The Pros And Cons Of Athenian Democracy
Ever since there have been leaders, nations have explored the field of civil administration for the most effectual form of government, by which to rule their homeland. Today, most societies in the Western World generally agree that democracy is the best form of government. As a result, their outlook upon the first great democratic system in Western civilization is largely affected by their own predilection. Others, however, can see major flaws in Athenian democracy. These opposing stances are no recent development. The positives and negatives of this form of government have been argued and deliberated ever since it first transpired, nearly 25 centuries ago. Indeed, most of the criticism made of democracy today was already made then, and still
…show more content…
has yet to be resolved. The word democracy comes from two Greek words: the first is a noun, "demos," which means "people," and the second is a verb, "kratein," which means "to rule." Its basic meaning is "government by the people" or "ruled by the ruled." Its derivation refers back to ancient Greece, more precisely, the 5th century city-state of Athens, the author and first practitioner of democracy. As for the 4,000 years before that time, the world lived under forms of government other than democratic. Then, for the next 2,500 years, democracy has existed as a theory and actual system of government, with varying degrees of consistency between theory and practice. But all this began in the middle of the 5th century before Christ in Athens. In the year 600 B.C., during which time Lycurgus was working to reform the legal system of Spartan government, a political crisis was developing in the Athenian city-state.
The farmers and suppliers of Athens were falling behind in their production rates because the population of Athens had grown too quickly. This forced the farmers into bankruptcy as they were forced to trade their land for more food until they ran out of land. Fortunately, when Solon was given control over the Athenians in 594 B.C., he canceled all of the agricultural debts and liberated all the slaves and solved the crisis. He proceeded to pass reforms in the Athenian government that separated Athenians into four classes based not on birth, but rather on their own annual production rate. Only Athenians who were among the three highest classes were allowed to hold public office. Those excluded from Solon's system were those who did not own any productive land, including women and children. However, an interesting facet of Solon's new system was that it allowed men from the lower class or the less-recognized could work their way up through the system until they were able to achieve leadership positions in the government. Later, in 561 B.C., Pisistratus came and usurped Solon's position and ruled as tyrant, in the best sense of the word. He became the Robin Hood of his day, rewarding the insolvent peasants with land confiscated from wealthier families. He did many great things to help along the development of the society as a whole. He devoted much of his attention to encouraging more trade and industry and constantly thought of new and better ways to promote the growth of the
protectorate. Pisistratus was a catalyst for the growth and development of Athens. The city had expanded both in size and in wealth. Pisistratus developed the self-confidence of the common people. They now had a much higher standard of living, being able to function on their own; they were now more at ease and were able to spend more time doing as they pleased, and they had become a much more erudite people than their ancestors had ever been. Pisistratus sought to relinquish the power he had attained to a more popular base of support and soon established the first political leadership by an average citizen. Indeed, because incomes were escalating in the 6th century and men continued to qualify for office on the basis of wealth, there was a greater number of citizens being included in the operation of the government. Pisistratus was succeeded in 527 B.C. by his son, Hippias, who followed in the way of his father. Then, in 514 B.C., his younger brother, Hipparchus, was murdered, arousing Hippias's suspicion and uneasiness. Finally, the noble clan of the Alemaeonids, exiled by the sons of Pisistratus, won favor with the oracle of Delphi and used that support to influence Sparta in attacking the Athenian tyranny. The Spartans, who were being led by Cleomenes I, invaded Athenian territory in 510 B.C. Hippias was ousted and fled to Persia. From that point, Cleomenes's friend Isagoras held the leadership in Athens after the withdrawal of the Spartan troops, only opposed by Cleisthenes, from the restored Alemaeonid clan. Isagoras's aim was to reinstate the pre-Solonian aristocratic state by purifying the citizen lists. Cleisthenes took an unprecedented action by consulting the people for their political support and won with it a program of great popular appeal. With this backing by the population, Cleisthenes was able to pursue his ideas for the future of Athenian government. He saw Athens as an