Clients Last Name Goes Here 1 Does Graham's essay point the way to solving the problems of democratic

rule first identified by Plato? According to Graham(2002), in the description of democracy three indispensable

elements should be singled out (p.21). They are the sovereign character of the people, common suffrage as well as decision-making by majority. One could see that these aspects are without a doubt crucial elements by picturing a governmental system where they are omitted. No matter how serene and wealthy a culture could be, how civilized its authorities, and no matter what liberties it could provide its individuals, in case it is one wherein no elections including the general public are organized, in which political levers of power are sealed to all except a fairly tiny top-notch layer, and where governmental decisions rest inevitably in the control of a solitary great chief, it can't be referred to as democratic (Graham, 2002, p.21).

That is, actually, the type of culture that Plato talks about in "The Republic" and he guards it particularly from the democratic order that worked in Athens. According to Gordon (2002), In many minds, no doubt, there lurks the vague idea that, since ancient Athens was the birthplace of democracy, and Plato its most famous philosopher, Plato's Republic must be a democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth. (p.21) In "The Republic" Plato is adamantly opposed to Athens' democracy and and is

overtaken by the thought that a well-organized community is one wherein absolute power should be used by individuals particularly educated to use it - the philosophers, telling everyone his place and the scope of activity, as they see fit. It might be regarded as some form of fascism these days. Yet Platos statement still puts us in a predicament.

Clients Last Name Goes Here 2

The perception that the will of the individuals need to dominate produces a paradox. One can effortlessly envision situations wherein the logical voter is required to believe that both a guideline as well as its antipode must be implemented. This can be shown by the example Graham suggests about Sterling and Euro (p.29). England came across a choice involving getting accepted into the only European currency or staying with Sterling. For a number of years, authorities spoke about tests that had to be done if getting started with the Euro was to be beneficial. As soon as those tests were fulfilled, the problem would be positioned before the nation and resolved during a referendum. Being a reasonable voter, one would attain and evaluate the appropriate data and make a decision that Britain should get into the Euro zone. This choice to vote would not be an independent occasion. It is the step that communicates a personal viewpoint on the problem.

Nonetheless , we will consider, the referendum moves differently and an obviously largest percentage vote to preserve Sterling. Possibly a good number of voters were unaware of the financial concerns, or were merely against Europe, or contemplating about the direct effect upon on them. The issue that challenges us here comes up even when all voters tend to be extremely knowledgeable and emotionally disconnected, but wrong in their view just like a jury that gives the incorrect judgment. As soon as the will of the individuals, no matter what it is, is apparent, a fine democrat needs to think that it ought to rule. Consequently the democrat states that the pro-voter should now consider that England should not be a part of the Eurozone . The basis for the arguments the pro-voter got for considering that England should be part of the Euro zone never changed. Yet in this instance, logically, the pro-voter should go on to think that

Clients Last Name Goes Here 3 linking with the Euro zone could be the correct strategy. The outcome is the following. If one is a democrat and simultaneously trust in the potential for putting votes reasonably, after the referendum he should think both that England ought to be a part of the Euro zone and that it ought not to. This happens to be the paradox of democratic order. According to Gordon (2012), The paradox of democracy is a real problem for democratic theory in my view, and I do not think that it has a solution. The only way round it is either to deny the normative force of rational judgment or deny the principle that the will of the majority should prevail. The first alternative seems impossible. How could we deny that the perception of public benefit/public harm was not a reason to vote for/against in a referendum? The second alternative is certainly possible. (p.30) In the instance of different viewpoints our society should have one method or another to figure out the issue. There is no more effective technique than voting. In order to deal with the paradox in this manner, we need to understand voting, not as a manifestation of the overall will, yet simply as a helpful judgement process. To put it briefly, we could solely resolve the paradox in case we get away from the ideal democratic order. (Graham, 2002, p.30).

Summing up, it should be noted that Graham is not much moderate in his opinions. He consents with the point that there could be excessive democracy, yet moves even further and doubts the authenticity of the democratic rule itself. He offers a review, referring to the primary anti-state issue. He doubts the necessity for the state to resolve common issues, he utilizes Plato to review the non-meritocratic character of democratic order. His most effective point appears to be the misconception that democracy imparts power to the people. In his answer, Graham

Clients Last Name Goes Here 4 preserves voting, yet merely in the form of an expressive action (similar to cheering for your favorite team), and proposes republicanism. References Gordon, Graham (2002), The Case Against the Democratic State, Imprint Academic. Plato, The Republic, Translated by Benjamin Jowett, Web 2012-09-06, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm to separate the legislative and executive in a kind of