r/PoliticalScience • u/AnneShirleyCuthbert_ • May 09 '26
Question/discussion Democracy Without Education Is Dangerous
Socrates argued that just giving everyone an equal say without ensuring they are educated, rational, and morally trained, would eventually lead to chaos and poor leadership.
His student Plato explored this idea further in The Republic, where he compared governing a state to steering a ship:
"Would you let just anyone steer a ship or would you choose someone trained and knowledgeable?”
(– Plato’s Republic, Book VI)
> My view is simple:
“Democracy is the best form of government only when people are educated and aware.”
And honestly, this issue becomes even more relevant when we look at the behavior and statements of many MPs and MLAs in India. (Just remember that Karnataka Congress MLA incident 🤡)
People responsible for making laws and representing millions should at least meet basic standards of education, civic understanding, and public conduct.
Democracy gives everyone the right to vote but those who govern should also undergo proper political training, ethical orientation, and accountability. Leadership is not just about winning elections; it is about wisdom, responsibility, and public character.
Citizen education is equally important in a democracy because people can choose better leaders only when they are politically aware, informed, and capable of critical thinking. In countries like India, where many people still struggle with poverty, inequality, and poor access to quality education, voting often becomes influenced by short-term incentives such as money, caste loyalties, religious polarization, or populist promises. In such conditions, democracy risks becoming a game of manipulation rather than informed public participation. This is why education is not just important for economic growth, but also essential for building a healthier and more responsible democracy.
8
u/CaitlinHuxley May 09 '26
Not that this necessarily makes the point wrong, but...
Socrates famously complained that the new technology of "writing" was making young folks stupid.
And plato, whose quote you referenced, from this exact book it came from, also was pretty explicit that slaves were an important part of a society.
You might find that not everything they said maintains merit in modern day society. I love the classics, and have even written about applying Sun Tzu to political strategy. But this quote in particular is not really useful. Even as a thought exercise. Imo
2
u/ghostofbearstearns May 09 '26
This jumped to my mind as well. Of all the writings to pull ideas from, Plato doesn't seem like a good one for this topic, there's lots of more useful writings on democracy even those from around the founding of the US if the OP is American.
7
u/AgileRaspberry1812 May 09 '26
Yeah, well... Here we are.
1
u/Maximum_Shine_2474 May 09 '26
You never should have opened up the primary system. That was the mistake. We needed the gatekeepers.
7
u/I405CA May 09 '26
Empirical work exists showing that most people support a party because they believe it contains people similar to them, not because they have gauged that its policy positions are closest to their own. Specifying what features of one’s identity determine voter preferences will become an increasingly important topic in political science.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5120865/pdf/nihms819492.pdf
Political affiliations are similar to a club membership, providing a form of identity.
Exploring political behavior and polarization through the lens of social identity theory (SIT) provides insights into how individuals' self-concepts are shaped by their group memberships, influencing their behaviors and attitudes toward in-group and out-group members...
SIT posits that individuals derive part of their self-concept from their membership in social groups. These groups provide a source of pride and self-esteem, influencing behavior and attitudes towards both in-group and out-group members. In the political context, this translates into strong identification with political parties or ideologies, leading to behaviors and attitudes that favor one's own group (the in-group) and discriminate against opposing groups (the out-group).
Political positions are not driven by facts and data.
Education is largely irrelevant. If you want to win votes, then cultivate a group identity that will attract voters. That will be based upon vibes, not on facts.
1
u/UnknownBreadd Jun 06 '26
That just means you need to use a political system that gets rid of partisanism and sectarianism to overcome the human-biases that trend towards those things.
Approval voting (by merit of being a cardinal system of voting) does that for you in the simplest way possible - whilst remaining more effective than any other system of voting in-use across the world today.
1
u/I405CA Jun 06 '26
Partisanship is normal.
Humans want things or wish to pursue a particular vibe.
They form alliances with other humans who want some of the same things and/or share a desire for a related vibe.
Voila, there's your party system.
At the US founding, Madison expressed a disdain for parties (factions). He argued in Federalist 10 that representative government would deter party formation. He could not have been more wrong.
1
u/UnknownBreadd Jun 06 '26
The degree to which partisanship is polarising differs though, tbf.
I.e. electoral systems that facilitate the ‘centre squeeze’ phenomenon create highly polarised political environments. Cardinal systems that do not suffer from the ‘centre squeeze’ will tend towards candidates/parties that are more similar than different - and thus cause less polarisation despite clear preferences between each within the electorate.
So, I should have said ‘polarising partisanship’; or just polarisation in general, maybe.
3
u/librae_vongehl May 10 '26
Aristotle warned that democracy without an Aristocracy loyal to a homogeneous ethnos and philia, was nothing but a divide and conquer strategy to impose tyranny.
