One of the oldest systems of government in the world is democracy. Democracy from history predate some of the political systems we have today. Historically, the system was first practiced in the Ancient Greek. The type of democracy practiced then was actually different from what we have today. The difference is not in 'majority' as this is the 'main' theme of the system, rather, it is in decision making and representation.
As an individual, i always questioned the reality behind the massive adoption of democracy. I wonder what makes democracy very popular among different political systems in the world. One thing strikes my brain and that is 'equal right of every citizen'. This equality is all-in-all in democratic settings and separation of powers. However, are people truly equal in any democratic settings? Is the system truly for the 'majority'? What do we really mean by the word 'majority'when discussing democracy. These and many other questions shall be raised and attempt shall also be made to answer some of these questions!
Etymologically, the word democracy is from the Greek words 'demo' (people) and 'Kratia' (rule). Literally, the word means rule of the people. The generally acceptable definition of democracy is 'government of the people, by the people and for the people'.
From the above, 'people' as a word becomes the main theme of the system called democracy. You might be wondering if the 'people' mentioned in the definition truly participate in democracy or are truly important as the system suggested.
The system, as mentioned earlier, was practiced first in Athens Greece. The democracy practiced in Athens, however, is a direct democracy. There are two majorly identified types of democracy and they are direct and indirect democracy.
The direct democracy allows everybody to come together in decision making. Everybody's opinion counts and nobody is left behind when rules are being adopted.
Indirect democracy is the representative democracy we practice today. It is a system that allows people to choose representatives/individuals to represent them in decision making. People choose their representatives via elections. In the end, the representative with most votes is elected as the people's 'true' representative.
The direct democracy is no longer possible because everybody cannot make laws. Everybody cannot come together to decide on different matters. This perhaps, explains why Plato called it 'rule of the mob'. He could not understand how everybody will come together and make decision. He believes that this kind of system will lead to the tyranny of the majority. A situation where different laws determine the actions to be taken on same issue (A situation our present day constitution avoided).
Plato's View of democracy
Plato had no faith in the rule of the rich (oligarchy), nor any confidence in the ability of ordinary citizens to run a city like Athens. The rich, as he saw, had mostly their special interests in mind, and during the time of their short-lived regimes they had shown to what length they could go to defend the advantages of the few against the majority of ordinary people. But the rule by the many was no remedy for the ills of oligarchy, according to Plato, because ordinary people were too easily swayed by the emotional and deceptive rhetoric of ambitious politicians. Source
Plato argues that democracy is inferior to various forms of monarchy, aristocracy and even oligarchy on the grounds that democracy tends to undermine the expertise necessary to properly govern societies. In a democracy, he argues, those who are expert at winning elections and nothing else will eventually dominate democratic politics.
The reason for this is that most people do not have the kinds of talents that enable them to think well about the difficult issues that politics involves. But in order to win office or get a piece of legislation passed, politicians must appeal to these people's sense of what is right or not right. Hence, the state will be guided by very poorly worked out ideas that experts in manipulation and mass appeal use to help themselves win office. Source
To be free from such systems, Plato gave us a detailed explanation of an Utopian state. To properly understand his ideology, he told us that the human soul can be divided into three parts: bodily desires and appetites (artisans - laborers), spirited emotions (auxiliaries - soldiers) and knowledge and reason (guardians - philosopher king). In every healthy individual, all three parts fulfill their proper functions. Bodily desires and appetites secure the physical survival of a person, the spirited emotions inspire his more far-reaching plans and projects, and the intellectual faculties make sure that all enterprises remain reasonable and under rational control.
After explaining what tripartite structure of the soul, he adopted similar example to explain his Utopian state. Corresponding to the bodily desires and appetites (artisans - laborers) of the soul is the class of people who are involved in the economy of a state. This class constitutes the vast majority of the people, and it comprises such diverse groups as craftsmen, farmers, merchants, manufacturers, and money changers or bankers. Plato classifies all of them as “lovers of money.” These people are ruled by inclinations and desires and cannot rule a state.
