Thom Brooks (University of Newcastle upon Tyne) has posted Is Plato’s Political Philosophy Anti-Democratic? on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Perhaps one of the most controversial figures in political philosophy is Plato. Today, he is both a leading figure of political philosophy’s canon and yet he has virtually no defenders of his political philosophy. While his works, such as the Republic, are amongst the most celebrated texts in the field, his theory of the state garners little, if any, support. This essay is an attempt to help rehabilitate Plato’s theory of the state.
Of the many reservations against this theory, the central problem today concerns Plato’s rejection, even perhaps ‘hatred’, of democracy. Contemporary political philosophers argue that Plato accepts ‘Guardianship’ whereby all political power is controlled by a small elite in virtue of their superior knowledge of governance and, thus, the common citizenry are denied all political power. Plato’s theory of the state is objectionable not simply because it is anti-democratic, but because the people lack any political power.
I argue for several positions. First, modern democracy can withstand Plato’s criticisms of democracy, as Plato’s critique is of Athenian democracy. Secondly, I argue that Plato can overcome Dahl’s Guardianship objection as Plato’s later, more mature work does not fail victim to Dahl’s worries. Finally, I identify two central aspects of Plato’s ‘moderate authoritarianism’ — that (1) experts have a place in all legitimate governance and (2) only the people can have the final say over political matters — and offer a general defence.