Was Socrates Right? When Democracy Chooses Popularity Over Competence

Editor’s note: Originally published September 28, 2008. Updated October 14, 2026 to reflect the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling on Congress’s constitutional duty to enact an anti-political-dynasty law.

Socrates and democracy remain surprisingly relevant more than two thousand years later—especially when we look at political dynasties, vote-buying, corruption, incompetent leadership, and inefficient government services in the Philippines today.

Does having the right to choose our leaders automatically mean we will choose good leaders?

We know Socrates largely through the writings of Plato, so we should be careful not to attribute every argument in Plato's works directly to the historical Socrates. But the warning presented through Socrates is powerful.

Governing a country requires knowledge, wisdom, judgment and character.

Yet democracy does not necessarily require voters to choose people who possess those qualities.

Socrates and Democracy: The Ship of State

Plato uses a memorable analogy.

Imagine that you are aboard a ship in dangerous waters.

Who should navigate it?

Would you choose the person who gives the most entertaining speech?

The person with the most famous family name?

The richest passenger?

The person who distributes food or money before the vote?

Or would you choose the person who actually understands navigation?

That question sounds ancient.

But it does not feel ancient at all.

We would never allow someone without the necessary competence to perform surgery simply because he is popular.

We would not hire an unqualified engineer to design a bridge because his father built bridges.

Yet when choosing people who will manage billions of pesos, make laws, oversee infrastructure, influence education and healthcare, and determine policies affecting millions of lives, competence can sometimes become secondary to popularity.

That is the danger Socrates was pointing toward.

Political Dynasties and the Problem of Choice

The Philippine Constitution itself says that the State shall prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law. (opens in a new tab)

For decades, however, that constitutional principle remained without a comprehensive enabling law.

The issue became even more significant in 2026. The Supreme Court held that Congress has a constitutional duty to enact an anti-political-dynasty law and ruled that nearly four decades of failure to do so amounted to grave abuse of discretion. (opens in a new tab)

Political dynasty does not automatically mean incompetence. A son or daughter of a politician may be highly capable, honest and genuinely committed to public service.

The deeper problem is concentration of political power.

When the same families repeatedly control political offices, democracy can slowly become less about choosing among competing ideas and more about choosing among familiar surnames.

And when political power becomes concentrated, new candidates without money, machinery or family connections may find it extremely difficult to compete.

Vote-Buying: When Democracy Becomes a Transaction

There is another practice that strikes directly at the meaning of democratic choice: vote-buying.

Philippine law prohibits both vote-buying and vote-selling. The prohibition is not limited to someone physically handing cash to a voter. It may include offering money, employment, goods, assistance or anything of value in exchange for influencing a person's vote. (opens in a new tab)

Modern forms can also involve digital transfers and mobile wallets.

But beyond the legal issue is a much deeper problem.

When a vote is bought, citizenship is reduced to a transaction.

A voter is effectively being asked: “How much is your political judgment worth?”

₱500? ₱1,000? A sack of rice? Groceries? Transportation? Temporary assistance?

For a family struggling to buy food, pay rent or purchase medicine, accepting money can be understandable on a human level.

This is why simply insulting voters who accept money completely misses the problem.

Poverty itself can make vote-buying powerful.

When people are desperate today, promises about better institutions five years from now may feel distant.

And politicians who understand this can exploit that vulnerability.

That creates a vicious cycle.

Poverty makes vote-buying easier. Vote-buying helps preserve weak or corrupt political systems. Weak political systems can produce poor public services and fewer economic opportunities. And those conditions keep people vulnerable to vote-buying in the next election.

The cycle continues.

Your Vote Is Worth More Than What They Give You

Suppose somebody gives a voter ₱1,000 in exchange for political support.

That money might last a day or two.

But the official who wins may serve for three years, six years or even longer through relatives and successors.

