Democracy Hannah Arendt Summary

Needless to say, the work has caused much controversy, mainly due to the fact that it has been misread. Hannah Arendt’s ideas are difficult to grasp because she goes beyond the usual treatment of criminals accused of crimes against humanity, especially if they are former members of the Nazi party, and offers a completely different approach to the issue. Many people have claimed that the author expresses some very relevant philosophical points, but that the historical example she uses is simply not the right one for expressing these points. Most critics have shared the opinion that Arendt failed to recognise Eichmann’s true personality and that with claiming that the motives for his deeds were banal rather than monstrous, she failed to acknowledge

The necessary condition for her democracy is thoughtful action, so does this mean that people who do not participate, or those that are incapable of participating in the political sphere would be taken away their rights in this democracy? It seems as if this creates some sort of a paradox, since citizens are divided into two categories, two classes, and only those who deliberate are allowed to participate in this democracy, and it can be questioned whether it can still be called a democracy. Reading political philosophers from Plato to Hannah Arendt reveals that for any state to function properly, certain conditions must be fulfilled. For Plato it is the fact that philosophers – those with the highest mental capacities, the lovers of knowledge – are rulers, and all the rest of the citizens perform the roles they were meant for, and for Arendt it is the fact that deliberation is obligatory. Both of these two theories separate the thinkers from the rest of the citizens, and both of these theories seemingly create an aristocracy, since even though Arendt defends democracy, it seems that those without the capacity or will to deliberate are the class with less rights. Of course Plato’s and Arendt’s “ideal state” are very different, especially because Plato is not a defender of democracy, and especially because Arendt herself never truly wrote a systematic work about democracy, however certain similarities are evident. If it is true that Arendt’s form of democracy suggests a ruling class of the citizens who deliberate over those that refuse to, or do not want to, it is relevant to question whether it is still a democracy or