Outline:

• Introduction
• History
• Democracy or Despotism?
• Misconception of Equality
• Flaunt of Democracy
• Alternatives: Monarchy, Aristocracy, Polity.
• Conclusion

Essay:

“Dēmokratia”, now known to the world as “Democracy” is a form of government, or the “rule of the people”. The most important question that arise out from this is a simple one, is the government “by the people” is also a government “for the people”? A clear analogy exists here, that calls democracy “rule of the people, by the people, for the people”. What is not so clear, however, is that if this form of government is the “best” for a country in particular, or the world at large. For this, one shall not only glance at the humble beginnings of the much celebrated mechanism of democracy, but perhaps, take into consideration the definitions of Aristotle’s views on the best form of government, and Plato’s immortal words – “democracy passes into despotism”. One may wonder if there is a misconception of equality that is being used against the people in a masquerade of good governance. Maybe, this flaunt of democracy of the modern world not only acts to promote itself, but serves as a shroud on the alternatives to democracy; monarchy, aristocracy, and in Aristotle’s words, Polity.

In the city states of Ancient Greece, Athens progressed much in its social, political, and cultural field. It was a nurturing ground for the queen of sciences, philosophy. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were not mere names and figures in the history of the development of philosophy in general, and the uplifting of life in particular. Plato and Aristotle were critical of democracy, and worked much to better understand this strange phenomenon. While in Athens, in the Master’s time, population never exceeded 10,000, there existed a different form of democracy, than what exists in the contemporary world. It was a direct democracy, where all people could participate in openly held debates and forums, affecting their lives. But here, equality was not the equality of today. Here, slaves and women did not have any political right. The philosophers strived for an educated class to become the “philosopher-kings”. One man one vote was not the philosophy of the day and the educated lot of the Greeks understood that equality in front of God, and equality in terms of abilities were two separate notions in the sphere of human life. So Aristotle studied a hundred and sixty constitutions, and divided the form of government in three different parts; what he called, the good constitutions. Monarchy was the form of government where a single monarch worked for the betterment of the whole; Aristocracy, where the privileged class, the nobility strived to uplift the populace at large; and, Polity, where the people ruled for the people. The Master did not finish here; he had in his mind the three anti-theses of these forms of government. When the Monarch regarded his own amusements higher than those of the rest of his people, it was no longer a good form of government, but a bad constitution, a Tyranny. Similarly, aristocrats were not aristocrats but Oligarchs in an oligarchy when they preferred their own tastes over the rest of the community; and a rule by the people turned into a rule by the mob when it strived for its own betterment leaving the society at large on its own, it was what he called, democracy. It was perhaps the influence of his great teacher which was seen here. A mob rule can either lead to anarchy or despotism.

Plato remarked thus; “Democracy passes into despotism.” One may wonder how from the height of liberty can come the deepest forms of repression. Too much power in the hands of democratically elected individuals can yield draconian results. Nazi Germany stood firm behind its Fuhrer. Soon enough, opposition was eliminated and the country steered in one direction and one direction only; destruction of the Third Reich and the social catastrophe that lingered due to the Great War. It is long understood that “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” A democracy that empowers the ruling class is in a process of self-destruction. This self-destruction is not in isolation, but like a suicide bomber in the midst of a calm and tranquil gathering, a chaos that tears the social fabric of the whole society. Is history on an agreement with Plato and have a lesson for the civilization? Or does it disregard the words of the great teacher as mere philosophical rhetoric? Any democracy that is “too democratic” in its working has proven Plato to be right in his judgment. Moderation between polity and aristocracy, that tends to bring closer these two anti-theses of each other from their extremes, might be the answer. Even with the despotic nature of democracy, it tends to survive on its rhetoric of an egalitarian society. Does the slogan of “all men are equal” apply to everything? Everyone has a mind, but not everyone is an Einstein. Let us analyze.

