Quang Nguyen Ms.

Dobeck Period 6 September 11, 2011 Socrates in Apology by Plato and Democracy Throughout history, there are many questions about mans nature, and the need of governing themselves. Democracy is a form of government that, in its basic form, is operate by not one, but many people, whom themselves are elected and work towards the interest of the people of the nation of which that democracy rules. In the Apology, Platos interpretation of Socrates attempt to defend himself against charges of corrupting the Athenian youths and evil doings, Socrates criticizes the nature of man and the many. In his opinion, the many are egoistic, greedy humans, who values money and reputation over the need for the truth and knowledge, and as a result, would not capable of effectively governing and judging. Democracy is based on the rule of the many, and consequently seems inefficient if taken Socrates belief of man. Socrates is true in his assumption of the many, but nevertheless, one can concur with Socrates yet still favors the modern democracy as the best form of government amongst many others. In the monologue, Socrates argues that humans are egoistic and full of arrogance, holding their false reputation and money higher than the need to acquire true knowledge. The charges are brought forth to Socrates due to his questioning the wisdom of the many, and supposedly damaged their prestige as a result. So the charges are simply an act of revenge from the many people of Athens of whom he questioned, designed to protect and perhaps regain their own esteem and derived from yet again their narcissistic selves, which seems counter-productive by further proves Socrates opinion of them true. He accuses people of greed, more particularly Meletus and

Anytus, of heaping up the greatest amount of money and honor and reputation... [but] caring so little about wisdom and truth and theimprovement of the soul.(447) In addition, Socrates reasons his death sentence of it being not because of his violating the laws of Athens, but because he did not [do] as you would have liked me toand doing many things which you have been accustomed to hear from others.(453) By saying so, Socrates is directly declaring that the many of whom his judges composed of are ruling in their own favor over law and justice. He further lowered the judges esteem by stating that [he] would rather die having spoken after my manner, than speak in your manner and live.(453) therefore outright refusing to act as a faulty common man as his judges and accusers. Democracy in its basic form is ideal for preventing tyranny and corruption, and in its modern form that many nations have today has many complicated branches that functions together effectively, hence is arguably the best form of government the world so far has had. One of the basic principles that also distinguish democracy from other types of government is its practice of electing people into office. The people of a nation would vote for their desired representatives, whom, in turn, would work based on the peoples interests. As a result, in order to keep their office, representatives must work for the people, protect the peoples rights and pay consent to the people. This prevents tyranny and corruption, which is a huge problem for any other governments, most notably autocracies. In the United States, this system of electing representatives to office has been used for more than a hundred years, and is still working now. Also, in a democracy, due to it being run by many people, faults of an individual or a few will neither be ignored nor pass into law and negatively affect the nation. Modern democracy governments often have more than 2 branches; each checks one anothers performance and together provides a balanced system. Again, in the United States history, there were times in which many radical ideas, potentially for the worse, but

not many left any devastating effect on the country. In its system of law making, the legislative branch needs to make the law, the president from the executive branch needs to sign in into law, and as a final filter, the Supreme Court from the judicial branch could have its say on the law, and to terminate it or not. Lastly, due the system of electing being implemented, in case the government does not satisfy the peoples needs and interests, its ranks would be replaced in a short time and relatively easy. The replacing representatives, having voted into office by the people, would attempt to fix the problem of its predecessors such that it fits the peoples wishes. In brief, modern democracy has the ability to fix its own faults. All around the globe, democratic governments have revised their laws and polices time and time again. One exemplary event of such kind is womens rights. When America, or England, or many other democracies was established, women were not given the right to vote as men. But as protests from masses of women rose, eventually the laws were changed and woman were given equal rights, something so stunningly radical to hundreds of years of society ideas that it further cements democracys capability. Many would argue against democracy, stating there are better forms of government. This may be true, for to say democracy is the most excellent and deny the existence of any other is not a valid claim. Democracy itself has problems also, as figured from Socrates ideas. Socrates state, a democracy, and its officials did not work abiding to the law and justice. Autocracies, most commonly monarchy and lately dictatorship, provided its state with much power and smooth law making procedures. Chinese emperors once ruled over a China that is bigger than it is today, king Charlemagne of Gaul, which is modern day France, created the basis for the first European governments, and Adolf Hitler brought Germany from a depressed state with sky-high inflation rates and a crumbled economy to one of the leading nations in the world. An aristocracy could be another good competitor, as its core is composed of the few elites as rulers. In many countries, most

