I imagined the philosopher Socrates returning to our world, coming to converse with me and a group of young dreamers of tomorrow —
and I used his own words to express his philosophy.
Socrates is the true founder of Greek philosophy, the teacher of the wise Plato, who in turn was the mentor of the great Aristotle.
The central principle of Socratic philosophy was the pursuit of knowledge — for he believed that true knowledge cannot be built except upon the study of how it is acquired.
He held that morality itself cannot stand without knowledge, since virtue is founded upon understanding.
Socrates believed that the true dignity of the soul springs from knowledge — the soul’s rightful inheritance.
He combined rational physics with mastery of debate and dialectic.
Socrates began our imaginary dialogue by saying:
“Explain to me what democracy means in your time, so that I may understand the logic behind what has transpired through the ages.”
I replied:
Human and electoral rights in Western democracy emerged gradually during the mid-20th century.
They expanded step by step according to the demands of electorates:
workers gained them before farmers,
women after they entered factories to replace men during wars,
and Black citizens in the United States after the state was compelled to grant them equal participation in society and the military during the two world wars.
Nations at large obtained them only through mutual pressures and class struggles that eventually produced political arrangements acceptable to all sides.
As for human rights recognized in principle—not as a pragmatic byproduct of political balance—they are represented by what I call human democracy, which cannot exist without equality, individual responsibility, and governance built on consultation and constitutional limits.
These, we advocate as universal principles—not as reactions to electoral realities or wartime necessity—but as genuine faith in justice in governance, acknowledging the rights of citizens regardless of their education or social class.
One young dreamer said:
“But when we look at Western democracy as practiced, especially in developing countries, we find contradictions between philosophy and reality — the excessive powers of governments, social injustice, and the widening gap between educated elites and the poor. The better educated, wealthier, and more connected gain opportunities, while true equality of opportunity disappears. Thus, human development goals often fade away.”
“Democracy,” he continued, “may have succeeded partially in Europe and North America, but it has failed in poor and developing nations.”
A young woman added, while Socrates looked astonished:
“This realization led us researchers to provoke public reflection online with a philosophical question:
‘How can those chosen by the people oppress the very people who elected them—while knowing that the people can change them at will?
And how can officials, paid by the people and owing their positions to them, treat their citizens with contempt—unless the system itself is unfit and unbalanced?’”
Another young man said:
“The people are stronger than their rulers—without revolutions or protests—if they simply use their electoral power at the right time.”
Socrates frowned slightly and asked:
“But can the ignorant, the poor, and the enslaved truly choose freely?
They remain subject to those who know, who give, and who own.
Are you still debating the same question after 2,500 years?
We, too, criticized this form of governance long ago — and it would be foolish to ignore those warnings today.”
He recalled:
“In the past, when I discussed the ideal state, I once asked my companion Adeimantus:
‘Who would you rather have steer a ship — a random passenger, or a trained and experienced captain?’
When he chose the captain, I applied the analogy to governance and asked,
‘Then why allow any ignorant man to steer the ship of state?’”
“Democracy as you practice it,” Socrates continued, “is rule by the unqualified — letting the mob choose the captain.”
I interjected to ease the tension among the audience:
“Socrates’ objections to democracy as we understand it now can indeed be found in his dialogues.
He often spoke of how few people possess the virtues necessary for good governance, and even fewer truly understand them.
He certainly did not consider the general populace wise enough to manage state affairs.”
A philosophy student asked:
“So this logic still lingers — should governance be by absolute democracy where everyone votes, or by the democracy of the elite — the knowledgeable and experienced?”
“It’s clear,” I replied, “that Socrates, one of history’s greatest minds, favored the democracy of the wise.”
Another young student asked:
“Did later philosophers share this opinion?”
I answered:
“You can see Plato’s influence clearly.
In parts of his Republic, Plato described democracy as one of the final stages in the degeneration of the ideal state — a stage so corrupt that the people eventually beg for a dictator to save them from the chaos of democracy.
For Socrates and his student Plato, democracy inevitably produces tyrants.”
A young woman smiled and said:
“Well, that seems to match the experience of many developing countries — replacing one dictator with another, using the very tools of democracy!”
Socrates said:
“Have you not yet learned that democracy is the failed form of rule by the masses?
Even in my time, I saw Athens drifting from its noble constitution as set by Solon — and though democracy was better than theocratic tyranny by priests, it still led to decay.”
I added:
“The belief that democracy carries within it a fatal flaw has persisted — even among liberal thinkers.
Voltaire, for instance, though a staunch defender of freedom of religion and expression, once told Catherine the Great of Russia:
‘Nothing great was ever achieved except by the genius and resolve of one man struggling against the prejudices of the multitude.’
For him, liberalism was entirely separate from democracy.”
Socrates turned to me and said:
“Humans have always invented many names for the same behaviors.
As the sophists did in my time, you now argue—and even kill each other—over definitions whose meanings you haven’t agreed upon.”
I replied:
“Wise as ever, Socrates.”
He continued:
“Remember, the name itself is not the essence.
If you called a rose by any other name, it would still smell as sweet.
Seek the meaning behind the words, and give them grounding in your minds.”
A young man asked:
“If democracy is so flawed, why do we still practice it? Why repeat the mistake and defend it?”
Socrates answered:
“I have always been concerned about the danger posed when the uneducated and easily led masses gain control of the state.
That danger, combined with the power granted to officeholders by those very masses, is what made me welcome death itself.”
He added:
“There is but one good — knowledge; and one evil — ignorance.
Education is democracy’s only hope.
A people who understand what qualities make a true leader can tell the difference between a manipulative actor and a genuine statesman.
That understanding marks the line between an effective democracy and the nightmare I suffered — and which I see you suffering now.”
“The voter must understand enough to choose rightly who represents him.”
“I have reconsidered,” Socrates continued,
“and concluded that even if a ruler is educated and worthy, he must still be changed after some time —
for otherwise, he will become a tyrant.
Such is human nature: when power, control, and wealth are combined in one man, he inevitably turns corrupt.”
“I am astonished,” he concluded, “that you are still arguing over matters I thought would have been resolved in your ‘future’ — which is, to me, your history.”
