Democracy, the idea of a government by the masses, for the masses, has increasingly become a pillar of equal and

just government in the western worldview. In fact, this idea has been translated even into the languages of the other parts of the world, and has quickly been accepted as the ideal form of government that all nations and people should work towards. However, the degree to which this thought, this idea has been enshrined makes it difficult for individuals and groups to view the cracks inherent in this government. The weaknesses of this structure are often swept under the rug due to the faith and optimism of the masses involved in this form of government. However, there are cracks in any form of government and even one based on justice and equality like a democratic form of government is not immune. The problem lies then in that fact that the populations of the world have arrived at democracy often through violence and bloodshed, and are loathe to admit many flaws in the system has a whole. In addition, the enshrinement of this principle lies not only because a government of the masses carries such a turbulent history, but also because intuitively sensible forms of government just do not seem to work. A philosopher born, raised an educated to rule,

or a class of people dedicated to bringing and keeping revolution seem great ideas on paper, but Lenin and Plato's political brainchild's have been shot down in the flames of reality. Therefore, the only option left is to fix the broken system, rather than trying to find another system that will also have to be forged through fire and blood. One of the weak points of a majority rule government occurs because of a tendency of the people in charge of governing the masses to be bowed and pressured by the will of the masses. This is exemplified in a phrase by Plato "For when a man consorts with the many, and exhibits to them his poem or other work of art or the service which he has done the State, making them his judges when he is not obliged, the so-called necessity of Diomede will oblige him to produce whatever they praise." What Plato refers to in this is the practice of politicians in a democratic form of government who sway to populist politics, and institute policies and decisions to soothe the masses, rather than govern honestly and efficiently. This means that those in government make choices based on what will get them voted in, and not those in the best interests of the nation or people. This is exacerbated by the fact that officials sway

to the demands of public opinion, which turns where a great orator takes it. Napoleon Bonaparte use of propaganda from the Italian and Egyptian campaigns allowed Napoleon to sweep into power, and lead into a state of continual warfare with large public support. Another criticism was the idea that individual will could drown in the general will, or that a 'tyranny of the majority' would occur. With the fact that minorities and minority ideas could be submerged in what the majority considered, the idea of 'tyranny of the majority' can actually be a grave weakness of democracy by others. This tyranny of the majority, as Alexis de Tocqueville writes about the American Democracy: "power of the majority is so absolute and irresistible that one must give up one's rights as a citizen and almost abjure one's qualities as a man if one intends to stray from the track which it prescribes." What Tocqueville means by this is the idea that in an absolute democracy, the ideas of the individual will be lost in the collective will of the people, and that there is no way to stray from what the majority wills. This also means that the majority decisions will hold stay, even when the decisions may be unjust or unmoral,

and since responsibility for government lies in the people, the responsibility of an unjust action in a democratic form of government is spread so thin as to be non existent. Another crack in the foundation of a democratic form of government lies in the way different skills and knowledge are required to run a government than that usually pursued by the masses. There are several consequences of this, the main one being the emergence of professional campaigners, as well as an idea labelled by economists as information asymmetry. The emergence of professional campaigners is commented upon by Plato, who writes pointing out how in a democratic form of government, those who enter government are those who have the approval of a large part of the masses. However, the skill to gain that approval and the votes that it entails are not necessarily the skills required to run a government efficiently. Thus what occurs is that a
democratic form of government will in the end be made up of those professionals who

are excellent at rising to the crowd's adulation and making them sway to their tune are the ones who will enter government. However, since they specialize so much in the act

of entering the government, often they will leave a lot to be desired in the actual job of making the government function. On the other side of the coin is the idea of information asymmetry. This is the idea in economics that that inefficiency is created in the market by the fact that often one side to a transaction has information not available to another side. If one applies the same principle to theories of government, an interesting picture develops. This presents itself most aptly in democratic forms of government, where the masses choose, based on their unformed and often incorrect ideas on what governments can and should do; individuals who will represent their views and help the government function. The masses will look at candidates and policies that want to take part in government, and interpret them through the knowledge that they have acquired and base their worldview on. A policy on free trade may be opposed because the masses see it as a policy destructive to their economy, but some educated in economic theory may understand how such a policy may actually be beneficial to the economy. Another example is the 2010 healthcare bill passed in the US by the Obama Administration,

