Democracy for all
Authoritarian rule was proposed by Plato. Basically it is the granting of absolute authority to a specially trained group of intellectuals for the purpose of ruling the society. Plato termed it "aristocratic" from the Greek words ariston and kratos, meaning "the rule by the best." This contrasts with democracy or government by the people themselves, first articulated by John Locke.
Plato's argument for his authoritarian view rests on four premises:
1) Ruling is a skill;
2) Men differ innately in their abilities to exercise various skills;
3) Those who exhibit the greatest capacity for ruling should be trained in the skill and made rulers of the society; and
4) Because they have the greatest skill they ought to be given absolute authority so that they can put their laws into effect.
In Plato's view, plain men cannot be trusted to rule as they do not have the skills and knowledge and so will commit mistakes. This seemingly places democrats in a dilemma: If the untrained rule, one has improper government but if the trained rule, one has authoritarian government.
Three powerful objections can be advanced against the Platonic argument. The first is that Plato's conclusion to his argument does not follow from the premises! Even if we grant that ruling is a skill, that men differ in their abilities to exercise such skills and that those trained should be selected as rulers, it does not follow that these rulers should be given absolute authority. They should always be responsible to the people for their actions and hence authority should be vested in the people, not the rulers.
A second objection is that ruling is not a scientific skill as in medicine. When the doctor prescribes, he directs the course of action the patient should take; he does not directly take account of the desires and wishes of the patient.
But the ruler's function is not to direct the interests and activities of the citizens. His is to reflect these interests and make them attainable. Men's interests differ; what is good for one man may not be good for another. The ruler must not impose his own standards.
A third objection is that a society run by a few will stunt the development of most of the people. The Platonic view is that rulers can be trained in such a way as to become infallible judges of what is best for the people. But no man is infallible. It does not make sense to have someone else make mistakes for you. It is through making our own mistakes that we learn from experience and become more mature and better citizens.
Plato's ruler-citizen relation is similar to a parent-child relation. Without self-government the society will be composed of immature people who will never fulfill their potential because they were never given the responsibility to act on their own.
A theocratic state is an example of authoritarian rule. Here the "trained rulers" are the clerics. With their claim as infallible interpreters of a divine mandate they place themselves in an unassailable position. This compounds the problems of authoritarian rule. One might wish to vote them out one day given that history is replete with 'holy men' performing unholy deeds. But this democratic right cannot be exercised as it is contrary to the precepts of authoritarianism. Once voted in, it will be a case of "one man, one vote, one time".
Mazeni Alwi started off by quoting Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest". I agree with that as well as with his conclusion.
Though democracy works untidily at times it is still the best political philosophy known to man. And though secularism is required for its implementation, we must not allow excessive human greed and callousness to exploit it. The strong ethical values we learn from our spiritual traditions and the knowledge of God's love and retribution, not that of religious despots, will help us remain good citizens and pull us through the vicissitudes of daily living.
