That 'blind democracy' (let's say; faith in the power of group think over conventional wisdom), as a primary socio-political philosophy, could apparently be failing the West in such a severe way seems anathema to all that The West traditionally sees as intelligent and wise. However, it is arguable that this is just a 'meme' that westerners have been blindly swallowing, like coolaid administered from trusted elders.
Here are some quotes from The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, for example, suggesting that there were once highly respected elders in the West - elders who arguably positioned the West in the most intelligent and positive direction, who did not venerate blind democracy in the way that westerners do today. Unfortunately, however, like Jesus and Gandhi, they were severely persecuted for trying to help:
Editor’s preface, p.xiii wrote:Socrates is the patron saint of philosophy. Although he was preceded by certain philosophical poets and surrounded by some learned sophists, he was the first real philosopher. If you wish to know “What is philosophy?” one good answer is that philosophy is what Socrates did and what he started.”
p12 wrote:“We know, for example, that Socrates was born in Athens in 470, that he came from the deme of Alopeke, and that he was sentenced to drink hemlock after he was judged guilty in 399 of each of the three charges that Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon accused him of: corrupting youth, introducing new divinities, and not believing in the state gods.”
p339 wrote:“Socrates goes on to comment on the rare souls who have “tasted how sweet and blessed a possession philosophy is, and at the same time they’ve also seen the madness of the majority and realized, in a word, that hardly anyone acts sanely in public affairs and that there is no ally with whom they might go to the aid of justice and survive, that instead they’d perish before they could profit either their city or their friends and be useless both to themselves and to others, just like a man who has fallen among wild animals and is neither willing to join them in doing injustice nor sufficiently strong to oppose the general savagery alone. Taking all this into account, they lead a quiet life and do their own work. Thus, like someone who takes refuge under a little wall from a storm of dust or hail driven by the wind, the philosopher – seeing others filled with lawlessness – is satisfied if he can somehow lead his present life free from injustice and impious acts and depart from it with good hope, blameless and content.” (Republic 496c5-e2) It would be hard to imagine a more extreme statement of the hostility between philosophy and politics as they exist in the non-ideal world.”
p340 wrote:“In effect, he demands that politics be based on knowledge of what is best for the community, and this means what is best for the “souls” of the citizens. Statecraft ought to be based on a philosophically defensible understanding of what is best for human beings. Socrates was famous, correspondingly, for leading every question back to an examination of his interlocutor’s way of living (e.g., Apology 36c3-d1, 39c6-d2, Laches 187e6–188a5, Symposium 215e6–216c3), and for being concerned above all about how he should live his own life. One of the key methods Socrates used to raise the question of the justifiability of an individual’s or community’s modus vivendi was the paradigm of expert knowledge.”
p348-349 wrote:“Some interpreters have suggested that of the next-best regimes Socrates sketches in the Republic , a slight and surprising preference for democracy might be indicated for the sorts of derivative considerations just sketched. Democracy is characterized by its liberty (including freedom of speech, 557b5), license ( 557b5), the leave given to each to arrange his private life as he judges best ( 557b4–10), and therewith its permissiveness with respect to the pursuit of wisdom as well as luxury and decadence. Strikingly, even the democratic soul is said to be attracted to “philosophy” at times ( 561d2). Socrates at one point remarks that democracy is “a convenient place to look for a constitution” for the reason that “it contains all kinds of constitutions on account of the license it gives its citizens. So it looks as though anyone who wants to put a city in order, as we were doing, should probably go to a democracy, as to a supermarket of constitutions, pick out whatever pleases him, and establish that” ( 557d1–9).”
Do you think it is time to go beyond democracy as a primary socio-political tool?
Do you think this western blind democracy is still such a worthy export to 'impose' on other nations, as has been the fashion, at this current developmental stage?
Do you see any necessary change to the present western democratic vision? If so, what? - A return to noble kingship, for example? Philosopher kings?