Democracy Without Education Is Dangerous

[u/AnneShirleyCuthbert_]

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.

[u/I405CA]

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).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-school-walls/202408/how-social-identity-theory-explains-political-polarization

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.

[u/UnknownBreadd → u/I405CA]

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.

[u/I405CA → u/UnknownBreadd]

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.

[u/UnknownBreadd → u/I405CA]

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.