Some important notes on the reading of a series of articles on the social safety net of a democratic country.

As you begin reading the series of articles on The social safety net of a democratic country, it is important to keep a few things in mind. First and foremost, it's crucial to approach the material with an open mind and a willingness to learn. The issues surrounding social safety nets can be complex and nuanced, and it's important to take the time to fully understand them. Additionally, it's important to remember the context in which the articles were written. Social safety nets are constantly evolving and changing, so it's possible that some of the information presented may be outdated or no longer accurate. As you read, be sure to take note of any discrepancies or changes that have occurred since the articles were initially published. Finally, it's important to remember that social safety nets are essential to a functioning democracy. As you read about the various programs and policies that make up a social safety net, remember how these programs can help create a more equitable and just society for all.

Introduction: 

The boundaries of democracy. Many citizens of a democracy view their government as a participatory entity that is answerable to its citizens. When a citizen believes that the government is an extension of the people, he will generally view the government as being accountable to the people. When a government is answerable to its people, it is usually considered legitimate. When a government is fair, viewed as being practical. In most parts of the world, democracy is traditionally considered a successful form of government.

Although this may be true in some cases, it is not a legitimate argument to suggest that democracy is the only method of social organization that can be relied upon to promote the common good. Even if we accept the view that democracy has a unique ability to serve as a 'pressure release valve' that helps to 'maintain social peace,' this does not mean that we should not seek other forms of social organization that have the potential to produce more significant social goods. It may be the case that only through democratic channels can we hope to resolve the current global poverty and inequality crisis peacefully. However, other forms of social organization may offer tremendous potential for realizing the common good.

These systems as a means to share power and voice. While these systems offer many benefits, they have also been criticized due to their susceptibility to manipulation by those in power. As many have pointed out, these systems fall short of protecting the rights and interests of disadvantaged people. This situation is one of the factors that led the efforts to reform these systems and, in some cases, to create alternatives that better protect the rights of all citizens.

To start with my desk research, I post a simple question, yet only a few common answers "What about democracy?"

The role of democracy in modern society is seen by many fortunate enough to live within such an environment as the epitome of Western freedom, and it is somewhat startling to read in one so revered and influential a Western philosopher as Plato an attack on what has become so definably and fundamentally associated with Western ideals. Examining the terms of Plato's objections reveals that his attack is not on democracy as the political manifestation of freedom and equality that it represents in modern times but on the moral indolence he sees in society.

For the modern reader to understand Plato's concerns, there needs to be some frame of reference by comparing what is currently understood as representative of democracy with the democracies of Plato's time. While the ideals of the Athenian people may have been similar, the Athenian democracy of Plato's time was somewhat different. Plato acknowledged the seeming attractiveness of democracy with its values of freedom, diversity, and variety "Like the different colors in a patterned dress."

The problem for Plato was that his collectivist community ideals could not condone a society in which an individual might decide whether or not to submit to authority, might choose whether or not to fight the city's wars, or might select to start their wars, a society with equal laws for those who manifestly was not equal, and where disregard at random for the decrees of the court was permitted. In recent years one of Plato's severest critics is Popper, dedicated to unzipping Plato's politics, labeling him an enemy of the open society.

 

Of course, wise and considered decision-making is most important in any leader; few would argue with Plato about this, but Plato assumes that morality is not possible in society unless its leader first models it. Jones cites Protagoras's reply to Plato, saying that although we have created with unique individual talents, we were also given "a sense of decency and fair play since without them, society would be impossible." Plato's objection is to the hedonistic decadence that he attributes to democracy.

Plato's sympathizers might observe that his politics is transcendent, ultimately viewing political leadership as "An ethical and spiritual matter, depending on personal responsibility." One wonders how Plato significantly underestimated the role of political leadership and placed his philosopher king in a position they would find morally repugnant. One can acknowledge merit in Plato's thesis that a self-disciplined and moderate society is happier than a flagrant and greedy one. However, Plato denies the possibility that moderation and discipline are possible within the usual constraints of society and attributes the supposed unhappiness of the population to its being democratic.

It is not difficult to accept that the selfish, ill-disciplined, unrestrained, and shallow values that distress Plato would be equally distressing in today's society, especially when individuals feel entitled by right to impinge on the rights of others. Plato is inconsistent throughout The Republic; he devises a perfect state that is supposedly stable and happy, yet realizes that curtailing freedom and confining people to simple lives may lead to resistance. Plato provides an excellent example of how we should train ourselves to think. Still, his
correlation between totalitarian principles and personal justice, manifesting in his attack on democracy, must have limited validity.

REFERENCES: 

Bunyan, J. (1978). The Pilgrim's Progress / was originally published by John Bunyan. Old Woking, England: Gresham Books.

Cartledge, P. (2011, Feb). The democratic experiment. BBC - History - Ancient history in depth. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekdemocracy_01.shtml

Evans, T. (2001, Aug). If democracy, then human rights? Third World Quarterly 22(4). 623-642. Retrieved from JSTOR.

Jones, A. H. M. (1953). The Athenian democracy and its critics. Cambridge Historical Journal 11(1) 1- 26. Retrieved from JSTOR.

Plato. (2003). The Republic: Translated with an introduction by Desmond Lee (2nd Edition.) London, England: Penguin Classics.

Popper, K. R. (2003). The open society and its Enemies: Volume 1, the spell of Plato. (5th Edition). London, England: Routledge Classics.

Rhodes, P. J. (1980, Apr-May). Athenian democracy after 403 B.C. The Classical Journal 75(4), 305- 323. Retrieved from JSTOR.

Schemeil, Y. (2000, Apr). Democracy before democracy? International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique, 21(2), 99-120. Retrieved from JSTOR.