This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Start‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Social and political Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy

The contents of the Anti-democratic thought page were merged into Criticism of democracy on April 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. ((section link|Liberal democracy|Issues and criticism)) The anchor (,Liberal democracy,) has been deleted. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Crazy326459. Peer reviewers: Monkeybomber.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pntxpntx. Peer reviewers: HaroldMDub.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me that the inclusion of a subheading -"Timocracy and oligarchy" - is inappropriate, as the content of the section is a continuation of the discussion concerning Plato's views, as articulated through the character of Socrates in The Republic, of the merits of various forms of government. It also appears that the content following the subsequent subheading "Role of republicanism" merely resumes what is in fact a linear, continuous discussion of Plato's critique and how the Founding Fathers of the United States allegedly responded to it. Only the content of the fourth and final subheading, titled "Moral Decay," finally moves on from Plato to introduce some eastern views about the effect democracy has on traditional authoritative striations in society. In other words, while I appreciate subheadings that help break up lengthy material and make it easier to read, this section of the article gives the mistaken impression, at first glance, that what appears under the subheadings "Timocracy and oligarchy" and "Role of republicanism" will independently pertain to the major heading of "Philosophical criticisms." Instead of demarcating novel, uniform, and independent themes under "Philosophical criticisms," the subheadings confusingly interrupt the flow of what is otherwise a linear discussion of Plato's views on government, particularly his criticisms of democracy, (assuming that the character Socrates' views accurately reflect those of the author) and the Founding Fathers of the United States' alleged response to this opposing view. The structure of the section should be rethought.

Perhaps the best ultimate way to do this would be to expand the material. Who else offered philosophical criticisms of democracy? Do the views of Machiavelli or Friedman not count as "philosophical"? What evidence is there that the Founding Fathers of the United States "intended to address" Plato's concerns in particular? The citation of James Madison's Federalist No. 10 is a good first step. Matt2h (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The opening line of the article asserts that some critics have charged that democracy is "...un-democratic in itself." Isn't that logically contradictory? Can democracy be anti-democratic? By definition: no! It can't be. Perhaps some citation can be given? Which critics? Who? My suspicion is that this line is a reference to the "oppression by the majority" in section 3.4, in which case I think we're dealing with an equivocation on the meaning of the word democracy. Perhaps what the author intends to suggest is that critics sometimes charge that there is sometimes a tension between democracy and majoritarianism, whereby the enacting of the "will of the majority" does not properly reflect the democratic principle of "rule by the people." The filibuster is one example of a tactic that is certainly not "majoritarian" in terms of allowing a simple majority to say what goes, but may still be democratic. Certain interpretations of what "democracy" means may at times contradict one another, but obviously it is logically contradictory to say that democracy - whatever it is - can be un-democratic! The substance of that argument lies in the fact that "democracy" is construed to entail so many different things. Matt2h (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can't base an article on your view or what you 'think'. If we did I wouldn't read it.--209.80.246.3 (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I agree with Matt2h above. Saying 'democracy is undemocratic' makes as much sense as saying 'socialism is unsocialist' or 'capitalism is uncapitalist'. It's a self-contradiction, and I'm going to remove it. Robofish (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term democracy is applied quite diverse range of systems - so yes, specific forms of 'democracy' might called 'democratic' by some yet considered 'undemocratic' by others. Chris Fynn (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The irrational voter section contains an opinion with no cited basis and should be revised. 2B or not 2B (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't there be a section on "religious criticisms"? I can think of two:

1. Quite a few Islamic thinkers, especially but not only Wahabbis, see democracy as incompatible with Islamic law - I understand this is the official position of Saudi Arabia.
2. Some Haredi Orthodox Jews in Israel have argued that democracy violates halakah, and the halakhic system of government is rule by Rabbis (via a Sanhedrin)

Of course, many Muslims and Jews support democracy - but there are some of both religions who don't, and who don't for explicitly religious reasons. And I'm sure these are not the only two religions which are opposed to democracy. I know the Raelians are opposed to democracy, they believe in "geniocracy" instead (i.e. only those with above average intelligence, as measured on an IQ test, should be able to vote) 60.225.114.230 (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For example, democracy has led to violence in World war 1, 2, Vietnam war, Pakistan vs India, Iraq war and many other war scenarios. Also internal police violence against peaceful protestors and general public . Teaksmitty (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Bulleted list item