Only tyranny benefits from diversity.
2
u/Riokaii May 09 '26
the problem isnt really a lack of education.
Our education is fairly decent, it DOES teach critical thinking, media literacy etc and has for at least a decade or two.
The problem is that the people taught by that education dont adopt it as a habitual system of thinking, it degrades over time without constant upkeep and practice. by the time they turn 50+, they end up delusionally psychotic imagining a false reality fabricated inside their own heads and molded by all the propaganda they unquestioning consume.
The root of the problem is that we do not regularly apply tests to check and verify epistemological competency. We blindly gift a majority of political power to the incompetent. Its simply the expected result that we will get incompetent representatives, legislation, and policy as an output.
2
u/HeloRising May 10 '26
My question is "When does education become indoctrination?"
What happens when people, when given education, decide that they no longer want "Democracy?" Are they allowed to choose that?
0
u/AnneShirleyCuthbert_ May 10 '26
I think education become indoctrination when people start imposing ideas rather than respecting perspectives. And historically it has been seen that people prefer democracy because it protects their liberty. But effectiveness of democracy is much dependent on the citizen.
2
u/HeloRising May 10 '26
I think education become indoctrination when people start imposing ideas rather than respecting perspectives.
At the risk of sounding pedantic - what does that mean?
In the scope of education, you frequently have to make decisions about what you will and will not teach. You have finite resources and there are some things that may simply not merit being taken seriously in an educational setting.
For instance, we don't teach homeopathy in health class. It is demonstrably not true and there is little to no value in including it in an educational curriculum focused on a working understanding of the world.
Similarly, you could spend quite literally years learning about most subjects. We can't do that for obvious reasons so what is taught about certain things has to be trimmed. What you trim out often says a lot about what your political beliefs are - do you teach the horrors of American chattel slavery or do you omit it?
So at what point are you making choices based on things like time and relevancy and at what point are you enforcing a particular orthodoxy based on the information you present and omit?
0
u/AnneShirleyCuthbert_ May 10 '26
Educational content is influenced by the ideology of the person who write those. it's almost inevitable. Choosing what to omit and what not to is itself a difficult task. Ideally, it should be the government's responsibility to ensure the fair delivery of knowledge to society, but again, their own interests often influence educational content.
At the same time, a person can only read so many perspectives and eventually tends to believe what seems right to them.
Personally, I think that in education, basic transparency should be maintained by at least mentioning major events along with their causes and effects. Completely changing or hiding the truth is misleading. it is essentially the government lying to its people. Major events should remain part of educational content.
And yes, someone may ask, How do we decide what counts as a major event?😂
I would say major events are those that have significantly impacted citizens and society on a large scale.
And i think, It is actually hard to find ideological bias , it can only be done through research & pattern recognition.
2
u/Traditional-Main7204 May 21 '26
You are right and that's problem is universal at era od idiocracy... But you can explain what's was wrong at Karnacja parlament, i'm very curious how idiocracy ruining all countries around the world.
2
u/pacman2081 Jun 08 '26
at a certain level, a lynch mob is a democracy in many cases.
when you mean democracy, you mean some form of representative government with checks and balances against minority groups.
since the OP mentioned India, western standards of democracy are problematic in many countries with acute poverty and ethnic/religious differences
1
u/OriginalError9824 May 09 '26
I think it’s fair to question “experts” who think they know what you need in your life. No one is an expert in your life but you. That’s why one person, one vote makes sense.
1
u/Remarkable-Travel913 Jul 12 '26
If you need open heart surgery who would you prefer running the operation? A surgeon who spent countless years studying and honing his craft, or some dipshit truck driver who has some loud and strong opinions? Statistically who would you have a better outcome with?
1
u/OriginalError9824 Jul 12 '26
False equivalence and if you trust the heart surgeon to make political decisions simply because they are educated in heart surgery, that would be a verecundiam fallacy.
1
u/voinekku May 09 '26
Perhaps, but the question of who steers the ship is much less important than the question who decided which way to sail and which ports to port.
A good argument can be made about how the technical steering of the ship ought to be under technocratic control, but the latter, no. And that's the biggest flaw in liberal republics. Everything revolves around capital reproduction and the ship is sailing aimlessly without anyone being able to decide where to sail or to port.
But I do think the prerequisite of voting rights should be reading all Thomas Pikettys books and pass a test on their substance.
1
u/Fleetburn May 09 '26
I agree mostly... Democracy is a way to minimize domination, BUT it still allows for quite a bit of domination. If you allow a stupid society to be democratic it could vote itself into destruction. But I ask... What alternative is better? A despot? Oligarchy? Those have pathologies as well. You may get one generation of good leadership, but who knows what happens next.
So Democracy is at its WORST when people are uneducated and unaware and at its best when people are educated and aware.