Corresponding to the spirited emotions (auxiliaries - soldiers) in the soul is the much smaller class of the armed forces, the class of professional warriors that is responsible for the safety of the community. Plato calls them “lovers of honor.” Their main desire is to gain fame and admiration by serving their fellow citizens - for whom, in extreme situations, they are willing to sacrifice their lives as well as their material possessions.
Corresponding to the faculty of reason (guardians - philosopher king) is the smallest class of people - scientists, scholars, high-level experts, and similar sophisticates. Plato calls them “lovers of wisdom,” i. e., “philosophers.” Their most passionate interests are understanding and knowledge, and their greatest pleasure a lively life of the mind.
The above, is more plausible for Plato than democracy.
Challenges of Democracy
Democratic system has documented constitution which determines how things are done in the society. This constitution follows different legislative procedures to be amended. Sometimes, after the amendment, much times are wasted waiting for their implementation.
In democratic settings, we rely so much on the law. These laws are there as if they are cast in stones. Some laws predate many of today's present judges and lawyers. Laws, in reality should not be rigid but amendable to conform with present situations and reality.
Democracy lay emphasis on freedom of speech. Are there freedom of speech everywhere that democracy is practiced? Is there freedom of the press? In this part of the world (Nigeria), there are cases where bloggers were arrested 'unjustly'. There are cases where pressmen were also arrested from doing their 'jobs'. You wonder if the freedom preached by the system is real or pseudo!
Democracy is also guilty of polarization. By polarization, i mean different views on certain laws. In democratic systems, we have House of Assembly and House of Representatives. These people make laws based on yeas and nays. The majority with any of the terms (yeas or nays) determines whether a bill is passed into law or not however brilliant or logical the bill might be. You wonder if these yeas and nays are done with the interest of the people at heart? I will leave you to ponder on these challenges and ask more!
Critical Evaluation and my view on democracy
While Plato called democracy the rule of the mob, i do not share such sentiment because the democracy he was criticizing is outdated. It is different from the representative democracy we practice now.
Society and material condition of every man have impact on their thinking. My experiences with how the system (democracy) is practiced in different parts of the world has shaped my thought toward the system and at the same time made me to conclude on why i do not believe the system is truly for the majority.
I will simply give you a detailed analysis that suggest democracy is in actual fact, the system of the minority. So rather than saying 'majority rule', say 'minority rule'!
In the present representative practice, some countries have multi-party system while others have two-party system. Nigeria, for instance, practice multi-party system while USA, on the other hand, practice two-party system. The bottom-line is that the two systems (two-party or multi-party) have representatives. These representatives would campaign to be elected. They would use different means and methods to do their campaigns. Lot of promises would be made (whether reasonable or unreasonable).
To participate in the elections, you must meet certain criteria. You must be a citizen of the country, have voter's card, residence in the area you registered to be able to vote, you are above 18 years. These requirements already deny 15-17 years the opportunity to take part. You wonder if 18 years is the age of 'reason'?
After meeting those requirements, now understand this scenario: Out of 100% population, about 15% (17 years downward) are already denied this opportunity. Out of the 85% that meet the requirements, 5% would not take part due to sickness, death before or during elections, lost of the card, etc. We are left with 80%. Out of the 80%, at least 5% of the votes would be null and void. We have 75% left. Out of the 75% where there are two-party system, the representative with 38% at least wins the elections. Where there is multi-party, the party with at least 30% wins the elections while the remaining 45% is shared among the other parties. Now in the first situation, 38% LOGICALLY means the 'majority'! In the second situation, 30% LOGICALLY means the 'majority'. Now minus 38% from 100%, you are left with 62%. Minus also, 30% from 100%, you are left with 70%. So in the end 38% or 30% decided who rules or represents the 'people'! Who are the majority?
While the people are in the center of democracy, there is a need to truly understand what they mean by the people and also the majority! What determines the majority? Number? What do they mean by number? The highest numbers or the lowest? These things need to the enunciated clearly for the people.
Kindly deconstruct my claim here and give it another perspective. Critical evaluations of my position above are also welcome.
Its your boy once again 
Resteem and Upvote! Thanks!