Democracy stems from liberalism and is defined as .

Since, democracy has a lot of connotations attached to it, it becomes impossible to identify every aspect of ideologies as either supporting or undermining democracy. In this paper, those ideologies which support the individuals right to vote or the right to affect the decisions of the ruler, are considered more democratic than those which do not. Limiting democracy to this definition allows us to study a wide range of philosophers and ideologies, and comment on how democratic their leanings are. This paper seeks to analyze the critique of democracy implied not only by ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle but fascists like Hitler and Mussolini. We will start with Platos and Aristotles conception of the state before moving on to Hobbes. This will be followed by an analysis of the fascist ideology and Nazism. The paper will finally synthesize all of the arguments to understand how the critique of democracy has evolved over time before concluding the paper. Platos Republic is one of the most influential pieces of writing that not only explains the purpose of state but also envisions the first form of a democracy. Where the ultimate form of the republic can be considered dictatorial due to the existence of the philosopher king for its time it imagined the first form of the democratic system. Platos work contains an inherent critique of a pure form of democracy. The system proposed is elitist. I will prove this point by arguing that the cast system and the segregation of women and people who did not possessed land has not been eligible to vote, shows a reluctance to grant and enfranchisement to every citizen because of various reasons highlighted in the essay. The conception of slaves as brutes made it impossible to consider them equal members of the state. Similarly, those people who did not possess property were not allowed to be part of the political discourse. Plato conceived of the city states where high urban culture was a prerequisite for participation in politics. For Plato, states that function according to whims and opinions of non-specialists cannot function. Because philosophers are naturally endowed of superior qualities of reason and rationalization, the irrational opinions of the common people, this is the direct critique of democracy because it does not considered the value of the opinions (vote) of all citizens equally. This does not mean that the philosopher king stands as a complete dictator but rather he is the wisest man who is able to discern the valuable opinion from the valueless opinion. Therefore, the irrational nature of a slave or a woman makes their opinion insignificant while it favors the opinions of the elite. We can say that, Plato supports the aristocratic dictatorialism rather than democracy. Justice, for Plato, consists of delegating to each man a task they are deemed capable of. The intrinsic irrationality of slaves and women renders it impossible for them to interfere in affairs of the public. If hypothetically, they were allowed to participate in the political process they would subvert the political process from its ideal goals that lead to the formation of a republic under the guidance of a benevolent philosopher king. All of these arguments show that Plato did not support democracy as we know it today yet the principle of participation does emerge from the concept of city states and though it ultimately contributed a lot to the modern understanding of democracy, Plato nowhere himself was a proponent of it.

Aristotle has argued the best form of government is a democratic constitutional government where the size of the government is small. However, Aristotle has shown that in a democracy it is possible for the many to overwhelm the few and essentially, establish the tyranny of the majority. Aristotle was one of the first people to define the citizen as a land owner. The property makes the individual an inherent part of the political process because he has a stake in the political discourse because political decisions can affect his state and hence, standing as a citizen. Analyzing Plato, we can say that his critique of democracy is not sufficient for us to oppose democracy in the modern context. Slavery has been abolished and women stand as equal rational partners to men. Universal enfranchisement means that everyone has a say in politics. Even if the opinion of certain people may harm a state, the pluralistic nature of society today allows for the formation of blocks which ensures that a democratic state will work according to the majoritys demands. Plato does not acknowledge the power minorities can yield through the formation of blocks which ensures that the government must compromise with everyone that this situation leads to everyone being better off. It must be noted here that everyone being better off is not essentially better for the state as Plato envisioned it, but applying his own concept of justice to a modern world everyone is fit for participation in the democratic process and the corollary of this is that the state serves the people on their terms. Even for Aristotle it was considered ideal that a constitutional democratic government functions in service to the law. I argue that laws are meant to protect and hence, serve the citizens and that laws are subservient to the citizens rather than the other way round. Here, a counter argument may state that a hypothetical state does not consider rape a crime. In this state, I agree that Aristotles argument that a law should hold supreme must be considered seriously. I feel that any act that harms the fabric of the stability of the society will ultimately be eliminated by the democratic process. After an issue reaches a certain critical point it becomes a part of the democratic discourse and is eliminated. Therefore, we can say that the ancient conception of democracy extremely articulates cannot stand to in light of the truly representative and just principles of modern democracy. In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes has granted that all men are, more or less, equal. Yet, without a social contract they exist in an uncertain condition because natural law dictates the necessity of war for survival. In such a state, every man will seek to either steal or deprive another man of his rights and the only real right the person has is the right of preservation of life. In such a condition, Hobbes says the life of man is short nasty and brutish ( quote). This condition can be remedied by the association of men, leading to a social contract wherein the collective surrenders some of its rights like the acquisition of resources through stealing in return for stability, security and the potential to reap the benefits of ones labour. These rights become the property of the leviathan which can take them away or add to them as it sees fit. The Leviathan is not necessarily a single person, rather it can be the state, an oligarchic group of leaders and a single ruler. For Hobbes, a legitimate Leviathan executes the will of the people in return for the rights they bequeath to him/them. This sort of system can be construed as democratic because it provides every individual the option of serving the Leviathan. Ideally, his opinion should shape the ultimate decisions of the state. However, at the same time, the system is

