The apparent contradictions that exist among all the values and also behaviors that are endorsed or even permitted by all the democratic regimes always provided fertile grounds for intellectual critics to analyze them. This is in turn went on to provide enough ammunition for those critics of the popular rule. Many surveys have been carried out in line with these major areas of argument and analysis (Jones 42). Despite the evident notorious trials of the famous Socrates, the renowned Athenian democratic regime was out to actually tolerate, and also actively encourage, an extremely substantial level and consideration of political criticism (Carey 93). The many dramas clearly presented in the known Theater of Dionysus were thoughtfully chosen by a given lotteried magistrate and also financed by that state system that involved liturgies. This is where special taxes were levied on those people regarded as being very wealthy. Most comedies and plays at that time were evidently sharply critical and analytical of all political practices that the citizens and other masses and also their leaders were bringing out. While most scholars still consider even comedies and play as essentially irrelevant to any democratic politics, others always point to the existing deep political and analytical critique of all plays and comedies. Further to that, a renowned body of scholarship argues that all Athenian tragedies, like the comedies that are always under review, were deemed fundamentally involved and part of a critical enterprise. This was so because investigating and also challenging the core democratic issues and values. It is argued that for any emergence, as in the late 5th and also 4th centuries, of the known self-conscious and critical community of those Athenian intellectuals that also included philosophers, rhetoricians, dramatists and historians, all engaged in activities that amounted to a celebrated collaborative project that was out to expose any inherent contradictions that existed in the democratic and political order (Carey 94).
Many intellectual critics of the talked commonly revered democracy pointed out to many ways that led to the eventual collapse of the former. For example, many claimed that the democratic approach that was out to encourage distributive justice at all levels erred in its bid to seek to distribute all goods equally and fairly to each and every persons who were deemed inherently unequal. These included the sophists like Thrasymachus, who is famously depicted in the renowned Plato's Republic, greatly contended that all democracy practices conflicted with a given natural order whereby those considered strong always dominated the weak in society and also enjoyed a great and superabundant share of those goods. The uneasy and inconsiderate relationship that existed between democracy and also the natural hierarchy was considered a staple of the evident Straussian political theorizing (Carey 95). Another one is Plato's Socrates in the Republic where he argued that all democracy was out to violate the main principle of justice whereby it encouraged individuals to keep on engaging in a lot of domain activities. The greatest concern at that time was with diversity, political and also social, was mainly a leitmotif of the renowned Greek critical thought. Aristotle was also mainly concerned with the fact that democracy always encouraged most majorities to gear towards employing arbitrary and also selfish rather than any consistent and also fair criteria whenever making their judgments with all public import, and also led majorities to try seeking their own rendered factional good that was out for the detriment of the every public good. Greed was also considered as another fertile source and ground of many complaints. Thucydides and also Aristophanes always emphasized many ways in which their democratic culture greatly stimulated a very unhealthy desire of people for excessive and inappropriate consumption and also possession (Carey 96).
Contemporary analysts and also political theorists were seen paying special attention to all the interchange that existed between every Athenian democratic and political culture and also a critical sensibility in all nature, which went on to yield distinctive insights geared into political psychology and also practice (Jones 45).This would eventually influence the perceptions that people had towards their societies. It would also affect how the generations to come would look at the regime and also the perceived democracy. There was a need to ensure that cultures were not eroded at any instance. This means that all people should be involved in the analysis and even if there was any criticism that existed, an ample conclusion should be sought. People would eventually settle on one account on how democracy should be embraced and the best ways of practicing it.
Socrates and his famous relationship to the known democratic city, and also especially during his trial and the celebrated execution, were great matters of dire central concern to all ancient critics that dwell on democracy. The existing figure of the renowned Socrates continues to always loom large in all contemporary discussions of the existing moral and also practical value of the Greek democracy (Jones 48).Democracy is necessary for the success of any given nation. People cannot exist and live in harmony if there is no proper procedure or way in which democracy is defined and practiced. All people should understand their rights and should always call out and yearn to experience it. There should be no instances of ignorance as even the less educated have their day when it comes to democracy. Their voices count as equal as to those who also have a lot of knowledge and prowess in different fields. Some of the contemporary critics always regarded the trial and also execution as a clear evidence of the Athenian democracy's moral and turpitude (Jones 57).
Greek slavery came out as being economically productive and therefore, undergirded all the democratic and also oligarchic regimes. The continual progress in culture growth and development among the communities was necessary for the sustenance of the whole setting. These resolved into stressing the value that greatly existed of the known insights for rethinking and resetting the modern democracy. The extent to which many philosophers took upon themselves to assess the scenario in the existing nation showed the gravity of the matter. It proved that democracy has many fronts of analysis and critics will never end. There is, however, need for an understanding among all these philosophers. This will be the only way that even generations will decipher the best way of being led and how their leaders should apply the call for democracy (Jones 70).