opportunity for a new political organization in which the citizens would have more direct influence in making the government function well. He had in mind a more dynamic and more uninhibited role in running the city-state. He labeled this new political organization demokratia, or democracy rule by the entire body of citizens. This is where the foundation was laid for what we now know as democratic organization. Cleisthenes created a Council of Five Hundred, which planned the business of the public assemblies. All male citizens over thirty years of age were limited to no more than two terms of one year each on the Council. Cleisthenes thought that this organization was necessary so that every citizen could learn from direct political experience. This way, he speculated, there would be no citizens to conspire and rise up against the political system. Cleisthenes set up a rudimentary check-and-balance system within the Athenian populace by dividing it into ten tribes (instead of the original four), composing each tribe in a way that guaranteed that no region would dominate any of them. Because the tribes had common religious activities and participated together in communal undertakings, the new set-up would also increase the amount of devotion to the polis and diminish regional division. Each tribe sent fifty men to serve on the Council of five Hundred (replacing Solon's Council of Four Hundred), and each set of fifty men would serve as a presiding committee for a period of thirty-five days. The Council convened the Assembly an Assembly which, as of the year 450 B.C. consisted of approximately 21,000 citizens. The Council scrutinized the qualifications of officials and the allocation of funds. They looked after the construction projects and surveyed public buildings. They collected rent on public land and oversaw the cavalry. The Council was basically responsible, then, for the smooth running of the daily operations of the Athenian city-state. For those who served as members on the Council, they were limited to a possibility of two one-year terms, but a minimum of 250 new members had to be chosen every year. This way, many Athenians were able to have an experience on the Council. It was a full time job and those who did serve were paid. Every year, five hundred Council members and five hundred fifty Guards were chosen by lot from the villages of the Athenian polis. These men were examined closely by the Council before they were chosen so that alternates were always available. The rapid turnovers in the Council ensured not only that a large number of Athenians held some political position in their lifetime, but also that the Assembly would contain a large and more sophisticated membership. The Assembly contained all those citizens who were not serving on the Council or who were not serving as public officials. The Assembly met forty times a year and had four meetings every thirty-five days. The first meeting of the period was about a specific topic, the second meeting was open to any topic, and the third and fourth meetings were for debates on religion, international affairs, and such. Special meetings or emergency meetings could be called at any time. Around 460 B.C., Pericles used the power of the people and the Assemble to break up the Council of the Five Hundred. Under him, Athenian democracy meant the equality of justice and of opportunity. The former justice was attained by the jury system, which ensured that the slaves and resident aliens were represented through their patrons. The latter justice did not infer that every man had the right to everything, but that eligibility for office was now based on merit and efficiency and not wealth. This led to an important note: Whereas Solon had used birth as the standards of eligibility for his officials and Cleisthenes had used wealth, Pericles now used merit. This was the ideal for Pericles. What actually took place was quite contrary. Thucydides, a Greek historian, commented on the reality of democracy under Pericles, stating, "It was in theory, a democracy but in fact it became the rule of the first Athenian," and the historian Herodotus added that "nothing could be found better than the one man, the best." Pericles was the aristoi, the word from which we get the expression aristocracy. So, what began as Greek democracy under Cleisthenes around 500 B.C. became an aristocracy under Pericles by 430 B.C. The Council and Assembly met often and discussed most ordinarily local issues. However, they also conferred over what we could call democratic theory, debating many fundamental questions. They debated questions such as, "What is the good life?" and "What is the best form of government?" These questions were only inferior to the debates that took place over the topics of war. The 5th century B.C. was the classical age of Greece and was primarily an era of constant warfare. For over fifteen years in the beginning of the century the Greeks fought the Persians and at the end of the century, a war between Sparta and Athens not only spelled the end of Athenian dominance, but also the death of Athenian direct democracy.
