Plato's Apology

Plato's Apology has a many parallels between the courtroom and the democratic process. The courtroom has many things in similar with elections and as such it offers a good look into both Socrates' views on democratic politics, public opinion and truth between both politics and public opinion. Even the size of the jury is similar to the size to the House of Commons. There are 501 jurors, these jurors vote on whether the defendant, Socrates is guilty or not. The jurors came back with a verdict of guilty with 280 men voting against him and 221 voting for him. This means that there is a 59 vote difference between the choices or about 12%. In the legislative branches of most governments it is quite possible to see such division, a case could be made that there are usually even larger divisions. In the courts of most fully industrialised states there needs to be a unanimous verdict to acquit or indict a defendant. The large deciding body in these governments does however function daily with margin even smaller than 12%.

Apology professes to be an actual record of Socrates' speech. This may be hard to actually prove due to the age of the dialogue, but if this is true than this could well be the one of the most important dialogue written for anyone who would like to know about Socrates and his beliefs. Socrates is defending himself against the charges put against him. The first charge is of corrupting the youth of Athens. The Second is the charge of not believing in the gods of the state, and inventing deities. The two charges of course would go together as publicly denouncing gods and inventing new ones would no doubt corrupt the youth were they to hear. There were other "charges" against Socrates which Socrates believed were more dangerous, because they came from years of bad public opinion and gossip. These charges were near impossible to answer too because the jury would have heard about Socrates and this would affect their ruling. The effect it would have on the jury could not be changed and yet it is no doubt an important part of their ruling. This situation can be likened to democratic failings because this is a situation that arises in politics many times, where voters are voting for a candidate based on rumours and beliefs about the person rather than what the candidate is trying to achieved and has previously done. "Socrates is guilty of wrongdoing in that he busies himself studying things in the sky and below the earth; he makes the worse into the stronger argument, and he teaches these same things to others" (Steph. 19b-c).

The ability of politicians to use rhetoric is important and is proportionate to their political success. More people will vote for a skilled orator than another candidate of lesser ability. The ability to speak has little to do with the politician's goals for governing, but may have a profound effect, and at times even greater effect on the voting populous than the candidate's position on issues. This seems to undermine the nature of democracy because people are not voting for what they want or believe in, but for whom they like. Though it is possible that a politician's ability at public speaking make him or her, though in this case, a him, nonetheless, what the populous would want and believes in are negligently affected by the politician's ability at speaking.

Socrates criticizes this form of justice and of government. In the case of Apology, it can be seen that the Athenian system of justice mirrors their system of government, with large groups acting democratically. Socrates, though actually speaking quite well in his speech, does not defend himself well. Ultimately, his lack of defence results in his own demise Ð'- through a sentence to death by drinking hemlock. Socrates however is not afraid of death, he knows he knows nothing and uses that to explain why death should not be seen as bad. "What should I fear? That I should suffer the penalty Meletus has assessed against me, of which I say I do not know whether it is good or bad? Am I then to choose in preference to this something that I know very well to be an evil and assess the penalty at that?" (Steph. 37b-c). The penalty Meletus assessed for Socrates is death and because Socrates does not know how death will be he says that to be fined or put in jail would be worse than death because he knows they are bad whereas death is unknown.

Socrates begins the dialog by asking the jury to pay heed to the words that he says, and not how they are said. He reiterates this several times in his speech. This again shows Socrates' lack of faith in the process of Athenian justice. He obviously sees that the public is swayed by rhetoric. This belief also stretches to Athenian democracy and his lack of faith in its