During that time, the same voter may pay for poor government through:

• bad roads

• flooding

• slow public hospitals

• weak schools

• lost employment opportunities

• corruption

• unfinished infrastructure

• inefficient public transportation

• and taxes that do not produce the services people deserve

So the real price of a purchased vote may be much greater than the amount handed to the voter.

We should therefore think about elections differently.

A vote is not simply something we possess every few years.

A vote is a hiring decision.

We are hiring people to manage public money and public institutions on our behalf.

If we would carefully investigate someone before allowing that person to manage our private company, our property or our savings, why should we demand less from someone seeking control over billions in public funds?

Legal Qualification Is Not the Same as Competence

Another problem is our understanding of the word qualified.

A candidate may satisfy every legal requirement to run for office.

But being legally qualified does not necessarily mean being competent to govern.

Public leadership requires understanding budgets, economics, law, infrastructure, technology, education, health, diplomacy, disaster management and administration—or at least the judgment to surround oneself with competent people and listen to them.

The consequences of poor leadership are not theoretical.

We experience them through slow government transactions, badly planned infrastructure, unfinished projects, congestion, flooding, inefficient public services and money that could have been used more effectively.

These problems should not simply make us angry. They should make us ask questions.

The Politics of ‘Utang na Loob’

Vote-buying also connects with another powerful Filipino social value: utang na loob.

Utang na loob can be beautiful when it means gratitude toward someone who sincerely helped us.

But it becomes dangerous when politicians intentionally create personal dependence using resources connected to public office.

Government assistance is not personal charity from a politician.

Public funds belong to the people.

Scholarships, medical assistance, roads, classrooms, ayuda and government programs are financed by taxpayers and public resources.

A politician who facilitates a government program is performing public service.

The citizen does not owe that politician lifelong political loyalty.

Once we understand this distinction, democratic accountability changes.

Instead of saying: “Tinulungan niya ako, kaya iboboto ko siya.”

We can ask: “Ginawa ba niya nang maayos ang trabaho na ipinagkatiwala natin sa kanya?”

That is a healthier relationship between citizen and public servant.

Democracy Is Not the Enemy

I do not believe the lesson of Socrates is that democracy should be abandoned.

Quite the opposite.

Democracy is valuable precisely because ordinary citizens can remove leaders peacefully, demand accountability and influence the direction of their country.

But democracy is only as strong as the decisions made by its citizens.

Freedom without responsibility can be manipulated.

Elections without informed voters can become popularity contests.

Public service without accountability can become family business.

Politics without competence can turn government into permanent crisis management.

And elections influenced by money can transform citizenship into a marketplace.

So perhaps the answer is not less democracy.

The answer is better democracy.

• More educated voters

• Stronger institutions

• Transparent public spending

• Genuine political competition

• Independent media

• Better civic education

• Real accountability

• Protection against vote-buying

• Citizens willing to ask difficult questions before elections instead of complaining only afterward

The Questions We Should Ask

Perhaps we have been asking the wrong questions.

Instead of asking, “Who do I like?” maybe we should ask, “Who is capable?”

Instead of asking, “What family does this candidate belong to?” ask, “What has this person actually accomplished?”

Instead of asking, “What is this candidate giving me?” ask, “Where did that money come from?”

Instead of asking, “What can this politician give me today?” ask, “What kind of country will this person's decisions create ten or twenty years from now?”

And perhaps one more question deserves to be asked: “Am I choosing my leader—or is someone purchasing my choice?”

Democracy gives us the power to choose.

But democracy never promises that our choices will be wise.

That responsibility remains ours.

More than two thousand years after Socrates questioned the politics of Athens, perhaps his warning is still worth remembering:

The greatest danger to democracy may not be that people lose the right to choose—but that we keep the right to choose while allowing money, popularity, family names and short-term favors to decide our choices for us.

A democracy survives not simply because elections are held.

It survives when citizens understand the value of their vote.

Because in the end, the politician may offer money only once—but we may live with the consequences of our choice for years.