Contemporary democracy serves as a fundamental system for making and governing political decisions in accordance with the needs of societies. This governing model is implemented in diverse ways across different countries, depending on their values, culture, and economic structure. However, when the fundamental principles and practices of contemporary democracy are compared with the political philosophy of the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, it presents an intriguing perspective. For Socrates, politics is a technical matter.

Socrates, a philosopher who lived in Athens in the 5th century BC, possessed a deep interest in politics, which formed the basis of his philosophical thoughts. Socrates’ understanding of politics is deeply intertwined with the indispensable elements of a democratic society: participation, freedom of thought, and just governance. Nevertheless, contemporary politics, with its technological advancements, globalization, and complexity, significantly differs from the Athens of Socrates’ time. This article will delve into the similarities and differences between the functioning of contemporary democracy and Socrates’ political philosophy, offering an in-depth examination of the relationship between the two.

Socrates metaphorically likened the management of a state to that of a ship’s captain. According to him, governing a state requires technical skills and expertise, making it a specialized field. Socrates believed that the ideal ruler, the “Philosopher King,” should possess the knowledge required for governing a state. These philosopher-kings are individuals distinct from the ordinary populace, as they hold the truth’s knowledge.

They are not ordinary or part of the herd!

To us, living in contemporary democracies, this idea may appear unconventional because in democracies, politics is not considered a profession requiring knowledge of an ultimate truth. In modern representative democracies, there are political parties, each representing different ideologies and party platforms. The public chooses which party they believe will benefit the country through elections. The public decides which party is more beneficial or should be in power.

In Socrates’ ideal state, the Philosopher Kings make decisions about what is beneficial for the country. They possess the knowledge of what is right and true, enabling them to calculate the interests of the state as if conducting a mathematical equation. The knowledge these philosopher-kings possess exists independently of the external world.

They can access this immutable knowledge irrespective of time and space, and apply it to the specific circumstances of the state. In this context, the public does not have access to the knowledge accessible through reason, and they are not involved in governance. Sokrates’ concept of state governance is fundamentally different from the modern understanding of democracy. In Sokrates’ ideal state, a small elite of philosopher-kings makes decisions that determine the fate of the public. In contemporary democracies, decisions are made based on the needs, interests, and demands of the public, as there is no unchanging core knowledge or a universally applicable truth. The interests, needs, and demands of states vary over time and in different political contexts. In other words, a state is akin to an organic being with its own desires, interests, and needs. Politicians attempt to understand what the public wants, needs, and demands and present various options. The public then chooses from these options. Politicians do not need to possess the knowledge of ultimate truth in this framework; they only need to understand what the public desires.

In a democracy, politicians come together to create a common ground or a shared platform. This shared platform is shaped according to the changing needs, interests, and desires depending on the time and place. While Sokrates’ ideal state contradicts contemporary democracies, it is not constructed as a response to today’s democratic understanding but rather as a reaction to the direct democracy of Athens. He explains state governance using a ship metaphor.

“…let’s say the ship’s captain is the tallest and strongest of all the crew; but on the other hand, he doesn’t hear well, he doesn’t see well, and his knowledge of navigation is weak. The other sailors, although none of them can show that they are skilled at captaincy or that they have received training in it, and none of them can say from whom they learned it, all nonetheless are clamoring to steer the ship. In response, they’re prepared to kill anyone to whom the captain hands over the helm or to throw him overboard, and they start to take control of the ship themselves, as is to be expected.”