On refuting the Arguments on behalf of Democracy

On refuting the Arguments on behalf of Democracy
Roshlan Rahman Dipto
Abstract
In the modern liberal scientific world, Democracy is the most commonly practiced political
philosophy. Most of the countries of the modern world practice democracy and for many it is
the best political philosophy we have.This paper takes stance against this particular philosophy
and attempts to debunk the arguments on behalf of it.
Definitions
According to Oxford languages, Democracy is “a system of government by the whole
population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.”[1].
It takes consent of the members of the community while selecting the leader and making
policies.
Arguments and Refutations
In this section we will see the three arguments on behalf of democracy and we will
attempt to refute the arguments or show inconsistencies.
Argument 1
On behalf of democracy,
P1: A political system is a community of consenting people who share the same territory.
P2: Policies that members of the community ought to live by should, to some extent, be decided
by the members of the community.
P3: Without consent for the legitimacy of the government, the community fractures.
Therefore, the best form of government is democracy, which takes consent from the members of
the community while selecting leaders and making policies.
Refutation
First premise has no necessitating factor, a political system may involve communities where
members explicitly do not consent but still coexist peacefully under a system of rules. Policies
can be effectively determined by a qualified and informed authority, without requiring consent
from all or most members, to maintain order and stability. Community fracture can be avoided
by means other than consent for example legal enforcement and it's not new. Therefore,
democracy is not necessarily the best form of government.
Argument 2
On behalf of Democracy,
Premise 1: The general public has the ability to evaluate candidates and their policies.
Premise 2: If two candidates present good and bad policies, the public will elect the one with
good policies who is most skilled and qualified.
Therefore, democracy enables the selection of the most qualified individuals.
Refutation
The general public may not always possess sufficient knowledge or understanding to evaluate
the qualifications and policies of candidates.In his book “AGAINST DEMOCRACY”, Jason
Brennan coined these people as “Hobbits”[2]. Popularity and rhetoric can influence elections
more than the actual qualifications or skills of candidates. No guarantee that the most skilled or
qualified individual will be elected, as voters may prioritize charisma, identity, or short-term
benefits over expertise. Therefore, democracy does not necessarily ensure the election of the
most qualified individuals.
Argument 3
On behalf of Democracy,
Premise 1: Democracy includes regular elections that allow voters to remove leaders who fail to
deliver on their promises.
Premise 2: This method forces parties and leaders to fulfill their promises and govern
effectively.
Premise 3: The separation of powers (executive, legislative, and judiciary) prevents any one
branch from becoming tyrannical.
Therefore, democracy ensures accountability and overall good governance.
Refutation
Even regular elections do not guarantee accountability, as voters may lack sufficient information
or may continue to elect ineffective leaders for various reasons, including lack of viable
alternatives. The forces for good governance can be undermined by short-term, where leaders
prioritize immediate gains over long-term stability to secure reelection. The separation of
powers can be weakened by collusion or dominance of one branch. Therefore, democracy does
not inherently ensure accountability or prevent harmful governance, as its mechanisms can fail
under certain conditions.
Conclusion
It's not the case that as most people do so, so that becomes good or viable. Democracy as a
political philosophy has its own loopholes and is not superior to other political philosophies in
any rational way. This paper attempts to show, democracy has its own limitations and for need it
can be replaced without any hesitation. It's not like a divine decree that everyone must bow
down after as like every other political philosophy it can be replaced and questioned for future
need in time.
References
1. “Oxford Languages”, https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

2. Against Democracy, Jason Brennan, Princeton University Press, [2016], p.4

On refuting the Arguments on behalf of Democracy

Uploaded by

On refuting the Arguments on behalf of Democracy

Uploaded by

On refuting the Arguments on behalf of Democracy

Roshlan Rahman Dipto

Arguments and Refutations

1. “Oxford Languages”, https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

You might also like