When we talk of the ancient civilizations of the past, the Egyptians, Aztecs, Mayans, Chinese, Greeks and the Romans, we talk of not the general population. It is not an average Athenian that attracts our attention to the cradle of civilization, nor the mere Egyptian labor that depicts the marvels of the Ancient Egyptian architecture, but the very few that belonged to the upper echelons of their societies. Not everyone had the calculating mind of Imhotep in Ancient Egypt, nor did everyone come up to the standard of the dialectical debates of Socrates. Then where is the equality that our democracy talks about? It is probably the love of power that has managed to twist the meaning of equality of mankind before God, the covenants and credo of the religion; to the equality of one man and one vote, the expression and rhetoric of democracy. It is a well known fact that for democracies to excel, the population at large must be aware of the working of their government, the ideas and manifestoes of their representatives, and the impacts of their decisions on the society. How will the population achieve this awareness? The answer lies in education. Without awareness, no one knows when Polity turns into Democracy, and when democracy yields to despotism. Only when the smooth transition is over, is when the masses understand their helpless position in the government. It is by no nature of things that an illiterate person’s decision lies on the same level of understanding as is one that of the educated, noble, and elite of the same society. In the contemporary world, this has turned out to be a taboo, but one must ponder over the idea, if the same illiterate person is not qualified to run a business or be the elector of the advisory body of one, how can he be the judge and elector of those who govern the whole society? How can men of knowledge and understanding become equal to men of ignorance and inexperience? They certainly cannot! As the young are not the judge of the highest matters, so the lower stratum of the society must not be the electors of a government at large. This misconception of the basic idea of equality has given way to flaunt of democracy.

It is said that, “Democracy has become the Holy Grail of Western culture.” There is no argument whether it has, or not. It certainly does occupy the overwhelming majority of our news channels and our decisions. Whether it is used as a pretext to invade a country, or to promote the soaring Eagle of the world, democracy has held its ground firm and strong through the effective use of media as its propaganda instrument, and by suppressing opposition. Will Durant in his book, “The Pleasures of Philosophy” explain that “we are anarchists by nature and citizens by suggestion.” Why is the world after democracy? Is it workable? It certainly might be, in the moderate form with an educated lot of voters. What do countries in today’s world follow? Constitutional Monarchy, Polity, and the worst form of government, for the most illiterate part of the world, democracy. The United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, all have extremely high levels of literacy, and a constitutional monarchy. United States of America, India and Switzerland with not so relatively high forms of literacy tend to follow moderate democracy, while the least of them in literacy, countries like Pakistan tend to fall for the extreme form of democracy. It has certainly become the "Holy Grail" of the Third World countries, who have fallen a victim to this brandish of democracy. Suppression of “undemocratic” forces in these countries and a delusive version of the worst form of government, as the best form of government lead to despotic corrupt rule of the people. Dynastic parties might turn the mob rule into an oligarchy and the state becomes a vicious circle of immorality and exploitation by the people, in the name of the people. The states start to fall apart, and a collapse is inevitable.

One must then figure out the best form of government. Why do the educated class of the world so open to constitutional monarchies? And not the extreme forms of democracy? Why do the aristocrats find their just rule without much opposition when they work for the betterment of the whole? It is perhaps an irony, that the best form of government is one where there are some men who are equal and some “more equal than others”. Where some are the philosopher administrators, as in the case of Confucianism of China, and where others are those who, although not bound to it, are in the working class of the society. People who understand the complexities of the state and government can better judge as to who shall be at the seat of power. In a democracy, where it has become a field of alluring the people on an equal basis of their inequality, it is a game of power. It is rightly pointed, to the contrary of the working of a democracy, by Plato – “Those who do not seek power, are fit to hold it.” It is then perhaps evident, that those of us, who take pleasure in governing the rest of us, must not be the ones who govern us. It is a truism that this is what happens in the contemporary uneducated world, but that is a democracy working on its extreme, what happens in the developed world is either a constitutional monarchy, or a moderate democracy, on the lines of the Polity of Aristotle. Although, aristocracy lost its case long ago, it still remains a good form of the government, and when the people understand this, perhaps an aristocrat government will not be confused and compared with an autocratic regime. Should we bandwagon and follow in the footsteps of those countries that enjoy immensely high rates of literacy and delude ourselves with an inept form of democracy, a bad form of constitution? Or should we educate our self, and select one of the three good forms of government, as pointed by Aristotle, which remain to this day, as true, as they were in Ancient Greece? A moderate democracy might be the answer, but that is not on the basis of the meaning of equality that we understand today. Perhaps, when aristocrats have helped uplift the lower stratums of society to a more respectable level, a moderate democracy might prove more fruitful. But an oligarchy cannot and will not do that. Nor will a government left on its own go towards moderation.., it will lead to that despotic form of polity that Aristotle called, democracy.