which was opposed most by the people who benefitted most from it. This shows the folly on relying on the opinions of a large electorate in running a government. The electorate often does not have, and does not have the means and drive to pursue the knowledge necessary to run a government efficiently. So then what is the solution? An intuitive solution can be an assimilation of Plato's idea of philosopher kings and Lenin's ideas on professional revolutionaries. Vladimir Lenin's idea was to have a group professional revolutionaries belonging to a 'vanguard party' whose task is run an organization and later a government. Based on the ideas of Leninism one can examine the inherent weaknesses of democratic forms of government and see more causes of democracy's fallibility. While most of Lenin's ideas were based on fomenting revolution to create a socialist state, his ideas can, and in the form of the initial Soviet Union were, incorporated into actual government. Rabocheye Dyelo, which is referenced by Lenin in his pamphlet, "What is to be Done?," has this written in one issue: "the worker who spends eleven and a half hours a day in the factory is in such a position that he can, in the main, perform only the

functions of an agitator; but propaganda and organisation, the delivery and reproduction of illegal literature, the issuance of leaflets, etc., are duties which must necessarily fall mainly upon the shoulders of an extremely small force of intellectuals," What this underscores is the idea that the masses have their own lives to live, and are too concerned with maintaining what they have to participate in revolution. An individual who has been educated to rule and devotes all their intellectual capacity to that end would seem to make the best foundations of a government. By that token then, the masses, on whom the onus for a democratic form of government rests, can busy themselves maintain their own lives and dreams, while those who acquire the skills for government lead it. This at first sight seems a most elegant solution. Thus, it seems that the best government would be in the form that is led by people who are educated in and actually understand the necessities of government, and who use this knowledge to govern effectively. However, this ideal in the end has the same basic problem as a democracy. The fact that, like democracy, the ideal of a government run by 'philosopher-kings' as suggested by Plato, or revolutionaries as

suggested by Lenin, does not translate from paper into reality. The government based on Lenin's ideas, primarily that of the Soviet Union eventually digressed into tyranny and oligarchy, and caused immense inefficiencies in the running of government. What a government run by 'professionals' depend on is, that instead of the masses being trusted to run a government, the 'professionals' chosen to run the government must be trusted to not misuse their power. As history is want to show us, this is not the case. There were many kings in the medieval ages, who, though raised to rule nations and their vassals, ended up as extremely cruel and despotic rulers. Ivan the Terrible, from Lenin's own homeland, was born and raised to be the 'Grand Prince of Moscow,' but was known for his dreadful secret police and violent leanings. Another example of 'professionalism' gone wrong is that of the man who ruled with a Leninist title: Joseph Stalin. Stalin came to power as the leader of the Communist Party in the USSR, and was ostensibly one of Lenin's 'professional' revolutionaries. However, Stalin used the power he acquired to launch some of the bloodiest pogroms in history. Also he set the

tone for the corruption and inefficiencies that eventually led to the failure of the communist model as a whole. This pattern was continued by succeeding Soviet rulers, who did not spill blood to the same degree, lived licentious lifestyles on the back of the inefficient and corrupt governments that they led. This is tendency is best exemplified by Leon Trotsky, who writes "In the internal politics of the Party these methods lead, as we shall see below, to the Party organisation "substituting" itself for the Party, the Central Committee substituting itself for the Party organisation, and finally the dictator substituting himself for the Central Committee" in reference to Lenin's idea of a professional party. Trotsky presents how concentrating the power in a few individuals makes it likely that the members of that select group would consolidate power in themselves, and leave it unlikely that power would pass to the proletariat as Lenin envisioned. Another example of this weakness presents itself during the course of the French Revolution, whereby placing the power amongst a small group of individuals, as in the Directory, allowed Napoleon to work it from the inside and consolidate power in his own person.

