Can ordinary people be trusted with the making of political decisions?

Abstract During the essay I will discuss whether ordinary people should be trusted with the making of political decisions, and the advantages and disadvantages that it presents. This topic mostly regards the benefit and legitimacy of democracy and whether this system really works or if it is perverted with the ignorance of those ruling. Therefore, I will discuss whether the current educational system is suitable for preparing future leaders or if human nature will always affect politics. Introduction It is possible that the question about who should rule is one of the most discussed topics during history. There have been diverse opinions in philosophy as well as in the field of political science addressing this issue and we can agree that not even today we have a clear answer for that question. During history, there were different ways of legitimating rulers, from the charismatic or traditional authority approaches in ancient times until the rise of democratic values that gave the power to the population. There has never been a pure agreement on which system works better. Thus, I will expose the systems during history, and then, I will proceed to give my own point of view on the topic. Historical approach Since the beginning of civilization, ruling was based on different types of authority (Webber 1978), from the traditional ruler, based on the social traditions of the tribe or population, to the charismatic authority, based on the the personal image of the ruler, who was recognised as an important member of the community, whether for wisdom or military values, or because of religious premises. Nonetheless, during early history, we could already see the birth of

democracy in Greece and in the Roman Republic, where the rulers, based on a legal-rational authority, must be approved by a percentage of the population, mostly free men, although sometimes it also required the possession of a minimum patrimony. The rise of the Catholic religion all over Europe brought a new type of rulers. Kings monopolized all kind of authority and they just needed to be legitimated by God. In some way, all previous types of authority mixed up to create a new leader. Thus, democracy disappeared and the population started to suffer what it could be consider to be a tyranny. However, despite the international political system that European monarchies had created and established, they could not stopped the population from claiming more rights and freedom; therefore, democracy shyly arose again, first in England, and then in the US and France during the 18th century. People began to demand the power to govern their own lives and they started to fight the established system. Some monarchies fought back during the 19th century, but democracy won the battle and today, most western countries trust in the democratic values. Current situation Democracy, represented mainly by the United States and its allies during the 20th century, survived the emergence of totalitarianisms and communism, and after defeated the latter in the Cold War, it established itself as the prominent political system that all populations desire. However, although we may consider democracy to be the best possible political system, we should address the question whether ordinary people are actually prepared to rule. Plato already mentions in his book The Republic (1976) that society needs to establish a system of specialization through education so that every member of the community can contribute to the benefit of the society. This book was written around 2400 years ago, still, this is one of the main principles of capitalism, as we could see in Henry Fords assembly lines or, even today, in current university education. A person studies medicine to become a doctor as well as another person studies law to become a lawyer. However, they both can become politicians. If we value

specialization as a way of improving society, we should apply it to every field of social life. A doctor will do his job better if he studies medicine, then, is it not the same case for politicians? Thus, this question already addresses my view on the topic of this essay: ordinary people, in the sense of not being professionally prepared, should not be able to rule. Today, in this period of economical crisis, we have seen a new figure rising again in politics: the technocrats (Donadio 2011). These people are technicians who have been truly prepared to practise their jobs (Fischer 1990: 17), and as we could recently see in Greece or Italy, in this period of uncertainty and fear, people stop caring that much about their political rights and they just want efficient people to make the decisions for them. Hence, the problem with technocracy lies on the fact that it does not totally respect the democratic values (Fischer 1990: 30). Modern technocracy is based on a group of professionals, not chosen by the population, a situation that leads to the breach of Rousseaus social contract. At this point, the question would be: how it is possible to unite technocracy and democracy respecting popular sovereignty? The answer could be really simple: Only letting people run for political positions as long as they have specifically been prepared for them. However, this statement brings another problem. What it means to be prepared? Is it possible that an economist can know every aspect of economy? Of course not, but in that case, what is an acceptable knowledge? Hence, we should discuss the current situation of modern education. Education has always been influenced by the different ideologies ruling at the moment. Different generations will have a different conception of economy or social policy for example, then, who is better prepared to be a politician, a person who, during his studies, has been influenced by socialist or conservative ideologies, or is it possible for someone to be politician when he mainly supports ecological measures? The question for all these answers lies on education. Only by changing the educational system, we can provide society with the common values that will lead us to a more just society. Only by eliminating the influence of ideologies, we could focus on what is beneficial for the community and not only for certain groups. Hence, by already introducing subjects such as ethics, civic education or

philosophy in early ages, we could develop a new generation capable of truly caring for the common benefit instead of personal interests. However, I am not advocating for a system against the democratic value of popular sovereignty. I advocate for the development of a system where anyone could opt to become politician, but only after having been truly prepared through the most possible neutral education, making it possible then to share common values for the welfare of the state. After all, as Maurice Duverger stated, the organization of political parties is certainly not in conformity with orthodox notions of democracy. Their internal structure is essentially autocratic and oligarchic: their leaders tend to form a ruling class, a caste that is more or less exclusive (Meisel 1962: 348). Therefore, if current political parties are not respecting the true democratic values, a change in their structure would not represent an oppressing measure. At this point, we should discuss the current problem with political parties. On the one hand, although pluralism is one of the main values of democracy, it cannot be said that there is a real political pluralism in modern democracies, where two major parties control the political panorama. On the other hand, because of this situation, in most western countries there is always a bilateral tension between the two major parties that only contributes to worsen the efficiency of democracy, since instead of caring for the benefit of society, they mainly worry about discrediting the opposite party and just try to win the greater possible amount of votes with fake promises. Conclusion I am sure the ideas I have just proposed sound utopian. Still, popular sovereignty also seemed an impossible idea during most part of history or human rights, which today are seen as something obvious, were not considered as such even a century ago. Unexpected changes can happen at any time, and human nature is always prepared for them. Therefore, although this idea may sound an utopian mix of Platos theory and the total opposite Rousseaus social contract, I believe someday it could be achievable, and societies will then be better prepared to face their destinies.

In regards with the educational reform, it is understandable that society cares more about providing a scientific background to students so that the technological development could continue its current rhythm. However, we should not forget about the multiple cases of corruption, violation of human rights or diplomatic tensions that occur because of not having a proper ethical education. Therefore, I hope that one day, the current system could be reform, the new generations would have another perspective about life and, then, we could finally disagree with Tommy Douglas when he said that current democracies can be compared to a Mouseland ruled by cats (1944). Blibliography Donadio, Rachel. 2011. Greece and Italy Seek a Solution From Technocrats. The New York Times. [online]10 November. Available at: < http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/world/europe/greece-and-italy-asktechnocrats-to-find-solution.html?pagewanted=all> [Accessed 26 December 2011]. Douglas, Thomas. 1944. The Story of Mouseland. [online]. Available at: < http://www.dcf.ca/en/mouseland.htm> [Accessed 27 December 2011]. Fischer, F. 1990. Technocracy and the politics of expertise. Newbury Park; London: Sage Publications. Plato. 1976. The Republic, Translated by Lindsay A. D. London : Dent. Meisel, J. H. 1962. The Myth of the Ruling Class : Gaetano Mosca and the "Elite. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press. Plato. 1976. The Republic, Translated by Lindsay A. D. London : Dent.

Weber, M. 1978. Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.