I don't think that "economic, political, philosophical, administrative, psychological and intellectual" make much sense. In fact, criticism of democracy seems grounded in criticism of democracy's 1) purpose, 2) form, and 3) outcomes. All of the existing information and criticism can neatly fit into these categories. What do people think about changing the sub-headings to these three things: purpose, form, and outcomes? I would also be happy to add a new lead section that reflects these changes. Pntxpntx (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think any criticism of democracy is complete until the affects of federalism are considered. There is a conflict between federalism and democracy of significant proportions. Many people claim that federalism obstructs the risks of tyranny but equally obstructs the legitimate democratic aspirations of the citizens. I think most points of criticism and most points of democratic flaws are better blamed on federalism rather than features inherent to democracy. According to the Democracy Index, the very top six democracies are unitary and not federal; the top thirty democracies includes only six federations but 24 unitary nations There are 27 federations in today's world yet only six of them rise up to the top thirty. There are no standards of federalism and real world applications often result in conflicting principles from one federation to the next. Take the example of the US federal presidential republic where the obstructive nature is glorified and claimed to be "intended" and "good". Why would anyone design a organizational structure that is intentionally obstructive rather than efficient? In reality, the US gets either a "do nothing" congress or a "destructive" congress only able to rescind previous legislation. The current congress is unable to solve public problems that are obvious to most observers such as healthcare simply because of the obstructive nature of federalism. I'm only familiar with the US and notice a lot of these topics of politics and government fail to be "Neutral Point of View". In other words, the authors are unable to explain federalism or democracy in ways that don't rely upon US models and US jingoism. An excellent source for starters is Federalism (chap.3) of "America's Democratic Republic" by Greenberg and Page ISBN 978-0205-64681-4. -- Calif.DonTracy (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the conversation about critiques of democracy, I think that it could be beneficial to talk about and suggest alternative solutions to modern democracies. I think that the article does a great job of explaining the concerns people have with democracies, but it fails to suggest any other options that might work better. I suggest adding an additional section where the article discusses various proposals for replacing democracy. Three alternatives that I think could be included in this section would be 1.) Jason Brennan's epistocracy, 2.) Thomas Mulligan's plural voting, and 3.) Alexander Guerrero's lottocracy. These three political systems are alternative solutions to modern democracies. I think by adding this section the reader would be able to analyze the information and consider the possible alternatives. This would make for a more developed article. I will be using the following articles from the philosophers stated above in creating this additional section. Those articles include. . .^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}

This is pretty obviously a pov fork. VineFynn (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@VineFynn: you mean of Democracy? Can I ask why you think this is an inappropriate article, given that "democracy" is such a broad term, and as per Wikipedia:Criticism#Philosophy, religion, or politics and Wikipedia:Criticism#Separate articles devoted to criticism, Dedicated "Criticism of ..." articles are sometimes appropriate for organizations, businesses, philosophies, religions, or political outlooks, provided the sources justify it. In this case, I would argue that for "democracy", the sources do justify it: both the references and further reading section in this article, and a quick search on Google scholar, shows quite a lot of RS's about this topic. Seagull123 Φ 18:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Kill the merge proposal VineFynn (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added a 'Main Article' template back to the Democracy article at the top of the page Superb Owl (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems sketchy for Wikipedia to point readers towards this far right publisher. 72.95.130.125 (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should this include literary works that have criticised democracy? The first work that comes to my mind here is An Enemy of the People, that brilliant satire on Democracy by Henrik Ibsen, but there must be other works of literature whose authors have not been afraid to attack democracy. YTKJ (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Democracy" is not about the majority, "democracy" is about not very few. For specifically the majority there are other terms - "majoritarianism", "majority rule", or even "ochlocracy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.144.245.82 (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article includes mostly 'suggestions for improvement' to make democracy more democratic, not criticisms of the idea of democracy itself, as implied by the title.

I propose we limit suggestions to improve democracy to a paragraph each with a 'main article' template above it and place in a section entitled something like "Incomplete democracy" that doesn't suggest that this critique is of the idea of democracy, but of only the lack of full implementation of the idea. Superb Owl (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, after further cleaning-up the article, it appears this should be moved to a more precise title like "Criticism of representative democracy" - the critiques are of elections and the solutions offered include other more democratic fixes and forms of government like sortition. A further reorganization is needed to specify shortcomings of representative democracy and provide space for proposed solutions (which are essentially either more or less democracy) Superb Owl (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]