Greek Democracy Readings

HUM 2220H Greek/Roman Honors Humanities

The Polis-
Between about 780 and 720 BC, the population of Athens multiplied
sevenfold.
The transition from pastoralism to arable farming would account for such
growth.
ree! farmers did not follow the pattern familiar to observers of the rural
"nited #tates b$ establishing their homes on their land in isolation from their
neighbors. %nstead, the$ congregated in clustered villages, which coalesced
into larger communities. %n Athens, the mass of towns and hamlets
continued to recogni&e their original components as unitar$ elements of
government in their developed constitutional organi&ations. These clusters
of villages were li!el$ to be situated at the base of, or near, a defensible
height, a forti'ed citadel, to which the villagers might (ee with their movable
propert$ in times of danger. The ree! word for )cit$*state,+ polis, originall$
denoted such a place of refuge. But forti'cations, public buildings, even an
urban populace do not singl$ or in combination ma!e a polis. There is also
an element of mentalit$. %n classical times the cit$ was to be mar!ed b$
internal cohesion, particularl$ solidarit$ among the citi&en population and, in
general, the recognition of the polis ,in distinction from ree! nationalism or,
at the other e-treme, from the individual person. as the proper focus of
lo$alt$ and the standard of correct conduct.
Origins of the City!tate
/. defensive purposes
2. religion 0 because of pol$theism, a multitude of divinities ,the result of
multiple village or other diverse origins of the citi&ens. could be
accommodated within a single religious establishment. Besides, the
ma1or 2l$mpian deities ,3eus, 4era, 5oseidon, Artemis. were
ac!nowledged b$ all ree!s. But it was the patron divinit$ that
perhaps contributed most to the uni'cation of the communit$ since it
was to a single divinit$ that all Athenians, sa$, loo!ed for the
furtherance of their common interests.
6. ree!s7 propensit$ to invent and to transmit to succeeding generations
a bod$ of lore8m$th and legend8that served in various wa$s to
identif$ and ennoble their speci'call$ civic origins.
"thenian Democracy
The 'rst and most basic concept that lin!ed ancient Athenians was the idea
of citi&enship itself. Citi&enship brought man$ bene'ts8festivals to
celebrate, the status of being an insider in the leading cit$ of the
9editerranean, the 'nancial fruits of Athens: imperial policies. The law
de'ned who was entitled to be a citi&en, and Athenians worried constantl$
about it. %t is this sense of self, pro1ected b$ the idea of citi&enship, that
provides the most telling contrast with modern democracies.
;5articipation; was the catchword in the government of classical reece. The
Athenian citi&en was e-pected to attend the Assembl$, to serve on the
Council, to act as a 1uror, to vote, to ta!e part in festivals, and to 'ght in the
militar$. <here modern democracies tal! obsessivel$ about rights, ancient
democrac$ considered citi&enship more an issue of duties. As 5ericles
declared= ;<e do not sa$ that a man who ta!es no interest in politics minds
his own business> we sa$ he has no business here at all.; %n democrac$, to
be unengaged is to be useless. %ndeed, the standard ree! word for a
private citi&en is idiots, from which we get the ?nglish ;idiot;**a fool who lives
in his own world.
%n ancient Athens, citi&ens were directl$ involved in passing laws, setting
budgets, and declaring war. To be a citi&en meant to 'ght for the state
and, because war was the norm, to be prepared to die for it. %n Athens,
war was a necessar$ and universal enterprise.
Ancient democrac$ starts from the assumption of e@ualit$ of citi&enship. The
Athenians too! citi&en e@ualit$ to an e-treme= The$ appointed oAcials b$
lot8or random selection. The Athenians assumed that each citi&en was
capable of performing the duties of democratic authorit$8of 1udging well.
#o the procedure was used proudl$ across ever$ sphere of life, even in one
of reece:s most celebrated ancient institutions, the traged$ competition.
Before the festival, the Council drew up lists of citi&ens selected from each of
the ten tribes. <e do not !now that the$ had an$ special @uali'cation. The
lists were sealed in /0 urns and !ept in the treasur$ of the Acropolis, the
most secure place in the cit$. At the beginning of the contest, the urns were
unsealed, and the archon chose one name randoml$ from each to get a
board of ten 1udges. At the end of the contest, each 1udge wrote his order of
preference on a tablet. ?ach tablet was put in another urn, and the archon
chose 've of these tablets at random. These determined the winner. At
each stage where we might e-pect critical 1udgment, intellectual or artistic
acumen, or theatrical e-perience, the s$stem wor!ed to randomi&e.
Bemocrac$ made public 'gures of all its citi&ens. There was no aspect of a
citi&en:s life that did not have some bearing on the politics of the cit$, and
the cit$ entered into ever$ aspect of his life. %t ma!es no sense in ree! to
sa$, ;9$ private life is m$ own and no business of the state.; <hen the
citi&en was in the public e$e8and nowhere more so than in the courtroom,
Assembl$, mar!etplace, or g$m8then his whole life was open to scrutin$.
The men who clashed in the courtroom had no scruples about ma!ing se-ual
allegations against each other, or moc!ing their relatives: lifest$les. oing to
the g$m, how $ou wal!ed, how $ou dressed, how $ou wore $our hair, what
$ou ate and dran!8all became signs of what sort of Athenian $ou were.
;9an is a 5olitical Animal,; Aristotle famousl$ said. 4e meant that man is
inherentl$ and properl$ a creature that lives in a polisa cit$*state. 4e is
not ful'lled without a political life.
The good citi&en of Athenian democrac$ was a responsible, accountable,
free*spea!ing, law*abiding person. And he was alwa$s a man. <omen and
slaves were not onl$ prohibited from voting> the$ were also banned from the
Assembl$, the Council, and even the law court. ?ven when prosecuted, a
woman could not appear in court, and a slave could provide reported
evidence onl$ after ph$sical torture. %t was simpl$ assumed that a slave
would follow his master:s bidding or would be unreliable, e-cept under
intense pain. Aristotle had no @ualm in declaring some races to be naturall$
servile8and in stipulating that a woman was a deformed man.
!i#e and Makeu$ of the "thenian %o$u&ation
?stimates of the population of ancient Athens var$. Buring the Cth centur$
BC, there might well have been some 2D0,0000600,000 people in Attica.
Citi&en families could have amounted to /00,000 people and out of these
some 60,000 would have been the adult male citi&ens entitled to vote in the
assembl$. %n the mid*Dth centur$ the number of adult male citi&ens was
perhaps as high as E0,000, but this number fell precipitousl$ during the
5eloponnesian <ar. This slump was permanent due to the introduction of a
stricter de'nition of citi&en described below.
The non*citi&en component of the population was divided between resident
foreigners ,metics. and slaves, with the latter perhaps somewhat more
numerous. The ratio of slave to free people in Athens was /=6.
Citi#enshi$ in "thens
2nl$ adult male Athenian citi&ens who had completed their militar$ training
as ephebes had the right to vote in Athens. The percentage of the population
that actuall$ participated in the government was about 20F.

