Why were most Greek philosophers against democracy?

Spencer Alexander McDaniel, B.A. Classical Studies & History, Indiana University

Bloomington (2022)
Answered December 21, 2018

First of all, it is a grave mistake to say that “most” Greek philosophers were
opposed to democracy, because that is not actually true. Most Greek philosophers
were either in favor of democracy or had no opinion on it. The philosophers that
most people see as having been opposed to democracy are Socrates, Plato, and
Aristotle, but, as we shall see in a moment, this common perception is actually
rather inaccurate.

For one thing, we actually know very little about what the historical Socrates (lived
c. 470–399 BC) thought of democracy because everything we know about
Socrates’s opinions comes from the writings of his two students Plato and
Xenophon. Plato in particular seems to have used the character of Socrates in his
dialogues as a sort of “sounding board” for various ideas and opinions, so, in most
cases, when Plato attributes an idea to Socrates, it is very difficult to tell if it is really
one of Socrates’s ideas, one of Plato’s own, some combination thereof, or just an
idea Plato was experimenting with.

Plato (lived c. 423–c. 347 BC) makes it very clear in his Republic that he does not
have much liking for the particular form of democracy that was instituted in his
native city-state of Athens. Instead, in this dialogue, Plato argues that the ideal,
perfect government should be ruled by a “philosopher-king,” a man who is
supremely wise, intelligent, and rational and who makes all decisions for the benefit
of everyone. This, however, is an idealistic vision and it is unlikely that Plato ever
expected anything resembling his ideal republic to actually be implemented.

Plato would probably have much admiration for the government of most modern
democratic countries, which operate on a very different form of democracy than the
one that existed in Athens during Plato’s time. Athens in the fourth century BC was
a direct democracy, meaning citizens voted directly on all the issues. This was a
problem because most people did not understand the issues and were unable to
make informed decisions on them. Modern representative democracies would
probably be more palatable to Plato’s sensibilities.

Aristotle (lived c. 384–322 BC) has sometimes been portrayed as hostile to

democracy, but, in fact, this is an egregious misunderstanding of Aristotle’s
complex and erudite political theory. In his Politics, Aristotle explains that there are
three major forms of ideal government: a monarchy (which he defined as a
government ruled by a man very much along the lines of Plato’s “philosopher-king”:
one who is supremely qualified and rules for the betterment of everyone), an
aristocracy (which he defined as a small group of the best and most qualified
people ruling for the betterment of everyone), and a constitutional government
(which he defined as a government ruled by all the free citizens on behalf of and for
the betterment of everyone).

Aristotle held that, of the three ideal forms, a monarchy is the best because it is the
most efficient, but he contended that all three ideal forms of government will
inevitably become perverted and corrupted over time. He explains that a monarchy
becomes perverted into a tyranny, a government ruled by one man for solely his
own benefit. An aristocracy becomes perverted into an oligarchy, a government
ruled by a few people for solely their own benefit. Finally, a constitutional
government becomes perverted into a democracy, a government ruled by the
majority of the population for solely their own benefit.

Aristotle reasoned that a democracy is the least terrible of these three forms of
government because it results in the most number of people being happy; whereas
a tyranny is the worst form of government because it results in only one man (the
tyrant) being happy. Aristotle was therefore in favor of democracy, not because he
necessarily liked it in and of itself, but rather because it was the least awful form of
government that he could think of.