Plato criticizes the democratic city because, he says, under this type of leadership, everyone is free to do what they want without any real respect for authority. Consequently, this unbalances the stability of the Ideal State and makes it worse. Plato goes on to say that leaders in a democratic city are not required to have any training. His only qualifications lie in his ability to make friends with people. This point seems to lend itself to one of Plato’s main themes in Book VIII of “The Republic,” namely, that none of the rulers of any of the regimes he analyzes are enlightened rulers.

It is difficult to say that Plato is wrong here. Although the democratic city you are talking about is different from what we think of today when we think of democracy, there are still some parallels.

Few would argue that some of our civil servants seem very unskilled for the job. In fact, it appears that the top qualifications for a politician to be elected today is a toothy smile, a firm handshake, and a line of rhetoric that will win over voters. A shining example would be Ross Perot’s strong performance in the 1992 presidential race. Had he refrained from leaving and re-entering, he may actually have had a chance to win; his only qualifications were a thick wallet, shrewd business skills, and an endearing line of rhetoric.

While this does indeed seem scary, Plato’s ideal state probably looks even scarier to 21st century thought. Your city is too repressive and determined for the current way of thinking.