Kwasi Wiredu And Plato Analysis

Perhaps one of the most important political concepts of the modern age is Democracy. First appearing in ancient Athens, Democracy has now spread across the majority of the globe. In simple terms Democracy can be considered as a rule for the people, by the people, and has reached a status that is almost sacred in modern society. Unfortunately, this status it holds causes people to blind themselves to shortcomings that need to be addressed and deny any need for improvement. However, the turbulent political and economic environment that we live in is forcing us away from comfortable ignorance toward acknowledging that Democracy as we know it may not be the ideal. In this essay I discuss the views on democracy of two influential philosophers: Kwasi Wiredu and Plato, one of whom believes in an improved form of democracy while

Consensus also leads to fair representation, allowing all people to participate in decisions and ensuring that no group is constantly relegated to the minority. While Wiredu does paint an attractive picture I feel there are multiple points of which he does not provide adequate explanation. Perhaps the point which draws the most criticism is Wiredu’s (1995) controversial claim that “ultimately the interests of all members of society are the same, although their immediate perceptions of those interests may be different”. Eze (1997) in his critique of Wiredu asks how do the interests of some 95 percent of Americans who share only as much wealth as another one percent of the same population coincide? Can all differences between people really be resolved through knowledge, understanding and discussion? I believe not. In the coming discussion on Plato I will expand on a major critique he holds against all forms of democracy and the lack of response Wiredu has to