In the Western world, democracy is often hailed as the pinnacle of political systems. Nations pride themselves on their democratic credentials, yet we are witnessing a global trend of democratic backsliding. This suggests a profound tension: is democracy a practical form of governance or merely a beautiful ideal we can only chase but never truly capture?

The concept itself was born in Ancient Greece. The word, a blend of demos (“the people”) and kratos (“power”), literally means “the power of the people.” In such a system, the collective society wields authority, making decisions intended to serve the interests of all. Some historians speculate that elements of this existed even in prehistoric times, where tribal elders might have made decisions communally. However, the rise of economic and social inequality stalled this evolution for centuries.

The Athenian Experiment and Its Critics

It was in the city-state of Athens, around the 5th century BC, that the world’s first recognized democracy took root. The historian Thucydides noted that the Athenians, with no historical precedent, crafted this system as a bulwark against the rule of one man (tyranny) or a select few (oligarchy). Decisions were made in the assembly by a show of hands or by casting pebbles, allowing citizens to participate directly in their governance.

Yet, this celebrated system ultimately crumbled, losing favor even among its most brilliant contemporaries. The great philosopher Plato viewed democracy with a scathing eye. In his masterpiece, The Republic, he compared it to a colorful carpet, where the threads of diverse human customs are woven together haphazardly. Because people are all different, he argued, the resulting pattern is chaotic, not beautiful. Plato called democracy a "pleasant" but ungovernable system, lacking true order. In his view, a democratic state doesn't require you to govern even if you are capable, nor does it compel you to obey if you don't wish to. He feared the rise of sophists—masters of rhetoric who could persuade the masses of anything, pulling the "colorful carpet" of the state over themselves for personal gain.

Plato’s student, Aristotle, was only slightly more charitable. He classified democracy as a “deviation” from the ideal form of government. In his analysis, it was the rule of the have-nots for their own benefit, rather than for the good of the entire city. When compared to the other flawed systems, tyranny and oligarchy, Aristotle conceded that democracy was simply the best of the worst. This sentiment was famously echoed centuries later by Winston Churchill, who quipped, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

The Impossibility of "People Power"

When people claim democracy is impossible, they often mean direct democracy, the kind practiced in Athens. This system, where every eligible citizen is expected to vote on every major issue, can only function in a small society. Scholars suggest a population cap of around 10,000 people; beyond that, it descends into chaos, and crucial decisions are never made. Today, a form of this still exists in parts of Switzerland, but for most of the world, it is simply not feasible.

The French statesman and historian Alexis de Tocqueville, observing the United States in the 19th century, saw a new kind of democracy at work. He was impressed by its ability to account for the interests of its vast and varied population, its independent media, and the freedom of opportunity it offered. Yet, he also saw its flaws. He noted that the very air "was saturated with ambition" and that the relentless pursuit of wealth distracted from deeper intellectual or imaginative endeavors.

This points to a modern dilemma articulated by the American philosopher Richard Rorty. He suggested that democracy has two meanings. The first is a political regime with freely elected officials. The second is a far more profound dream—a society of true equality of opportunity. Rorty believed that while institutions like free courts and an independent press can make a country more democratic, the second meaning, the philosophical ideal of perfect equality, remains an elusive utopia.

Fading Freedom and Shifting Ideals

The tools of democracy have also changed. Aristotle considered the lottery to be the true instrument of democracy, while elections were a tool of oligarchy. Today, we see elections as the ultimate expression of our freedom. People once fought and died for the right to vote. Yet, in many democratic nations today, voter turnout is in steady decline. If the people do not even wish to use their hard-won right to vote, what does that say about their desire for freedom? It seems the ancient pattern repeats itself: democratic initiatives often falter, sometimes before they even have a chance to fully develop.

The United States, often seen as the modern bastion of democracy, provides a compelling case study of its complexities. Abraham Lincoln famously defined its government as one "of the people, by the people, for the people." However, the principles of the major political parties have not been static. In Lincoln's time, his Republican Party opposed slavery, while the Democratic Party largely defended it. Over the 20th century, a great reversal occurred. The Democrats evolved to become the party championing minority rights and liberal causes, while the Republicans grew more socially conservative.

This proves how difficult it is to create a fixed plan for democratization and follow it. Circumstances change. More recently, the presidency of Donald Trump, a figure who had previously changed party affiliations, showed how a majority of voters could rally behind a leader who challenged established democratic norms, seemingly trading abstract values for promises of security and comfort.

So, where does this leave us? Is democracy a failed experiment, a noble but naive plan that inevitably collapses under the weight of human nature and the complexity of a large society? Or is it the best, most just ideal we have, one that we must constantly fight for, redefine, and rebuild, even if its perfect form remains forever out of reach? The question remains open, a challenge to every generation that dares to believe in the power of the people.

References

• Plato. The Republic. Translated by G.M.A. Grube, revised by C.D.C. Reeve. Hackett Publishing Company, 1992.

  This work is the source for Plato's famous critique of democracy. In Book VIII (specifically sections 555b-562a), Plato outlines the evolution of a state from an oligarchy into a democracy, which he portrays as an anarchic and undisciplined society driven by a desire for excessive freedom. He argues this chaos ultimately paves the way for tyranny, providing a foundational philosophical argument against democratic rule that is referenced in the article.

• Aristotle. Politics. Translated by C.D.C. Reeve. Hackett Publishing Company, 1998.

  Aristotle's classification of political systems is central to the article's discussion of democracy as the "best of the worst" forms of government. In Book III, he analyzes different types of constitutions, defining democracy as rule by the poor in their own interest. He distinguishes it from "polity," a more moderate and preferred mixed constitution, thereby framing democracy as a flawed or "deviant" form of government.

• De Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. Translated by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. University of Chicago Press, 2000.

  This book provides the observations on 19th-century American democracy mentioned in the article. In Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 7, Tocqueville discusses the "Omnipotence of the Majority in the United States and Its Effects," detailing both the strengths of the American system and his fears about the "tyranny of the majority" and the pervading materialism that could stifle intellectual and cultural life.