Democracy Is Not What You Think, and Neither Are You

Over the years I have come to accept that most people use the word democracy correctly, whilst their understanding of its meaning is nevertheless quite wrong. It is a strange phenomenon when someone is right, but for the wrong reasons, and without knowing it.

Although this may seem like a minor error on the part of an average person who is not trained as a philosopher or politician, I would argue that the underlying fault is far more serious. Reconnecting the concept to its original terminology is therefore worth pursuing, as it could reveal something important about us.

In order to discuss what democracy means, we must look back to ancient-Greek philosophy.

Around the time of Aristotle and Plato, the government of a city-state was understood to be ruled by either a single ruler, a few rulers, or many rulers. However, in Aristotle’s Politics, this basic classification expands to include other aspects of the relationship between rulers and those being ruled.

In Book III, chapters 7–8, Aristotle argues that for each form of constitution there are both correct and incorrect ways for rulers to govern the affairs of a city-state. The correct forms he explicitly calls correct, whilst all others are treated as deviations.

He further explains that correct in this context means ruling in the interest of all, whereas deviation means governing in a way that secures benefits primarily for the ruler or rulers.

He then explains that if a constitution is based on the rule of a single ruler, a monarchy, the correct form would be kingship: A state in which the monarch governs with the interests of the people in mind and acts accordingly.

If the rulers are few but more than one, the correct form would be aristocracy. In Aristotle’s view, aristocrats are either the most qualified to rule or those who govern with the interests of all in mind.

If the rulers are many — the masses of people who live in a city^[1] — the correct form of government is called polity. As with kingship and aristocracy, decisions under polity are made in pursuit of the common good^[2], rather than for the benefit of a particular class or specific individuals.

Naturally, where there is good, there must also be bad. In Aristotle’s view, the deviations from these correct forms of constitution must therefore be defined and understood as well.

In the case of monarchy, a ruler who governs the city-state in his own interest rather than that of the people constitutes a tyranny. When a few wealthy and privileged individuals rule in their own interest, the result is an oligarchy. And when the masses — those who lack wealth and property — rule in the interest of their own class, that form of constitution is called democracy.

Thus, the correct forms of constitution are kingship, aristocracy, and polity, whilst their corresponding deviations are tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy.

This comes as a surprise to many. How could democracy be considered incorrect, and thus undesirable, as a form of constitution?

This historical confusion is most likely due to Aristotle’s view that, among all forms of incorrect constitutions, tyranny is the worst, whilst democracy is the least damaging to the city-state.

Aristotle, continues to expand his analysis further by challenging his own definitions: What if the rich were not a minority, or the poor not a majority? Would oligarchy still differ from democracy, for example?

Rather than relying purely on numbers — on whether few or many rule — Aristotle considers wealth a better measure. If the rich rule for their own benefit, the constitution is oligarchic, regardless of whether they are a minority. Similarly, if the poor hold authority and act in the interest of their own class rather than the whole, the constitution is democratic, whether the poor are a majority or not.

This, however, is not what most people today mean by democracy: An incorrect form of constitution in which the poor rule in the interest of their own class.

Our contemporary understanding of democracy is, in fact, closer to polity: a selfless group that rules in the interest of all.

Aristotle’s conception of polity is more complex than can be fully explained here^[3], but he describes it as a mixture of oligarchic and democratic elements, requiring a strong middle class positioned between the rich and the poor.

At this point, the argument appears to reach a logical conclusion. People use the term democracy incorrectly — at least according to its historical definition^[4] — and should instead use the term polity.

That, however, was not the original premise of this text. As I said earlier: “It is a strange phenomenon when someone is right, but for the wrong reasons.”

This means that the way we use the term democracy today is, paradoxically, correct according to Aristotle’s definition. Whilst we claim to strive for something closer to polity, our societies are in fact much closer to what Aristotle would have called democracy — read, the selfish poor rule in the interest of own class.

Allow me to explain. In a constitution based on polity, citizens participate in political matters with the aim of achieving the greatest benefit for as many people as possible — a broadly utilitarian moral outlook, if you will.

In real life, however, we seldom observe such selflessness. When was the last time large groups of people advocated for higher taxes that directly affected themselves? More often, those who support taxation argue for higher taxes on income brackets above their own, so that the revenue may be spent on public goods. It is also common for these same groups to complain that tax money is being spent on income classes lower than themselves.

If we truly lived under, or even genuinely strived for, polity, would we not see more people advocating for higher taxes on their own income and property, or refusing public projects that benefit themselves, all in the interest of directing additional resources toward the most vulnerable members of society?

In other words, we live under a collective delusion. Most people see themselves as selfless actors, possessors of empathy, and teachers of moral values. In reality, though, this could not be further from the truth.

People whose lives are saturated with consumerism — households with individual cars for each adult, multiple children, and large amounts of assets unnecessary for daily life — complain about the rich flying private jets.

Which is worse for the environment: All private jets combined, or all personal cars, whether used regularly or not? A few hundred or thousand daily private flights, or roughly 100,000 commercial flights that take place every day worldwide?

The reality is that we strive for democracy in precisely the sense Aristotle intended: The poor acting in the interest of their own class. Yet we tell ourselves a different story — one of moral heroes whose lives are dedicated to improving the lives of others.

Our hypocrisy does not end there. We complain about the rich, yet continue to use their services and buy their products out of convenience or cost. From Amazon, Google, Apple, and Uber to IKEA, Target, and McDonald’s, we tolerate injustice and ignore our professed values because it is easier to do so.

And let us not forget that very few people would refuse a billion-dollar cheque. We hate the rich because we are not as rich as they are. In reality, we abandon our ethics for far less — sometimes for mere cents or pennies

We therefore use the term democracy correctly, because we embody what Aristotle had in mind when describing it. Where we err is in believing that democracy is what morally good people support. We cling to the assumption that the term associates us with virtue, and by collectively turning a blind eye, we reassure ourselves that we are good, that our responsibilities have been fulfilled, and that nothing remains to be done — except to blame others for the suffering we ourselves enable or participate in.

Footnotes

1. Political participation in the ancient Greek city-state was limited to free adult male citizens. Women, slaves, children of citizens, and resident foreigners (metics) were excluded from political decision-making. ↩︎

2. The question of who ought to benefit from a constitution cannot be addressed here. Aristotle himself, along with many later thinkers, examines this issue in depth across a range of philosophical works. ↩︎

3. A full understanding of Aristotle’s political philosophy requires extensive study. This text does not aim to present an exhaustive or definitive account of his views, but rather a simplified outline sufficient for the present argument. ↩︎

4. One could argue that, in modern usage, the meaning of the word democracy has shifted, and that its contemporary use is therefore justified insofar as it reflects current social discourse. ↩︎