Book Review: Philosophy of Democratic Government by Yves Simon

Philosophy of Democratic Government by Yves Simon

Back in the 1950s, people had a lot of concern for anti-democratic forms of government like communism and fascism, which were shockingly popular and even more shockingly anti-humanistic. An effort was made to defend the idea of democracy, resulting in a series of books. Yves Simon, a Aristotelian-Thomistic philosopher and professor at the University of Chicago, wrote a philosophical book in defense of democracy for the series.

The book starts with a general theory of government and determines that even a well-educated and morally-virtuous population would still need a form of government to deal with issues around the common good, since there are many ways to promote the common good. An authority is required to choose wisely and enact a specific strategy. Simon goes on to argue how freedom and authority are properly used in a democratic government. He reflects often and deeply about equality and how it should and should not be manifested in a government, especially a democracy. He even comments on the harmful and helpful impacts of technology on human life (from seventy years ago and still relevant!), as well as on the difference between rural and urban citizens' participation in democracy.

The book is very well written from an academic point of view. The logic is very tight and the text is very exact. He does use examples, often using the same example several times to bring out the nuances of his argument. He is very clear and very direct, which I appreciate greatly. The writing requires a lot of attention--this is not bedtime reading! But the book is very well worth reading, even three-quarters of a century later.

Recommended, highly if you are disciplined enough to enjoy this style. The content is very important and very relevant today.

Sample quote: 

In spite of most uncongenial connotations, a despotic system is not necessarily iniquitous. The idea of enlightened despotism, popular among eighteenth-century intellectuals, is not absurd, it is only disquieting and suspicious. One feels suspicious about whoever claims to know better than the people the ways and means to make the people happy. Yet, so far as vaccination was concerned, Catherine the Great was right; cases of smallpox would have been more numerous if an ignorant people had been provided with adequate means of resisting the will of its sovereign. [p. 73]