opposite of what you would expect. He resents the existence of the best men, while the worst of them make him happy. There is no one better than him at welcoming slander, and there is no one more erratic in his behaviour. I mean, if your admiration for him is moderate, he is offended at your lack of total subservience, and if you are totally subservient, he is angry at you as a flatterer. And now I come to the most important problems with monarchy. A monarch subverts a country’s ancestral customs, takes women against their will, and kills men without trial. What about majority rule, on the other hand? In the first place, it has the best of all names to describe it—equality before the law. In the second place, it is entirely free of the vices of monarchy. It is government by lot, it is accountable government, and it refers all decisions to the common people. So I propose that we abandon monarchy and increase the power of the people, because everything depends on their numbers.’ These were Otanes’ thoughts.

[81] Next Megabyzus spoke in favour of oligarchy. ‘Otanes’ arguments for abolishing monarchy’, he said, ‘represent my own views too. However, in so far as he was recommending the transference of power to the general populace, his argument is flawed. A mob is ineffective, and there is nothing more stupid or more given to brutality. People are hardly going to tolerate escaping from the brutality of a despot only to fall into the brutal clutches of the unruly masses, when any action taken by a despot is the action of someone who knows what he is doing, but knowledge and the masses are incompatible. How could anyone know what is right without either having been taught it or having innate awareness of it? No, the approach of the general populace is that of a river swollen with winter rain: they rush blindly forward and sweep things before them. Let us leave democracy to Persia’s enemies, while we choose a number of the best men and put power in their hands. After all, we will be members of such a company, and it is reasonable to assume that the best men make the best decisions.’ This was Megabyzus’ proposal.

[82] The third person to express his opinion was Darius, and he said, ‘I think Megabyzus was right in what he said about the masses, but wrong about oligarchy. There are three choices before us, and let us suppose that each of them is the best of its kind—the best democracy, the best oligarchy, and the best monarchy. In my opinion, the best monarchy far outstrips the others. I mean, if you have a single person, and he is the best person in the world, how could you hope to improve on that? His views are the best there are, he can govern the people blamelessly, and he is particularly good at keeping to himself his plans against hostile opponents. In an oligarchy, however, a number of people are trying to benefit the community, and in this situation violent personal feuds tend to arise, because every one of them wants to come out on top and have his own views prevail. This leads them to become violently antagonistic towards one another, so that factions arise, which lead to bloodshed, which leads ultimately to monarchy—which just goes to show that it is by far the best system. Then again, corruption is inevitable in a democracy. So, in the context of corruption in the political sphere, the corrupt ones become firm friends, rather than opponents, because corrupt practitioners of politics act by forming alliances. This kind of thing goes on until someone emerges as a champion of the people and puts an end to these corrupt politicians. But by doing this he wins the admiration of the people, and then he turns out to be a monarch. So he again is proof that monarchy is the best system. One point sums the whole thing up—where did we get our independence from and who gave it to us? Was it the people or an oligarchy or a monarch? My view, then, is that since we gained our freedom thanks to a single individual, we should keep to this way of doing things. And I would add that we should not abolish our ancestral customs, which serve us well. That is not the way to improve matters.’"

The Ancients were rather wiser than the people living today. This extends to the ability of the Ancients to appreciate nuance on the matter of forms of governance.

(quoted from Book 3)


*Lest I be accused of regurgitating propaganda, this is a quote that I happened on entirely independently, years ago, while reading Herodotus. That isn't to say it is not a famous passage. But it is also an immensely famous book. I quoted from a personal copy of the best translation, which is the Oxford translation, which I possess in both eBook form and print form.

**I am also not explicitly advocating in favor of monarchy (or oligarchy); but am arguing against the laziness of thought which tempts the anointing of universal ideals to free oneself from the burden of critical thought. I submit to you that there is nothing worthwhile for consideration in the realm of political thought, which is simplistic in its genuine nature.

