THE MYSTERIOUS SOCRATES AND HIS ATTITUDE TOWARDS DEMOCRACY

The article emphasizes the extraordinary mission of leaders in the process of social life, in particular the development of philosophy, science, and politics. It singles out a relatively new theory of leadership – quiet leaders. It is emphasized that Socrates should be considered one of the first representatives of this style of leadership, despite some exceptions. It is emphasized that the issue of leadership, primarily the influence of a specific individual on the course of world history, still awaits further research.Against the background of fixing the advantages and some disadvantages of the democratic process, Socrates’ attitude to lotocracy and epistocracy is tangentially examined. In view of this, his contribution to the criticism of lotocracy forms of socio-political life of Ancient Athens is highlighted. It is noted that the Athenian philosopher was at the origins of the philosophical understanding of epistocracy. The consonance of J.S.Mill’s views with the epistocracy ideas of Socrates is noted. A brief argumentation of the contradictory essence of the epistocratic approach and its incompatibility with the classical principle of democracy – equality of starting opportunities regardless of origin, wealth, education, etc. is proposed.It is emphasized that in this way Socrates preferred to focus attention on the importance of the expert approach in the socio-political process. Socrates’ value orientations, his life ideals, and the relevance, on the one hand, of what he proclaimed, and on the other hand, of the philosopher’s real behavior and actions, are highlighted.The conclusion is made that Socrates was mostly committed to the principles of meritocracy, as opposed to universal suffrage or lotocratic law, which was fully accepted by A.Tocqueville, as well as with certain reservations by J.S.Mill and others. And even against this background, given his leadership qualities, as well as his vision of the essence of the average person and criticism of the tribal aristocracy, the statement about the completely anti-democratic essence of the Greek philosopher is refuted.