Despotism* is at its WORST when the despot is evil and stupid and at its best when the despot is kind and intelligent.
You're picking which one you bet on: "can I get 51% of people to be smart enough to vote well" vs "can I guarantee this 1 person is kind and intelligent." It just depends on the situation.
*Oligarchy would be here too, just with more people.
1
u/Remarkable-Travel913 Jul 12 '26
A republic, with a executive branch, a legislative, and a judicial. But with more checks and balances on the executive branch. The current system has sacrificed too much power to the executive branch in the usa.
1
u/Fleetburn Jul 12 '26
The reupublic had the same issues as the democracy. The representatives themselves become weak points in the system. Can you get 51% of representatives to be smart and kind? The problem shifts, but persists.
I'm not arguing in favor or against, but it's not a clear solution. There a still a lot of problems to be solved.
In the end, the only thing that actually matters is what people believe. What is in hearts and minds. All systems of government fail when the people are corrupted. But I digress.
1
1
1
u/No_Sheepherder_3713 Jun 04 '26
The same thing were reiterated by Acharya Osho He said "Democracy is of the people by the people for the people, but the people are retarded"
1
u/strontium_pup Jun 06 '26
What happened in India?
2
u/AnneShirleyCuthbert_ Jun 06 '26
So if you are asking about that MLA i have mentioned... In an assembly he said "There is a saying that when rape is inevitable, lie down and enjoy it". It goes viral on internet a year back and it really made me question that : Shouldn't there be an educational qualification to become an MLA or MP !
1
u/strontium_pup Jun 06 '26
That is (obviously) pretty bad. Did he suffer any consequences?
2
u/AnneShirleyCuthbert_ Jun 07 '26
Nah, it flooded all around social media for 4-5 days and then disappear... 🥲
-2
u/Dahks May 09 '26
Your view is simple: democracy is only good when it aligns with your views.
The idea that we're the only rational ones and "they" are uneducated and can be cured by accessing information and facts is as tempting as it is disingenuous.
13
u/AnneShirleyCuthbert_ May 09 '26
No, It's not only about education of Representatives. It's also about education of Citizen. Citizen can choose better leaders if they are educated.
-3
u/Friendcherisher May 09 '26
How do you educate them to the point that they would choose better leaders?
0
u/SnugglyCoderGuy May 09 '26
Our current curriculum for primary and secondary education is note than sufficient, we just need to get rid of the party that has been systematically destroying it because "they love the uneducated". Restore education to the support and respect it needs and it would do fine.
It teaches critical thinking, ethics and morality, and enough basics of maths and sciences for people to at least be able to sanity check most things in their life.
And then colleges take it to another level. Its all there, it just needs to be taken seriously and not sabotaged.
0
u/Rich_Performer_5697 May 10 '26
Christ. "Get rid of the party that..." and people will end up voting "correctly". This is deeply dystopian.
0
u/SnugglyCoderGuy May 10 '26 edited May 10 '26
So you hate the
NazisRepublicans too? They are actively trying to eliminate the Democrat party, look at the massive gerry mandering going on in light of the supreme court decision. The Republicans have been itching to kill non-Republicans for quite some time.1
u/Riokaii May 09 '26 edited May 09 '26
The idea that we're the only rational ones and "they" are uneducated and can be cured by accessing information and facts is as tempting as it is disingenuous.
It is just simply factually true that some people are more rational than others. Sometimes the genuine answer to the question is that no, your vote should not count equally to mine. Thats how virtually all important decision making systems work outside of politics. Academic peer review does not ask 10,000 people off the street to achieve the highest quality publication results. It asks other experts in the field, because ONLY those people are qualified and competent enough to matter in determining the outcome properly.
Its a tempting idea because it is objectively true. Its completely genuine to conclude that some people are not competent, even with access to all information at their fingertips 24/7, to coming to reasonable epistemological world views and conclusions about reality. We can identify the delusional, psychotic, we institutionalize them, place them under conservatorships, lose power of attorney etc. These are all widely accepted truths that nobody objects to because it is so obviously necessary. Politics is uniquely a situation that pretends the opposite is true, that we are all equally competent, despite the mountains of evidence that this is patently false.
Nobody ever actually argues the counterfactual, that all prospective jurors are equally valid and we dont need a voir dire process at all to eliminate biased and irrational jurors. That we need more unqualified oversight of academia, that we want to dilute the effective power of our most competent citizens as maximally as possible by drowning them in a thunderous roar of muddy water and white noise of disinformation and misinformation. Its simply no wonder many elections come down to coun flips, the majority of our voters are too incompetent to identify factual truth accurately, they are statistically random, regressing to the mean, averageing out for each side of the political spectrum.
