The method of the benevolent tyrant. 
The method of the select few. 
The method of the excluded groups.

The method of intrusting the government of a people to a strong ruler has great advantages when the ruler combines strength with ability, unselfish devotion to the public good, and knowledge of what that good calls for.  Such a combination is, however, rare and the selection of the right ruler is very difficult.  To leave the selection to force is to put a premium on physical strength, chance, and intrigue; to make the selection a matter of birth simply transfers the real power from sovereign to minister.  Inevitably the choice of rulers must fall on electors.

Then comes the problem, who shall elect.  The earlier answer was:  a select few, such as the wise, the best born, the able.  Many people assume that it was corruption that made such aristocracies fail.  By no means.  The best and most effective aristocracy, like the best monarchy, suffered from lack of knowledge.  The rulers did not know or understand the needs of the people and they could not find out, for in the last analysis only the man himself, however humble, knows his own condition.  He may not know how to remedy it, he may not realize just what is the matter; but he knows when something hurts and he alone knows how that hurt feels.  Or if sunk below feeling or comprehension or complaint, he does not even know that he is hurt, God help his country, for it not only lacks knowledge, but has destroyed the sources of knowledge.

So soon as a nation discovers that it holds in the heads and hearts of its individual citizens the vast mine of knowledge, out of which it may build a just government, then more and more it calls those citizens to select their rulers and to judge the justice of their acts.

Even here, however, the temptation is to ask only for the wisdom of citizens of a certain grade or those of recognized worth.  Continually some classes are tacitly or expressly excluded.  Thus women have been excluded from modern democracy because of the persistent theory of female subjection and because it was argued that their husbands or other male folks would look to their interests.  Now, manifestly, most husbands, fathers, and brothers will, so far as they know how or as they realize women’s needs, look after them.  But remember the foundation of the argument,—­that in the last analysis only the sufferer knows his sufferings and that no state can be strong which excludes from its expressed wisdom the knowledge possessed by mothers, wives, and daughters.  We have but to view the unsatisfactory relations of the sexes the world over and the problem of children to realize how desperately we need this excluded wisdom.