Is it still democracy when people choosing national leadership struggle to make the most basic decisions for themselves? Is it fair that the future of an informed citizen is shaped by the impulses of those who vote based on emotion, tribal identity or short-term gain? And what happens when elections drift away from sober civic judgment and instead devolve into spectacles?
A recent by-election exposed this uneasy truth. Many citizens followed the momentum of the “likely winner,” not out of conviction but out of resignation, a quiet belief that their vote may not matter if the crowd has already decided. It echoed an ancient concern the unsettling realization that the warnings of early philosophers like Plato and Socrates have not lost relevance.
When the informed are outnumbered by the uninformed, does that reflect equal representation or merely equal counting? Plato’s dilemma continues to press on modern democracies, how can the long-term welfare of a society be shaped by decisions rooted in limited information or fleeting incentives? How does a system reconcile a scenario where one voter chooses based on a bribe, another on tribal allegiance, another on a casual promise and yet another through deliberate evaluation of policy, ethics and competence yet all these choices carry the same weight?
Socrates captured this contradiction through a timeless question. If one were seriously ill, would treatment be determined through a public vote or trusted to a trained professional? Democracy, however, assumes equal capacity for judgment among all citizens. But should it? Ancient thinkers warned that democracy can easily transform into a popularity contest rather than a test of competence. Plato did not dismiss people as unintelligent.
He argued instead that uninformed decisions produce unpredictable outcomes. When significant portions of the electorate cast votes without adequate information, elections shift away from evaluating leadership quality. They become contests of charisma, spectacle, tribal arithmetic and emotional appeal. This shift encourages short-term thinking, celebrating visible projects or symbolic gestures while deeper challenges such as governance, corruption, accountability and long-term planning remain unattended.
When critical thought gives way to tribal or emotional loyalty, public discourse becomes dominated by alignments, blocs and perceptions of influence rather than by robust conversations about policy, national development or citizens’ rights. Plato warned that when voters prioritize comfort over truth, leaders adapt accordingly: they begin performing rather than informing, offering appealing narratives and convenient promises while structural issues persist beneath the surface. This cycle is a global challenge.
Still, the answer is not to abandon democracy but to strengthen it. A healthy democracy must prize competence, integrity, long-term thinking and informed public participation. Many nations have adopted systems that blend democratic input with meritocratic decision-making, ensuring that expertise complements the will of the people, especially on complex matters.
What is needed is reflection rather than rejection. Democracy must evolve to acknowledge that while all citizens are equal in dignity, they are not equal in information or judgment. A pluralistic society must find ways to ensure that leadership is shaped by more than tribal mobilization or emotional persuasion. This demands honest, perhaps uncomfortable questions. How do we prevent democracy from becoming a mere numbers game?
Should every vote carry identical weight when not every voter employs the same level of discernment? And how do we create a civic culture where informed judgment is uplifted rather than overwhelmed? Until these questions are confronted with courage and clarity, elections will continue swinging not between competence and vision but between habit and hope.