of its people are uneducated, thus are not capable of making good decisions, therefore it falls to the elite of such states to lead. An example of an aristocracy would be Sparta, a city-state of the same time as Athens. It is ruled by two kings at once, and old, wise men of the population. It came down history most notably as having a terrifyingly effective war machine, waging epic scale wars that eventually made Sparta the dominant force over ancient Greece for quite some time. The closest competitor to democracy today, with notable states, is communism. In Russia, after World War I, was badly damaged. Millions of death due to the war, economic problems and civil wars raged the country. Communism eventually spread, and within a few years, Russia had become a highly centralized state, with a formidable army and resources capable of competing with and even feared the Allies, which was a coalition of the United States, half of the European countries and many others all around the world. However, none is without flaws, as all of the competing governments does, and are inferior to democracy. Perfect is but a concept. No one could actually be impeccable, and as a result the many that Socrates referred to is not without their own mistakes. Even though Socrates state is a democracy, it is but a primitive form and consequently is more vulnerable to such errors. Modern democracy would face this problem too, but thanks to its elaborate system of checks and balances and elections, it is less prone to flaws from its officials. Socrates view might sound as if it goes against democracy and its basic principles, but on the contrary, democracy would be more ideal than ever, considering the harmful effects the bad human nature could cause and the many ways democracy has to prevent it. If humans were completely corrupted and evil, no government at all would be effective then. Monarchy is no exception from human errors and ego. Historically proven, monarchies generally paid little to no attention to its subjects, simply because there are no boundaries to its power. The smooth law and decision making is due to this, and its very core is its

own deadly error which shows acutely. With no constraints, monarchs could abuse their rule to immense levels, as the nation would have to work for his own interest and glory. The French king Louis XIV, called the Sun King, was one such absolute ruler. He lived lavishly, built the marvelous Versailles palace, and waged many bloody wars around France, all on the mostly poor French population. After his death, France was far from the same state it was when Louis XIV was crowned its king. Aristocracies are very much the same as monarchies, only with more people ruling. Thus aristocracy does seem to have a vague system of checks and balances, but, once again, in practice is not effective. The leading elites would most likely bind together, and rule their state for their own interests, just as a single ruler would. Or the aristocrats may turn against each other, fighting for dominance which would likely turn out a civil war. Either way, the states population would suffer in conflicts they have no share. Communism seem very much like democracy, with a centralized government by the people, for the people, that exercises universal equality for all its citizens. This would provide the crude power of a monarchy to run affairs smoothly, which seems ideal considering the time-consuming way democracies pass laws, and at the same time would fit the peoples need, as everyone can vote. The different from democracy is that only one political party would rule the state. This seemingly small difference would be the sole reason for how separated communism and democracy really is. In practice, as in Russians once feared U.S.S.R. and many others, it was the complete opposite of what communism was designed to work. In order to have power, communism eliminated competition, and its checks and balances system relies solely in the ruling party. There are elections, but only to some positions. Most critical positions are chosen by members of the communist party itself, and it is at this point that communism breaks down, thus the power that is supposedly to work affairs efficiently turns into exercising the governments power efficiently. Communism does not take power from autocracies and liberalism

from democracy, but the power and a very intricate system of government. In other ways, communism does not create the combination of a powerful government for the people, but a huge ruling machine, stronger in power yet harder to put down than ever. In the U.S.S.R., Russia was amongst the leading global super powers, but its people suffered. China is in a less strict communist state, its people are not suffering, but liberalism and freedom is restricted. In essence, Socrates speculation of the many and their bad nature is very true, but democracy still emerges as the best form of government yet. As humans all make problems, modern democracy is design with a plethora of ways it could prevent and fix such errors. Compare to other forms of governments, democracy would likely to survive corruptions than any. This fact is not only theoretically proved, but also historically, and in addition, democracy is the most successful up to date. Hence, it is very much possible to concur with Socrates opinion of mans greedy, egoistic nature and democracy being the superior, most idealistic form of government.