All that democracy incorporates today, a fair trial by jury, freedom of speech, writing, and religion, has been spurred by ancient Athens. The Athenians were people that knew exactly what they needed in their society and government and worked together to attain it. These people had a strong sense of both collective and personal independence and developed a sociopolitical system that focused on liberty and the studies. This duly prompted them to make influential developments in not only philosophy and science, but in politics, as well. The Athenians maintained their unique view of politics as the duty of citizens to guard against absolutism. This remarkable and judicious political system that the Athenians embraced lasted only until the succession of the Roman Empire. Initially, the democratic ideology of the Athenians of the Greeks seemed to prove harmonious to the Romans. The Roman system of government was actually an assimilation of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Its purpose was to see that the society as a whole was of the highest standards. However, the demands of maintaining a rapidly expanding empire soon led to the exploitation of the rights given to the monarchy and aristocracy, prompting a steady decline in the Empire. The Roman legions did manage to sustain somewhat of an acceptable setting throughout Europe for a few centuries, but following he decline of the Empire, Europe became highly vulnerable to foreign invasions and barbarian attacks. Roman legions could no longer serve and protect the people, so they turned to their equestrian soldiers and warlords to protect them in exchange for their allegiance and serfdom. The population sacrificed their own freedom for the hope of security and civilization, but their own ignorance and fear subjected them to the arbitrary rule of the despots, precisely what the Greeks had guarded against. The people's existence once again became subordinate to the rights and rulings of the monarchs, feudal lords, and priests. The population was denied fundamental rights and privileges, having been surrounded by sanctioned individuals who ruled the society by harsh administration, proscribed economic dealings and development, and philosophical notions as well as ideas that were shaped by religion. Economically, land was the basis of wealth. Socially, heredity was the determinant of position and opportunity. Intellectually, theological doctrine was the sole arbiter of truth. These components, the very core of democracy, continued to be overpowered by the religious and political autocracy and did not develop again until the 15th century. When something is kept inside of something else and allowed to build over time, when it is finally allowed to be released, it escapes with forceful impact. Such was the case of the Greek population in the 15th century. For centuries before, the stability experienced under the feudal system finally led to the reemergence of long suppressed human energies and aspirations. Suddenly, a chain reaction was started. Cities gained wealth and power from the growth of production and commerce. The rise of city-states surpassed in power the rural, land-based feudal kingdoms and created an alternative source of support for the monarch. The classes that rose to power in these city-states, namely, the merchant class, made use of this new power of their sudden wealth to affect greater economic freedom and political independence from the monarch in exchange for financial support. Soon, it ensued that the bishops had lost control over the city of Lombardy in Italy to self-governing communities, whose members were appointed by their citizens. By the end of the 11th century, the commercially effective cities in Italy had obtained their idyllic and monumental political freedom. This freedom and independence among the localities set off a healthy rivalry between cities in the field of art, literature, and philosophy. In their attempts to take the lead in these developments, aristocrats and princes took over the patronage of literature and art from the Pope. This led to academies that were founded by patron princes in several cities, through which the influence of new learning infiltrated the late medieval society. The innovative human education and economic achievements of the Italian city-states brought the role of the individual into greater prominence in sociopolitical advancement. This is the point at which the shift in the economic and political domains begins to assume a certain degree of familiarity in the contemporary society. In following all of the increasing progressions in the economy, et cetera, the growth of commerce spurred the rise of money as a new center of wealth. This shift from a land-based to a monetary-based social system laid the economic foundation for the emergence of individualism by according status and privileges to those who acquired wealth by effort and merit rather than restricting it to a hereditary aristocracy. The power of the feudal lords was undermined and transferred to the merchant class. There were also agricultural advances. It was found that free laborers who paid rent or worked for wages produced more cops and generated more profits than enserfed laborers. Thus, the shift to a new system of wage payments for agricultural labor not only increased agricultural productivity, but also freed peasants from permanent ties to their feudal rulers. The decline of feudalism that resulted led to an increase in individual economic freedom. It was this new economic independence that became the breeding ground for the rebirth of Greek ideas. It was the wealth gathered from commerce that financed the Renaissance. All this led to the rebirth of classical learning and literature in Renaissance Italy with the spreading of humanistic thought, social aspirations, and individual enterprise. Humanism tried to free intellect from the control of religion. The new humanism no longer assumed the idea of man always having a sword at his side, but shifted to that of individual attaining worth by expanding one's mental boundaries. Study of the Classics was no longer limited to the upper-class citizens. Humanism opened the gates of secular learning to laymen. Birth was slowly losing its factor in social privileges. The new environment contributed to religious reformation. The Reformation was a direct attack on the suppression of individualism by a despotic church organization. The Reformation transmitted new humanistic ideas to all parts of Europe. It shifted authority in the sphere of religion from the institution of the church to the individual. It sowed the seeds of freedom that late sprouted in the economic, political, and social spheres. A final note: In American History, we learn that our founding fathers hated democracy, recognizing that it is nothing more than social slavery to the popular hysteria of the masses. They wanted a representative (democratic) system, but not a pure democracy, and they did not establish a democracy in the Constitution, they established a republic, that is, a Constitutional Republic.
