Plato criticizes the democratic city because, he says, under this type of leadership, everyone is free to do as he likes with no real respect for authority. Consequently, this unbalances the stability of the Ideal State and makes it worse. Plato goes on to say that the leaders in a democratic city are not required to have any training at all. Their only qualifications lie in their ability to make friends with the people. This point seems to lend to one of Plato’s main themes in Book VIII of “The Republic”, namely, that none of the rulers in any of the regimes that he discusses are enlightened rulers.
It is hard to say that Plato does not have a point here. Although the democratic city that he discusses is different from what we think of today when we think of democracy, there are still some parallels.
Few would argue that some of our public officeholders seem grossly unqualified for the job. Indeed, it seems that the main qualifications for a politician to be elected today is a toothy smile, a firm handshake, and a line of rhetoric that will win over the voters. A brilliant example would be the strong showing of Ross Perot in the 1992 Presidential race. If he had refrained from dropping out and reentering, he may have actually had a chance to win-his only qualifications being a fat wallet, shrewd business skills, and an endearing line of rhetoric.
While this does, indeed, seem scary, Plato’s Ideal State probably seems even more scary to 21st century thinking. His city is far too suppressive and single-minded for today’s way of thinking.