not democratic because it does not account for unilateral decisions of the Leviathan and of the people who are born under the existing system. Yet, Hobbes maintains that the ultimate right to life remains with the individual and he can refuse the Leviathan, any command that threatens his/her life. (Hobbes has made a separate case for soldiers because it is a military imperative to follow all orders but even in this case potential concessions do exist). For Hobbes, it would be impractical for every citizen to affect the political system after he has agreed to the social contract. Rather it should be should that Hobbes does not imagine an individual possessing enough power or rights to influence the Leviathan. This runs paradoxical to his claim that a legitimate Leviathan reflects the will of the people because where citizens remain the largest stakeholders they surrender the very right to criticize the Leviathan. Therefore, we can say Hobbes does not support democracy through the concept of Leviathan. The principle of equality exists for Hobbes only in the state of nature. Equality in the state is subject to its provision by the Leviathan. Furthermore, Hobbes does not account for malevolent Leviathan who may exercise his power to persecute its citizens. Furthermore, the Leviathan can be dictatorial, thereby, standing in direct opposition to democracy. Implicitly, Hobbes does not support democracy, rather, he refines dictatorialism to incorporate the perspective of citizens natural and societal rights under the rule of the Leviathan. Fascism as an ideology believes that all power resides with the state and that the purpose of the individuals is spiritual actualization that results from service to the state. Fascism stands as the opposite end of the ideology spectrum from liberalism. There is a stark distinction that exists in fascism between people who can be a part of the state mechanism and those who cannot. It is almost an arbitrary qualitative difference which ensures either an oligarchic or monarchic setup. The concept of alienation does not exist because people are both a part and shaper of the state. It is a spiritual feeling of nationalism that guides fascism. Where it can be argued that fascism considered all members of the state as equals, this can only be a theoretical argument. The state stands as even more powerful than Leviathan than Hobbes would have imagined. This ideology stands against democracy because of the following reasons. It believes that the state should guide the people rather than people electing the state. It does not consider all people equal as potential effectors of the political process and it does not believe in economic capitalism which to a certain extent is a result of democratic liberalism. However, I feel that the state cannot represent the will of the entire nation because it allows for the power elite to sweep away the demands of any citizen. By depriving people of property and enfranchisement, fascism steers national rhetoric towards expansionist tendencies which may necessarily not be beneficial for its citizens. Individual will in fascism is non-existent and hence, it has failed as a dominant ideology in the modern world. Nazism is even worse than fascism in idealizing the natural superiority of a certain nation (the Aryans). Nazism contends that the Aryans are a naturally superior race and therefore, all other races should be under the yoke of Nazi rule. The objective of Hitlers Nazi regime was not only the extermination of Jews but rapid expansion and conquests of neighboring states. Nazism

can be labeled as natural imperialism. Individuals in the nazi state are superior to others on the basis of the purity of their blood lines. Therefore, people who have an impure blood line cannot have the same say in any matter as those with the Aryans. The power of the state, concept of racial superiority and the absence of individual property or rights in service to the state mean that this ideology does not even recognize democracy. Impure individuals can be purged and the spiritual will of the nation trumps everything else. An analysis of Nazism implicitly reveals antagonism to democracy. Individuals are superior to one another. The individual will cannot exist and it is inconceivable to allow a person of lesser lineage, any authority despite any claim to popularity they may have. I feel that the suppression of individual will leads to resentment against the ruling class. Furthermore, Nazism seems to be confusing species with race and it does not provide any non supremacist account of why Aryans are superior. Democracy overtime seems to eliminate racial differences at the level of political enfranchisement while Nazism embraces it. Unity in Nazism derives from a supreme sense of nationalism and it does not propose a political system that can be stable during peace. Therefore, we can say that the implicit critique of democracy in Nazism is extremely incorrect because it does not plan for stability of a nation when it is not focused on expansion. The analysis above reveals an interesting result. As we have moved from ancient times to Fascism and Nazism, the rights of individuals as democratic citizens have increased until the times of Hobbes before literally disappearing into the inchoate ideologies of Nazism and fascism. Plato and Aristotle combined do acknowledge the right of certain citizens to affect the politics of the state though discrimination in their times did not allow this right to extend to women, slaves etc. Moving on to Hobbes, we see that the principle of equality in the state if nature and the social contract do envision the individuals granting power to the state. However, their democratic participation is limited after the formation of the Leviathan. We can analyze this argument in a different way. For Plato and Aristotle, the state and the citizens go hand in hand ( I recognize that the state is supposed to guide the individuals but in principle citizens can affect the decisions of a wise philosopher king or state), while for Hobbes , the state after its formation is superior to the individuals. Moving on to Fascism, the individuals role is reduced to contributing towards the spiritual actualization of the nation and individualism is swept aside. Nazism is merely an extreme form of fascism wherein the racial element eliminates the rights of individuals and forces them to contribute only to a Nazi superiority. Therefore, we can conclude that all of these ideologies do not support democracy, however, there are degrees to which they grant power to the individuals and that this power decreases as we move from ancient times to Nazism.