Internet Sources:
http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta19007.htm
http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture6b.html
http://www.icpd.org/democracy/
has yet to be resolved. The word democracy comes from two Greek words: the first is a noun, "demos," which means "people," and the second is a verb, "kratein," which means "to rule." Its basic meaning is "government by the people" or "ruled by the ruled." Its derivation refers back to ancient Greece, more precisely, the 5th century city-state of Athens, the author and first practitioner of democracy. As for the 4,000 years before that time, the world lived under forms of government other than democratic. Then, for the next 2,500 years, democracy has existed as a theory and actual system of government, with varying degrees of consistency between theory and practice. But all this began in the middle of the 5th century before Christ in Athens. In the year 600 B.C., during which time Lycurgus was working to reform the legal system of Spartan government, a political crisis was developing in the Athenian city-state.
The farmers and suppliers of Athens were falling behind in their production rates because the population of Athens had grown too quickly. This forced the farmers into bankruptcy as they were forced to trade their land for more food until they ran out of land. Fortunately, when Solon was given control over the Athenians in 594 B.C., he canceled all of the agricultural debts and liberated all the slaves and solved the crisis. He proceeded to pass reforms in the Athenian government that separated Athenians into four classes based not on birth, but rather on their own annual production rate. Only Athenians who were among the three highest classes were allowed to hold public office. Those excluded from Solon's system were those who did not own any productive land, including women and children. However, an interesting facet of Solon's new system was that it allowed men from the lower class or the less-recognized could work their way up through the system until they were able to achieve leadership positions in the government. Later, in 561 B.C., Pisistratus came and usurped Solon's position and ruled as tyrant, in the best sense of the word. He became the Robin Hood of his day, rewarding the insolvent peasants with land confiscated from wealthier families. He did many great things to help along the development of the society as a whole. He devoted much of his attention to encouraging more trade and industry and constantly thought of new and better ways to promote the growth of the
protectorate. Pisistratus was a catalyst for the growth and development of Athens. The city had expanded both in size and in wealth. Pisistratus developed the self-confidence of the common people. They now had a much higher standard of living, being able to function on their own; they were now more at ease and were able to spend more time doing as they pleased, and they had become a much more erudite people than their ancestors had ever been. Pisistratus sought to relinquish the power he had attained to a more popular base of support and soon established the first political leadership by an average citizen. Indeed, because incomes were escalating in the 6th century and men continued to qualify for office on the basis of wealth, there was a greater number of citizens being included in the operation of the government. Pisistratus was succeeded in 527 B.C. by his son, Hippias, who followed in the way of his father. Then, in 514 B.C., his younger brother, Hipparchus, was murdered, arousing Hippias's suspicion and uneasiness. Finally, the noble clan of the Alemaeonids, exiled by the sons of Pisistratus, won favor with the oracle of Delphi and used that support to influence Sparta in attacking the Athenian tyranny. The Spartans, who were being led by Cleomenes I, invaded Athenian territory in 510 B.C. Hippias was ousted and fled to Persia. From that point, Cleomenes's friend Isagoras held the leadership in Athens after the withdrawal of the Spartan troops, only opposed by Cleisthenes, from the restored Alemaeonid clan. Isagoras's aim was to reinstate the pre-Solonian aristocratic state by purifying the citizen lists. Cleisthenes took an unprecedented action by consulting the people for their political support and won with it a program of great popular appeal. With this backing by the population, Cleisthenes was able to pursue his ideas for the future of Athenian government. He saw Athens as an opportunity for a new political organization in which the citizens would have more direct influence in making the government function well. He had in mind a more dynamic and more uninhibited role in running the city-state. He labeled this new political organization demokratia, or democracy rule by the entire