What would Plato say on the involvement of the masses in public decision-making?

Question

Especially in the "Nicomachean Ethics".

I can't seem to find anything. It doesn't need to be that direct. Maybe a theory or a generalization or ANYTHING that would show his opinion.

Thanks...

Answer 1

I'm going to theorize.  In the beginning of democracy, people had a real say in what their government would do.  Over time, more and more people and groups were involved which led to the politicians spinning their heads on what to do.  Red Tape was used because there was just so much gibberish and too many people to listen to.  Near the end of democracy, the people had enough and simply didn't want to waste their gas money to go vote because they know that most of the elections are rigged.  This led to an increase in crime.  In the year 22xx, something catastrophic happened and it marked the end of the rat race and inevitably put us back to simpler times!!

Answer 2

As I remember, he "preached" that only the informed intelligentsia should run the government and and participate in rule. The masses should obey their edicts and remain docile because the ruling class knew best.

Answer 3

The "Nicomachean Ethics" was written by Aristotle, not Plato, which might be why you can't find anything.

Anyway, Plato is rather famous for the concept of the "Philosopher-King", in which the burden of public decision making fell solely on the shoulders of philosophers.  It is quite popular today to think of anyone with a sense of wonder about the world as a philosopher, but that is not what Plato believed (or at least as far as we know, since Plato was never a character in any of the Platonic dialogues).  Philosophers, according to Plato, are an extremely select group of people, perhaps only one per lifetime. This appears to be a particular manifestation of monarchy and meritocracy, and quite the opposite of placing public decisions in the hands of the masses (i.e. democracy).  Aside from this particular political ideology, I doubt Plato would support the masses in decision making anyway, given that it was the masses that sentenced Socrates to death.

Aristotle, on the other hand, is a little more complicated.  He describes three types of government, each with a good and bad sub-types.  The three good types are monarchy (rule of the one), aristocracy (rule of the few) and democracy (rule of the many).  The bad sub-types are the same as the good sub-types, except that they are corrupted.  They are tyranny, oligarchy, and anarchy.  Aristotle believes that the best overall form of government would be the good version of monarchy, but the corrupted version of monarchy is the worst overall.  Furthermore, he believes that the worst type of good government is democracy, but the corrupted version of democracy is the best type of the bad governments.  Since Aristotle believes that all governments are eventually corrupted, I imagine he would support a democracy, but he would be careful to point out that it is merely the least of evils, not the ideal.