Democracy is truly a noble design of government. A government “of the people, by the people, for the peopleE in which each individual’s voice is heard and registered. The goals of such a government include, but are not limited to, a representative equality among its citizens in matters affecting the state, and the promotion of a legal system providing justice for all. These are lofty and noble goals indeed, but are they attainable? There are several hurdles which must be navigated in order to achieve representative equality and ‘justice for allEin a democracy. A few of which will be examined here. First, an individual’s ability to achieve a position of power in one’s government may be hampered by ones own class position and personal experience. Next, in regards to the vote of the minority, does it hold any validity or influence if in opposition to the vote of the majority? Lastly, if the vote of the minority has little effect in a representative government, can that government’s legislature provide laws that are truly representative and promote justice for all?

Let us examine a citizen’s ability to achieve power and hold a seat in his state

’s government. Because an individual must retain certain knowledge and virtues to do so, such as experience in political science and clean criminal backgrounds, the implications are that certain individuals will never have the opportunity to achieve such positions. Is this justice? Perhaps it allows for the development of justice with more expediency. Aristotle sees this as a proper design involving some prudence, “There (is) danger in allowing them to share the great offices of state, for their folly will lead them into error, and their dishonesty into crimeE(118). It seems to reason that this design helps to protect the general populace from either ignorant or dishonest seats of government. Even if this reasoning is correct, how does one solve what will surely be perceived to be an injustice by those denied access? Perhaps Aristotle himself answers this dilemma by continuing, “Legislators give them the power of electing to offices, and of calling the magistrates to account, but they do not allow them to hold offices singlyE(118-119). Aristotle affirms the relevance of such participation in stating, “That inferior persons should have authority in greater matters than the good would appear to be a strange thing, yet the election and calling to account of the magistrates is the greatest of allE(119). Now even though this may appease some that they are allowed some voice in the daily proceedings of government, still others will likely find this system restrictive and unjust.

Aristotle writes that “Laws, when good, should be supremeE(120). What if a citizen comes to the conclusion that law(s) imposed by the state are unjust, or offensive to his conscience? Thoreau queries, “Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then?E(146). He expounds on this line of thought with, “Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them and obey them until

Some topics in this essay:
Justice Democracy, representative government, promote justice, justice neither, ability achieve, representative equality, vote minority,