body of citizens. This is where the foundation was laid for what we now know as democratic organization. Cleisthenes created a Council of Five Hundred, which planned the business of the public assemblies. All male citizens over thirty years of age were limited to no more than two terms of one year each on the Council. Cleisthenes thought that this organization was necessary so that every citizen could learn from direct political experience. This way, he speculated, there would be no citizens to conspire and rise up against the political system. Cleisthenes set up a rudimentary check-and-balance system within the Athenian populace by dividing it into ten tribes (instead of the original four), composing each tribe in a way that guaranteed that no region would dominate any of them. Because the tribes had common religious activities and participated together in communal undertakings, the new set-up would also increase the amount of devotion to the polis and diminish regional division. Each tribe sent fifty men to serve on the Council of five Hundred (replacing Solon's Council of Four Hundred), and each set of fifty men would serve as a presiding committee for a period of thirty-five days. The Council convened the Assembly an Assembly which, as of the year 450 B.C. consisted of approximately 21,000 citizens. The Council scrutinized the qualifications of officials and the allocation of funds. They looked after the construction projects and surveyed public buildings. They collected rent on public land and oversaw the cavalry. The Council was basically responsible, then, for the smooth running of the daily operations of the Athenian city-state. For those who served as members on the Council, they were limited to a possibility of two one-year terms, but a minimum of 250 new members had to be chosen every year. This way, many Athenians were able to have an experience on the Council. It was a full time job and those who did serve were paid. Every year, five hundred Council members and five hundred fifty Guards were chosen by lot from the villages of the Athenian polis. These men were examined closely by the Council before they were chosen so that alternates were always available. The rapid turnovers in the Council ensured not only that a large number of Athenians held some political position in their lifetime, but also that the Assembly would contain a large and more sophisticated membership. The Assembly contained all those citizens who were not serving on the Council or who were not serving as public officials. The Assembly met forty times a year and had four meetings every thirty-five days. The first meeting of the period was about a specific topic, the second meeting was open to any topic, and the third and fourth meetings were for debates on religion, international affairs, and such. Special meetings or emergency meetings could be called at any time. Around 460 B.C., Pericles used the power of the people and the Assemble to break up the Council of the Five Hundred. Under him, Athenian democracy meant the equality of justice and of opportunity. The former justice was attained by the jury system, which ensured that the slaves and resident aliens were represented through their patrons. The latter justice did not infer that every man had the right to everything, but that eligibility for office was now based on merit and efficiency and not wealth. This led to an important note: Whereas Solon had used birth as the standards of eligibility for his officials and Cleisthenes had used wealth, Pericles now used merit. This was the ideal for Pericles. What actually took place was quite contrary. Thucydides, a Greek historian, commented on the reality of democracy under Pericles, stating, "It was in theory, a democracy but in fact it became the rule of the first Athenian," and the historian Herodotus added that "nothing could be found better than the one man, the best." Pericles was the aristoi, the word from which we get the expression aristocracy. So, what began as Greek democracy under Cleisthenes around 500 B.C. became an aristocracy under Pericles by 430 B.C. The Council and Assembly met often and discussed most ordinarily local issues. However, they also conferred over what we could call democratic theory, debating many fundamental questions. They debated questions such as, "What is the good life?" and "What is the best form of government?" These questions were only inferior to the debates that took place over the topics of war. The 5th century B.C. was the classical age of Greece and was primarily an era of constant warfare. For over fifteen years in the beginning of the century the Greeks fought the Persians and at the end of the century, a war between Sparta and Athens not only spelled the end of Athenian dominance, but also the death of Athenian direct democracy.