So if “Dēmokratia” in reality is, “the rule of the people, by the people, for the people” then perhaps through educated voter class, and proper checks and balances it might turn out to be a form of government that will not only take into consideration the interests of its own but the society at large. For that, education is a requirement. Whether we want a monarch, an aristocrat, or a democrat, we want a just individual that seeks to uplift the society and culture, and not fall a victim to despotism. Whether moderate democracy is the true answer to the best form of government or not, whether a politician works for the state or not, the educated and enlightened, and they alone, can judge better. Universal suffrage is not the answer in the name of equality for the human race that has no basis of egalitarianism. A philosopher, scientist, or an expert can never be equal in their judgment or thought to their very brothers who are on a lower level of education and knowledge to them. They are certainly equal, in the sense of being a member of the same species, equal perhaps as men in front of God, but not equal in the delusion of democracy. When the world understands this inequality and come to terms with it, only then maybe it will witness the best form of government.

Great essay... what sort of marks did u secure for this essay?

Thank you.
I have yet to know the marks I got in last years paper. This essay here I wrote for practice some months before the exams of 09. Didn't get this particular one checked, but another on The Next Cold War by two different reputed teachers in Islamabad, and they marked me 65-75. Which again, was more on the standards of normal English essays and not however the CSS examiners check it. Cuz I havent really seen people usually cross 55 in CSS, so cant say for myself either.

@ akeek ur essay is really good but plz check my outline 1 introduction
a What democracy is?
B What democracy is not?
2 background
a. history
b. Roman democracies
c. The Great Britain, mother democracy
3 Islamic concept
a teachings of Quran and Ahidiths
b Madina 1st Islamic democracy
c poise Caliphates
4 forms
a Parliamentary
b presidential
5 infrastructures/ how it works
6 pre requites of democracy
a. high literacy rate
b. civic sense
c. strong judiciary
d. free and mature media/press
7. Democracy today
a. At its peak in developed countries
b. not much successful in developing countries
8. Reasons of success
9. Reasons of failure
a lack of pre requites
b. corruption
c. strong personalities, weak institution
10 demerits of democracy
11 democracies in Pakistan
a an unfortunate case with long interruptions of dictatorships
b current situation , a hopeful note
12 measures to strengthen democracy
13 conclusions

aoa mobeen good out line.y dont u write on democracy in pakistan.please comment on my outline for nuclear prolif.thanx regards

@kawish
I'll write on democracy in pakistan seperately, it is a very commen mistake that ppl start writing on Democracy bt concentrate only on pakistan's case. we are supposed 2 give an exact ans of what we are asked

u ve written really an excellent essay...ur vocabulay z superb,,true.

__________________
Fight for your dreams & your dreams will fight for you.

While after read I would say something on the essay you seemingly conposed tremendously, my question to u is: Is it proper to write few sentences i the intro that will be elaborated in the pharagraphs to follow and is it proper to pose questions in the first pharagraph abruptly.Similarly I will also opine on the outlines drawn by another friend on democracy. The outlines seem to be thorough encompassing almost every aspects to the title but in my poor opinion they will take lots of time to capitalise upon in the given time.

All friends are requested to say on my questions please.

Mubeen, that is a very elaborative outline, but I think it is a bit too long as well as if it is only democracy then talking about strenghtning democracy in Pakistan would not really perhaps link? Otherwise, nicely done.

Mahakhan, thank you.

Mohammad Ashfaq,
Brother, first of all, thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.
As for your questions, one is supposed to give a thesis statement in the introduction paragraph, i.e., explain all the points of your outline in their order. If you compare my introduction paragraph with the outline, you will see how I have tried to mention all the points in the introduction that I will be talking about later in the essay. As for posing questions, I dont think there is any harm in posing questions in the manner that the reader knows that the very questions will be answered. It might increase the reader's curiosity.
Oh and btw, its "akeeQ" not akeel.