Socrates would have opposed

The referendum idea, which nearly toppled a government and was removed under a threat that ministers who back it would be fired, is still reverberating, and many believe it to be democracy's expression par excellence: for the entire people to judge and decide. In Athens of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E., referenda were indeed held, and vital political matters were determined in the civilian gatherings that provided a stage for exciting speeches from the Sophists, professional speakers whose speeches were renowned for their sweeping impact.

In the Athens of the time, Socrates grappled with the essential question regarding the relationship between a speech and truth, and an audience's ability to uncover truth in a democracy that is founded on persuasive speeches.

The Sophist speakers knew how to make use to the magical power of the word, a skill which granted them tremendous popularity at the gatherings of civilians. The spellbound audience aroused concern in Socrates, who was aware of the hazards inherent in the Sophist juggling, which did not allow the civilians to intelligently process the manipulative preachings and reach the correct political decisions.

Socrates concluded that major political decisions should not be determined by a mob vulnerable to incitement through firebrand speeches. A speech's power to excite the audience is also reflected in the dispute surrounding the disengagement question. Despite that, many still believe it is appropriate for important political decisions to be decided by the people, as the expression par excellence of democracy.

Recently, while riding in a taxi, the driver introduced a topic that has been preoccupying him: If he should be asked to decide in a referendum on the disengagement question, he said, he lacks sufficient information about the ramifications of the procedure, its advantages and disadvantages. And why is that the case? Because the Sophist manner of argument, which was denounced 2,500 years ago as dangerous for democracy, still rules the roost in Israeli public discourse.

The public debate is not focused on the ramifications of disengagement - military, regional, international, geo-demographic. Instead, the public is flooded with galvanizing speeches of invective against Ariel Sharon, who is crowned a "traitor," "fickle," or even "Mapainik" and "Bolshevik," heaven help us. There are even those who convene gatherings to recite from the Book of Psalms, with the entire audience partaking in the reading and declaration of a divine promise there will be no disengagement.

The overheated tones of the discussion led Sharon, in his important Knesset speech in favor of the disengagement, to devote a substantial share of his address to shoring up his personal standing and underscoring his credibility, lest it be said that he cheated the people.

Thus the question of Sharon's personal credibility became the crux of the debate on a question so vital to the country that it is, in his words, the most difficult decision since the War of Independence. In other words, the people's decision will usually be made not out of rational considerations after analyzing the data and reaching conclusions, but rather out of gut feelings that feed off magical quotations from those who revived the art of mesmerizing preaching by the Sophists, those masters of discourse who knew how to charm a crowd but who doubted its ability to make serious decisions.

Will we witness the rise today of an Aristotelian figure that will know how to channel democracy into rational avenues of debate, and to save it from the pitfalls of Sophist demagoguery? Will we be wise enough to make use now of Aristotle's teachings, which took on the Sophists, enemies of coolheaded democracy, and called for speeches that are based on logic?

Aristotle demanded that the starting points for debate - the social conventions - be established not by the mob, but rather by the sages. These days, that means the political, military, and geography experts, whose stipulations can serve as starting points for the rational argument. Aristotle may be said to have rescued public debate, the father of democracy, from the jaws of the sophists - will we be smart enough to do that today?

The writer is co-director of the Center for Rhetoric Studies at Cape Town University and a visiting professor in communications at Haifa and Ben-Gurion universities and Sapir College.