Thus, while Plato's troop of Philosopher- kings and Lenin's cadre of professional revolutionaries cum government officials look good on paper, history has shown how such a solution as that proposed by people such as Plato and Lenin becomes flawed when applied to the real world. What it all comes back to is, as Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." So, if no other form of government seems to work in the real world, the focus must shift to eliminating the weaknesses of a government of the masses. The solution may then lie in taking the idea of men such as Lenin and Plato: that of professional, educated leaders of government, and applying it to the main weakness of democracy. The idea then emerges that since the masses are not to be trusted because of their ignorance and lack of education, giving the same masses the education and knowledge needed to run the government themselves. Not the most elegant solution perhaps, but one that may actually work. However, throughout the history of modern government, there have been several problems in the drive to achieve an educated electorate, and these problems

do not magically disappear. As history has marched on, suffrage has expanded to include new and previously excluded groups: Universal Manhood Suffrage in France after the revolution, women' and minority suffrage in the early 1900's, selfdetermination and independence in former European colonies in the mid twentieth century. A fact of this is that this expanding enfranchisement has brought less politically conscious and educated members into the electorate. Another obstacle in achieving an appropriately educated electorate is the fact that it is not in the interest of those who play power politics to have an educated voter base. This undermines them by giving the masses the knowledge to call those in power to account, and make government transparent and efficient. While the act of educating an electorate has, and will be a hard task, its value is none the less. Some may argue that politics and education are very separate fields, and that education does not have much impact on political thought. However, recent studies have shown that a higher level of education directly correlates with greater political activity and less political apathy. These show how important education is to

the masses to install a government that understands and cares about what it is doing. As Thomas Jefferson said "great measures without which no republic can maintain itself in strength: 1. That of general education, to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom." No government run by the masses wax full with an uneducated and apathetic electorate. In such a scenario, as Plato mentions in his works, a democracy is little better than a tyranny. With drive, knowledge and education however, the debate and arguing that is the facsimile of democracy makes it a powerful form of government. The problem then comes up, of what is the required education, and how to reach out and provide this education to the masses. The education required by the electorate to function at its peak, is actually quite simple, it is the education required to see connections and understand how and why different events can affect an individual. The education is also the knowledge to understand and analyse problems and different approaches to the solution of those problems. Education to achieve this level of thinking can be a very daunting task, but at the same time has reached new and

unfathomable heights by the advent of the information age. The internet has allowed the electorate to discuss opinions and allowed them to examine and explain ideas, policies and events in almost instantly. At times, even the mainstream media play catch up with websites such as Twitter and Facebook. The degree to which the internet has allowed the people who comprise the electorate to participate and make their opinions heard is unprecedented. The need for the fundamental basics of education still exists though. It does not do not build a hut without strong foundation, and so it does not do to try and make an educated electorate with no knowledge of the basics. This is what an education system is for. The system is not there to teach knowledge, for all the knowledge in the world is more than the human mind can hold. Rather the goal of education that aims for an educated electorate is to give the said body the tools to acquire the knowledge they require, and indications of what kind of knowledge will be required. An electorate that questions the basis of any decisions and forces the representatives to account for themselves will lead to the vibrant government that is the pinnacle of technology.

In the future, some form of direct democracy may also be possible, with educated electorates being able to vote directly on issues through a government portal on the internet. This is however a far off view of humanity that assumes that prejudice; hunger for power and other baggage like the sheer folly of mankind could be cast off and thrown to the winds. While, it may be a far off and unrealizable dream, the entire purpose of democracy, according to Lincoln, was to build upon the idea each succeeding generation, always reaching towards the ideal. For the time being, the path to realizing that ideal, to some degree, is to turn the electorate from groups that do as they are told, to groups that actually run the government in an orderly and efficient manner. While, it is a tough road, the education of the electorate is the way that the concept of a government of the masses leaves behind its flaws and becomes a pinnacle of efficient and sound government.