Attacks on Democracy: Both in theory and practice, democracy has been subjected to criticism and attack from various points of view since democratic governments and institutions came into being more than two centuries ago. IlK critics point out many defects, disadvantages and deficiencies in it, both HN an ideal and as a form of government.
It is impracticable
The very first attack on democracy is that it is impracticable and Impossible as a form of government; although we believe in the ideal of wisdom, intelligence and rationality of the common man, yet actually he is not so. According to Oswald Spangler, government by the people is a sheer Impossibility, because average man possesses little reason and still lesser understanding of politics and interest in public affairs. Popular elections are n farce, because they are actually run by a handful of clever persons. In theory, the people are the sovereign, but in practice the landlord, mill owners, big merchants and clever politicians are the sovereign. Laski also IK-wails the unfitness of the masses for self-government or democracy. “Save for great occasions like war and revolution,” he writes, “the multitude ll enfolded in its private life, content for the most part that initiative in thought and policy should rest elsewhere. So long as life flows smoothly upon a fairly even keel, it watches public affairs as a drama in which it is not expected to play an active part” Democracy is claimed to afford active participation in public life to the common man, but in practice, it has failed to arouse the masses from their inertia. The little men are not interested in big problems of their State or society. Hence democracy is merely an Impracticable ideal which can never be a reality.
More hostile critics assert that democracy is both impossible and unnatural. On the contrary, they assert that oligarchy is natural to human life and society. Burke, the English political philosopher, even said, “democratic equality is a monstrous fiction ” Hitler, the Nazi dictator, said lliut power should belong to the “exceptionally gifted minority, for the liamentary principle of vesting legislative power in the decision of the ijority rejects the authority of the individual (that is, the dictator) and puts I numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. In doing so it intradicts the aristocratic principle, which is the fundamental law of i ture.”
Two modern critics are the English writers, Lecky and Maine. According to Lecky, democracy is “the government of the poorest, the most ignorant, the most incapable, who are necessarily the most numerous.” Maine characterised democratic government as “government by the ignorant and those lacking intellect.” Carlyle, the writer who worshipped heroes, says that as there are nine fools for every wise man, democracy is the rule of fools. A witty critic of democracy parodied Lincoln’s definition thus: “Democracy is the government of the cattle by the cattle, and for the cattle.” The basis of these charges is the fact that the masses are uneducated and illiterate. They are too ignorant to understand the questions of politics and government. They are even uninterested and indifferent to them. They can, however, be influenced by passions and prejudices.
Yet they possess the right to vote, which they cast due to lack of intelligence, in favour of candidates who know how to catch votes by emotional appeal or other crafty tricks. But a. government chosen by such people must necessarily be inefficient and incompetent. Even the elected representatives are not qualified to rule. Democracy is based-on the principle that one man is as good as another, that no special skill or knowledge is required for government. The uneducated masses dislike experts and skilled persons. The result is that they elect non-experts and ignorant persons like themselves to hold the reins of government. These are the reasons why democracy is described as the government of the ignoramuses. Hence it was painted as a drunken Cleon a demagogic leader surrounded by a yelling mob.