Extended Essays 2021

Conclusion – I fear Plato is right

Plato’s anti -despotism is a plausible theory for the nature of democracy. The theory implies

that democracy is undesirable, and will beget tyranny. However, the theory has been disputed,

and seen through Locke’s criticisms, is not fully supported. Its use in explaining how

democracy is a just form of government is flawed, as it prioritises decision making based on

the impulses of citizens rather than the good of the city ( which Plato’s ideal aristocratic state

supersedes). It does not explain the affairs taking place in the United States, and does not

conquest against Plato’s argument.

Plato’s theory is also developed by Aristotle, who instead offers a solution through “mixed

constitution”. Although agreeing with Plato’s idea of the nature of tyranny, with excessive

allowances to choose in a ‘mixed constitution’, the government can be taken advantaged of

and ruined. Thus, while constructing the idea of a ‘polity’ (a correct form of government to

Aristotle), it can easily transcend into a democracy which is inherently bad for society

according to Plato. Furthermore, neither Locke or Aristotle’s criticisms supersede Plato’s

prediction of the emergence of tyranny in the United States.

Mill’s theory holds substantially less credibility to explain the emergence o f Trumpism.

Despite considering individual liberty, elected leaders are unaware of the best interests of the

people, which does not prove as sufficient justification for the occurrences in America. While

Hobbes argues that monarchy catalyses a strong government and lessens cases of corrupt

practices, it does not advance Plato’s argument as the quality of leadership may decrease and

the leader may not be fit to rule. While Rousseau progresses Mill’s concept through postulati ng

direct democracy, the quality of decision making decreases and this concept was designed for

a small scale state, thus it cannot be applicable to the affairs in America.

15