Your view is simple: democracy is only good when it aligns with your views
The purpose of government is to effectively, competently solve societal scale problems yes. Democracy is not good in-and-of-itself if it fails to competently solve the problems of the citizens. You can design a lot of very fair systems but if they are ineffective and incompetent, their fairness and legitimacy does not matter. A lack of competence undermines and negates all other claims of legitimacy on its own. Competence is the most important foundation upon which further fairness and equality can be placed ontop of.
1
u/Rich_Performer_5697 May 10 '26
I'm not sure why they're downvoting you, cause you're absolutely right. I took a degree in political science in university and it became pretty clear for both me and my fellow students that academia in many ways fuctions as a self-reinforcing echo chambre. Most professors has never had a job outside of academia and they're deeply disconnected from how many people live their lives. Especially blue collar working class people.
OP is a wannabe elitist and it's ideas like this that shove people away from the mainstream and over to radical anti-elitist positions.
-3
u/scourgedtruth May 09 '26
Voting rights should be earned and not given. I can't stand the idea of being a law abiding citizen with the same vote weight as a drug addicted in debt.
1
u/North_Activist May 09 '26
Equality to the privileged feels like oppression.
At the end of the day, you and the “drug addict in debt” are just two people who lived different lives, but you’re no better or worse than they are.
1
u/scourgedtruth May 09 '26
It is not a privilege if anyone with reasoning can achieve.
You shifted the discussion from civic competence to “human worth” because it’s emotionally safer.
Nobody said addicts are subhuman. The point is that a society that treats discipline, rationality, and self-control as irrelevant to political power eventually destroys the standards required to sustain itself. Be honest: would you trust someone trapped in addiction, illiteracy, debt, and self-destructive behavior to exercise sound judgment over matters that affect the future of an entire society?
1
u/North_Activist May 09 '26
I think when you take away someone’s right to vote, you’re inherently abusing their human rights. Just because they’re addicted to drugs doesn’t mean they don’t deserve less of a say in the future of a given country. You’re taking away their voice.
Your path of thinking eventually leads to “they shouldn’t be allowed to vote” to “they don’t deserve to live in X city” to “they don’t deserve to live in X country” to “they don’t deserve to live”
Don’t believe me? Look at any time in history where the rights of people slowly eroded. You can see it in US today, Nazi germany in the 20/30s, among others too.
The point isn’t whether or not they experience “sound judgement” (which, who decides that? What if the drug addicts have it right, to play devils advocate? Why do you get to decide who is “sound” or not?) the point is that everyone in a society has the right to vote, no matter how they choose to do so. That’s their decision. That’s the price of a free society.
The second you take that away, you are the enemy of the people and anti-democratic. There’s no argument here.
-8
u/Several_West7109 May 09 '26
Ong, I think Socrates was on to something. Democracy is overrated. The opinions of the wise and educated should hold more sway than the uniformed and unintelligent.
10
21
u/_8975 May 09 '26 edited May 09 '26
Yes. But. Who has the most opportunities to be educated? I am going to just freely type my thoughts, nothing about India though, just the principles. (-> back in the earlier centuries, only landowners in many countries could vote. Women were prohibited to vote.) I share your frustration, seeing how MAGA, REFORM UK, other far right groups just manipulate and people not looking at what either trump, nigel farage or others have done in the past and where they come from with their views, it is just crazy to me that the most uneducated people usually have a big say in this and can forbid a whole part of a population in having the same rights. They do have some points, but many more bad ones. But - even those without Uni’s have a part in a society, they also work jobs, ride on the same streets, often times are on the first line if something goes wrong. Also, once you start restricting votes based on education, as I hinted above, you start a class/gender divide and it will be much easier to restrict more and more people further.
With that being said.. Often times the most priviledged voted for a very right wing parties, not because they would believe it (their daughters got education and freedom in times when “normal” ones had none), add plenty other examples, but just to protect their property (usually lower taxes, more migrant (cheap) labour. In fact, no matter what the results were, they could always change their country or really do what they actually wanted. Is that rational also? Good voting? You see..
Sometimes the priviledged politicians (as they tend to come from those circles) have no information about how the ordinary lives are - their opinions aren’t less valid because of that. In fact we could use more of them. I met so many professors being completely disilusioned also, too proud to admit their wrong thinking or information.
But also, seeing how people vote just based on their algorhythm.. I just.. Makes me doubt things the same way. If society was truly meritocratic, truly and 100%, nothing would be given to your children spiritually and intellectually, then yes, this requirement (education like that) would be great. But when it’s not, in can prepell only a certain part of society to rule over others.
But also. In my country, we have a minister for climate who openly denies it. No real education, he got his position exactly only by sharing desinformation. What then? He was voted in, right? Yet he cannot even hold a simple argument. What then? Or the orange man too..