United States Singled a Shining Democratic Governance;,

¶ … United States singled a shining democratic governance;, U.S. system governance immune criticism. Scholar One of the critiques of democracy discussed within the articles for this assignment is greatly associated with the role that private property and wealth plays in democratic societies. Specifically, within Santas' "Plato's criticism of democracies in The Republic," the author alludes to the fact that the influence of these two external aspects of government -- the private property and wealth of the individual chosen to govern in a democracy -- has the innate potential to corrupt and to subject the needs of the masses who are governed to those of the individuals who are governing.

There is a great possibility that the author is correct regarding this point of criticism. One of the points of validity for this notion is the fact that it is found in literature and is one of the chief points of disparagement that Plato makes about democracies in The Republic. Additionally, an examination of human nature -- particularly as it is applied to contemporary Western society -- demonstrates that power is corruptive, especially in regards to an individual's prioritization of his or her needs before those of others. One may argue that it is an intrinsic aspect of human nature to attempt to take care of one's own needs before one takes care of the needs of others. As such, the desire for rulers to allow their own personal interest to supersede the performance of their jobs (to in effect govern in a way so that they can increase their own monetary benefit and personal property) is a natural one and has interfered with too many governments, both democracies or otherwise.

There is some evidence that this critique of Santas' is unwarranted. History attests to the fact that there have been rulers (again, in both democracies and in other forms of government) who have not ruled at the expense of their subjects, and who have endured personal sacrifice for the sake of those governments. Abraham Lincoln, for example, likely had little personal interest in preserving the Union.

The best way to refute the critique that Santas made regarding the fact that democracies are limited in their effectiveness when those in positions of government have private property, the concerns of which factor more importantly for them than those for their subjects, would be to utilize historical and contemporary examples that prove otherwise. Generally speaking one can cite those politicians and members of democracies that are overtly concerned for their subjects. For instance, one can successfully argue that despite his own private property and wealth, there is little personal interest that the current president has in extending the Affordable Care Act, which provides affordable health care to those who are monetarily disadvantaged.

Another critique of democracy is advanced in Beard's "Framing the Constitution" and pertains to the liberty that democracies afford people. This criticism is based on the notion that there is too much leeway and freedom for people in true democracies, both at the personal level as well as at the state level, in the example of the U.S. Such a criticism is also evidenced in Santas' document (2007), in which the author states that Plato believed democracies enabled too much freedom (p. 70).

There is some degree of validity to this criticism of Beard's. In many ways, the fundamental concepts of government and of freedom are antipodes of one another -- government implies restraint and freedom denotes liberty. The history of the U.S., particularly as it existed under the Articles of the Confederation, certainly attests to the fact that the degree of liberty afforded under this initial democracy allowed for too many states rights at the expense of the solidarity of the country itself. The difficulties that this country had in raising money for its central government attest to this fact (Beard, 1912, p. 2).

The critique that democracies afford too much liberty can also be interpreted as invalid. True freedom, after all, comes from the ability to be protected and secure from the harm of others. Democracies are formed to preserve freedom, which is an integral quality of life. Preserving freedom and civil liberties should be the principle aim for virtually any form of government, especially so for a democracy. Democratic forms of governments are those in which all individuals can contribute to a particular state or nation. Moreover, all individuals are supposed to be able to contribute equality in democratic governments, which is why everyone is given one vote in America, and no one is given more than one vote. Limiting the freedom of democracies serves to undermine the very tenets of liberty and equality which are at the core of this form of government.