(*disclaimer - I may interpret the original story differently from the original so read it at your own discretion).
When we are sick, we will want to see a doctor. If we have a locked door, we seek help from a locksmith. So if we want to look for a leader to run a country, who do we look for?
The previous two examples illustrated that we tend to look for the expert to solve our problems. A doctor has enough domain knowledge to cure us of our diseases, a locksmith can understand the mechanics of a lock to open it. It would not be logical to ask a random person to do this, if we want a certain level of success at the job, so we seek an expert. So when we want to run a country, we want to look for someone (or a team) who has sufficient experience.
In a true democracy, the people are the decision-makers. We use majority votes to decide which bills get passed, which one does not. But here lies a problem. How do the people know which is a better option? Supposed we have high unemployment in the country. In this hypothetical country of 100 men, 50 people voted for reducing pay so that companies can create more jobs (Option A) , 40 vote for reducing the number of foreign workers in the country (Option B), 10 vote for increasing investment in R&D to create more jobs (Option C). Based on the example, option A seem to be the best solution, since most people supported it.
The problem comes from the fact that majority of the population do not have the sufficient knowledge of the consequences associated with each option. Just like Plato's analogy, a group of squabbling sailors does not have the knowledge of an expert navigator in deciding the course of travel. But if we let the expert decide everything for us, is it still a democracy?
Fortunately we have gotten past that stage. Democracies in recent times referred to the process in which the majority of the people vote for an expert to be their representative in Parliament. Thus, we get to pick the person we want, and that person has the ability to make good decisions.
I asked another question here (not in the text). If the representative thinks that option C is the best, but majority thinks A is the best, what should this leader do? Choosing A would meant that he gets the popular vote but that may not be the best solution. Chose C and he might not be the representative the next time.
I don't really have an answer to this yet. But I guess the best solution out of this is to have an educated group who is able to discern the worthiness of the candidates. Yet this is problem by itself, since it is probably equally hard to have a population that well educated enough to come up with good decisions (it would meant the demographics are homogenous).







.jpg)



