Democracy Is Incapable of Empire
Democracy Is Not Capable of Empire
There are reasons why many of history’s greatest empires have tended to be either oligarchic or monarchial in nature. In observing the development of two of the ancient world’s most prominent models of representative government, the Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic, it can be concluded that when coupled with the political, economic, and social changes that come with expansion, the complications inherent with systems with democratic design prove incapable of running an empire. The primary purpose of democratic government is of course to represent the will of the people in the form of the sovereign and its policies. In the quest for empire, however, this goal becomes difficult and potentially detrimental in the face of great political, economic, and social changes. Athens was a direct democracy, and Rome was a republic of a democratic and oligarchical mix, but the small and inefficient forms of statecraft of both civilizations were not equipped to effectively manage the empires both would become. The problem with democracy in empire is rooted in the issue that democracy itself seeks to answer – the issue of representation.
Ideally, a working and trustworthy democracy requires a general public composed of good and educated citizens that will act and vote on what is best for the society as a collective whole. This concept is rather too idealistic, for class and social divisions profoundly beget and affect individual interests. In effect, determining what the objectives and priorities should be in empire building can be difficult in the realm of a democracy, given the vast number of people who are entitled to participate. This complexity that lies in the determining of the “general will” consequently inhibits effective solutions in government.
An account of the Athenian Mitylenian Debate from Thuycidides’s History of the Peloponessian War illustrates how the democratic process impedes decision-making in
There are reasons why many of history’s greatest empires have tended to be either oligarchic or monarchial in nature. In observing the development of two of the ancient world’s most prominent models of representative government, the Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic, it can be concluded that when coupled with the political, economic, and social changes that come with expansion, the complications inherent with systems with democratic design prove incapable of running an empire. The primary purpose of democratic government is of course to represent the will of the people in the form of the sovereign and its policies. In the quest for empire, however, this goal becomes difficult and potentially detrimental in the face of great political, economic, and social changes. Athens was a direct democracy, and Rome was a republic of a democratic and oligarchical mix, but the small and inefficient forms of statecraft of both civilizations were not equipped to effectively manage the empires both would become. The problem with democracy in empire is rooted in the issue that democracy itself seeks to answer – the issue of representation.
Ideally, a working and trustworthy democracy requires a general public composed of good and educated citizens that will act and vote on what is best for the society as a collective whole. This concept is rather too idealistic, for class and social divisions profoundly beget and affect individual interests. In effect, determining what the objectives and priorities should be in empire building can be difficult in the realm of a democracy, given the vast number of people who are entitled to participate. This complexity that lies in the determining of the “general will” consequently inhibits effective solutions in government.
An account of the Athenian Mitylenian Debate from Thuycidides’s History of the Peloponessian War illustrates how the democratic process impedes decision-making in