John Mills Despotism

540 Words3 Pages
The first premise of Mills argument against benevolent despotism is that expectations from the leader would be extremely high. He must be able to perform legislative, executive and judicial practices to perfection, and this may require him to work twenty four hours in a day, which is practically impossible. The second premise goes on to say that in a despotic rule, the public have no platform to voice their opinion and their destiny tends to be predestined at the hands of the despot. Mills makes comparisons to places such as Greece and Rome where due to liveliness, patriotism and political participation, states have come out of despotism as compared to Oriental states which were held under despotic rule for a long period of time. Therefore,…show more content…
A counter argument to this premise would be that does Mills then consider democracy to be perfect? The foundation that Mills is trying to establish is which form of government tends to be the best. He argues that democracy is not perfect but it is the best option because it is based on pragmatism and reality. He bases his argument on two premises. The first premise being that the progress of a society would depend upon the abilities and faculties present in society. Therefore the state must cater to the goals of self- protection and self- dependency of the individuals. Self- protection basically gives individuals the liberty to safeguard their own interests and rights and self- dependency resorts to individuals relying on what they themselves can do. Mills further iterates that it is due to these two attributes that societies are exempt from social injustice and crime. This leads to the second foundation that voicing out opinions is the most efficient way of serving the interest of individuals. Individuals must be involved in political processes in order for individual interests to be taken into

More about John Mills Despotism

Open Document