I think this is an interesting debate and the arguments in Herodotus's book are rather simplistic. It depends on what kind of state you want to create, a democratic state in which people are enfranchised and empowered it develops culture because people become more intellectual through their political activity. A despotic state that simply requires submission is more stable and more long-lived but restricting liberty one also restricts the intellectual potential of the population and in turn their competitive advantages. In addition, democratic has never been only about voting rights and who has them but about administrative affairs, Athenian citizens took turns into running the government not through voting or appointment but by rotation, one year you would be the tax officer or clerk, another the port officer, another the welfare officer and another a banking clerk, every single citizen rotated every year for free into a different public office or had to give up his citizenship status, something that in the modern western world has only survived in fraternal societies such as the Freemasons who in so far as I am aware of are the only organisation that rotate all their offices among their members. Something for example that not even the most enlightened Unions do. Freemasonic participation in office can also serve to explain why many of them rose to prominence during the American and French revolutions as they were trained in bureaucratic matters of a democratic fashion.

[Rugoz]

As evidence of the nuance of the ancients I present this quote from Aristotle :

There is another sort of monarchy not uncommon among the barbarians, which nearly resembles tyranny. But this is both legal and hereditary. For barbarians, being more servile in character than Hellenes, and Asiadics than Europeans, do not rebel against a despotic government. Such royalties have the nature of tyrannies because the people are by nature slaves; but there is no danger of their being overthrown, for they are hereditary and legal. Wherefore also their guards are such as a king and not such as a tyrant would employ, that is to say, they are composed of citizens, whereas the guards of tyrants are mercenaries. For kings rule according to law over voluntary subjects, but tyrants over involuntary; and the one are guarded by their fellow-citizens the others are guarded against them.

I suppose they needed a justification for keeping a disposable workforce.

Besides, usually when ancient philosophers talk about monarchy, that can be hereditary monarchy or elective monarchy. Moreover, a monarchy can be absolute or constitutional (in which case the monarch is bound by laws passed by the assembly).

[foxdemon]

@Crantag takes a very American view of popular conceptions of democracy. I am not convinced that people is all Western countries take democracy at face value.

While @Rugoz is right that there is different types of monarchy, there is great difference between democracies. The ancient democracies were based on much smaller societies and lacked the institutions that came with larger societies requiring a greater degree of organisation.

When an American says democracy, they really mean a democratically elected legislature and executive, an independent judiciary, a professional bureaucracy based on disinterested service to the state, and more institutions besides. Finally, they tend to have a constitution, a central law stating how the government is to function. The idea of a modern western democracy is both governance and holding that governing authority accountable.

Before we can compare with other systems of government, we also need to recognise each Western democratic system is different. The Swiss model is different to the Westminster model and both are different to the American model. Which of these is best?

What can be said is that Western societies have been the most socially developed in recent centuries and only now are Eastern societies catching up. It stands to reason that the most socially developed societies would have the most sophisticated administration (I use the concept of Ian Morris for the definition of social development).

Is it the superior system? Well it certainly suits a nation of free people. It offers the chance to be involved beyond just voting. One can join a political party if one wishes, or do one’s duty, as I do, as an election functionary. This means people have a stake in the system and thus legitimacy is shared.

For this reason democracy is more robust in the face of adversary than an absolutist system. In the later the guy who takes all the power also takes all the responsibility. So when things go pear shaped, he can only cover up so long before he is overthrown. However, democracy only works if the society is sufficiently tolerant.

Fanatical beliefs, those where the believer thinks they are 100% correct and anyone who disagrees with them must belong to whoever they identify as the enemy, are inimical to deco critic society. Politically correct people match this definition. As do religious zealots. Too many intolerant people will destroy a democracy, as we see happening in contempory polarised America.

I don’t think a well organised large scale society with a high level of development had to be democractic. But it does need all those institutions I mentioned earlier. However, if not democratic, it needs some form of non coercive legitimacy and some method of changing administration. What is of great importance is that accountability. Mistakes have to be dealt with before they lead to systemic failure. The American example shows even democracies aren’t immune to lack of accountability (2007 crisis, dodgy accountants going unpunished, vested interest group getting its way at everyone else’s expense, lesson not learn’t).

So after all that, I guess Crantag has a point. Governance isn’t a simple matter. Is democracy superior? I think it is relative. I certainly want to live under a system where I have a chance to participate. But it isn’t perfect, can collapse and is inefficient compared to authoritarian systems. However, since it is conducive to a free people, it has a certain strength, assuming the fanatics and vested interests can be kept at bay.