All that democracy incorporates today, a fair trial by jury, freedom of speech, writing, and religion, has been spurred by ancient Athens. The Athenians were people that knew exactly what they needed in their society and government and worked together to attain it. These people had a strong sense of both collective and personal independence and developed a sociopolitical system that focused on liberty and the studies. This duly prompted them to make influential developments in not only philosophy and science, but in politics, as well. The Athenians maintained their unique view of politics as the duty of citizens to guard against absolutism. This remarkable and judicious political system that the Athenians embraced lasted only until the succession of the Roman Empire. Initially, the democratic ideology of the Athenians of the Greeks seemed to prove harmonious to the Romans. The Roman system of government was actually an assimilation of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Its purpose was to see that the society as a whole was of the highest standards. However, the demands of maintaining a rapidly expanding empire soon led to the exploitation of the rights given to the monarchy and aristocracy, prompting a steady decline in the Empire. The Roman legions did manage to sustain somewhat of an acceptable setting throughout Europe for a few centuries, but following he decline of the Empire, Europe became highly vulnerable to foreign invasions and barbarian attacks. Roman legions could no longer serve and protect the people, so they turned to their equestrian soldiers and warlords to protect them in exchange for their allegiance and serfdom. The population sacrificed their own freedom for the hope of security and civilization, but their own ignorance and fear subjected them to the arbitrary rule of the despots, precisely what the Greeks had guarded against. The people's existence once again became subordinate to the rights and rulings of the monarchs, feudal lords, and priests. The population was denied fundamental rights and privileges, having been surrounded by sanctioned individuals who ruled the society by harsh administration, proscribed economic dealings and development, and philosophical notions as well as ideas that were shaped by religion. Economically, land was the basis of wealth. Socially, heredity was the determinant of position and opportunity. Intellectually, theological doctrine was the sole arbiter of truth. These components, the very core of democracy, continued to be overpowered by the religious and political autocracy and did not develop again until the 15th century. When something is kept inside of something else and allowed to build over time, when it is finally allowed to be released, it escapes with forceful impact. Such was the case of the Greek population in the 15th century. For centuries before, the stability experienced under the feudal system finally led to the reemergence of long suppressed human energies and aspirations. Suddenly, a chain reaction was started. Cities gained wealth and power from the growth of production and commerce. The rise of city-states surpassed in power the rural, land-based feudal kingdoms and created an alternative source of support for the monarch. The classes that rose to power in these city-states, namely, the merchant class, made use of this new power of their sudden wealth to affect greater economic freedom and political independence from the monarch in exchange for financial support. Soon, it ensued that the bishops had lost control over the city of Lombardy in Italy to self-governing communities, whose members were appointed by their citizens. By the end of the 11th century, the commercially effective cities in Italy had obtained their idyllic and monumental political freedom. This freedom and independence among the localities set off a healthy rivalry between cities in the field of art, literature, and philosophy. In their attempts to take the lead in these developments, aristocrats and princes took over the patronage of literature and art from the Pope. This led to academies that were founded by patron princes in several cities, through which the influence of new learning infiltrated the late medieval society. The innovative human education and economic achievements of the Italian city-states brought the role of the individual into greater prominence in sociopolitical advancement. This is the point at which the shift in the economic and political domains begins to assume a certain degree of familiarity in the contemporary society. In following all of the increasing progressions in the economy, et cetera, the growth of commerce spurred the rise of money as a new center of wealth. This shift from a land-based to a monetary-based social system laid the economic foundation for the emergence of individualism by according status and privileges to those who acquired wealth by effort and merit rather than restricting it to a hereditary aristocracy. The power of the feudal lords was undermined and transferred to the merchant class. There were also agricultural advances. It was found that free laborers who paid rent or worked for wages produced more cops and generated more profits than enserfed laborers. Thus, the shift to a new system of wage payments for agricultural labor not only increased agricultural productivity, but also freed peasants from permanent ties to their feudal rulers. The decline of feudalism that resulted led to an increase in individual economic freedom. It was this new economic independence that became the breeding ground for the rebirth of Greek ideas. It was the wealth gathered from commerce that financed the Renaissance. All this led to the rebirth of classical learning and literature in Renaissance Italy with the spreading of humanistic thought, social aspirations, and individual enterprise. Humanism tried to free intellect from the control of religion. The new humanism no longer assumed the idea of man always having a sword at his side, but shifted to that of individual attaining worth by expanding one's mental boundaries. Study of the Classics was no longer limited to the upper-class citizens. Humanism opened the gates of secular learning to laymen. Birth was slowly losing its factor in social privileges. The new environment contributed to religious reformation. The Reformation was a direct attack on the suppression of individualism by a despotic church organization. The Reformation transmitted new humanistic ideas to all parts of Europe. It shifted authority in the sphere of religion from the institution of the church to the individual. It sowed the seeds of freedom that late sprouted in the economic, political, and social spheres. A final note: In American History, we learn that our founding fathers hated democracy, recognizing that it is nothing more than social slavery to the popular hysteria of the masses. They wanted a representative (democratic) system, but not a pure democracy, and they did not establish a democracy in the Constitution, they established a republic, that is, a Constitutional Republic.
Internet Sources:
http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta19007.htm
http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture6b.html
http://www.icpd.org/democracy/