But the real question is what are the alternatives then?
I do believe that there are too many people in this world, to begin with. But, as far as I've been able to observe, small communities are needed. I think that humanity needs to develop a network of small communities with self-government, based on merits. Platon also spoke about a type of Aristocracy based on philosophy, in where the ruler should be a philosopher. The way he/she should reach the power was based on merits, and on a strong educational system preparing greedless rulers.
Well, in an over-populated community, this is impossible to achieve, of course, for, how are you going to develop a trust-system between millions of persons? Of course not. But in small communities, it can absolutely be done. But, again, in an overpopulated world, that's kind of utopic. I do see a dystopian future, though, based on a punctuation system, a meritocracy, but in where, probably, ignorance and appearance will be voted, instead of intelligence and greedless. Maybe you just asked a pessimist woman.
IT was Socrates who oppose democracy and then end up punished by death. What Socrates propose was that in order for you to have the right to vote you should be trained first and become a philosopher before you can cast a vote which means that vote has a substance and that it was wisely done. Not like allowing anyone to cast vote to someone who wants to be an official.
Thats what I understood.