This e-cluded a
ma1orit$ of the population, namel$ slaves, freed slaves, children, women and
metics. The women had limited rights and privileges and were not reall$
considered citi&ens. The$ had restricted movement in public and were ver$
segregated from the men.
Also e-cluded from voting were citi&ens whose rights were under suspension
,t$picall$ for failure to pa$ a debt to the cit$> for some Athenians this
amounted to permanent ,and in fact inheritable. dis@uali'cation.
TH' "TH'()"( "!!'M*+,
There were 've principal operative components of the Athenian democrac$=
Assembl$, Council of Give 4undred, magistrates, courts, and ,in the D
th
centur$
B.C.. ostracism. 2nl$ the Assembl$ will be discussed here.
The "ssem-&y ,ree! ekklesia, meaning ;called our. was the meeting of all
Athenian citi&ens. All citi&ens who had reached the age of ma1orit$ were eligible
to attend, to address the bod$ of the assembled, and to vote.
The principal activit$ of the Assembl$ was the passage of decrees. Grom the
over si- hundred surviving intelligible decrees from the period of the
democrac$ an idea of the range of the bod$:s competence can be gained.
According to a recent scholar:s count, about half the decrees are concerned
with the conferral of citi&enship and honors> about two hundred others deal
with militar$ matters and foreign polic$> and the remainder are mainl$ about
religious festivals and cults, 'nances ,including those pertaining to public
wor!s pro1ects., the administration of 1ustice, and the procedures of the
Assembl$ itself, Bown to the mid*fourth centur$, the Assembl$ occasionall$
sat as a court of law ,notabl$ for the impeachment of political leaders and
generals for alleged misconduct.. Ginall$, those magistrates sub1ect to
election ,rather than to allotment. were so elected each $ear in a special
meeting of the Assembl$. The comprehensive scope of the bod$ is evident.
Gor this reason there is substantial meaning in the characteri&ation of the
ekklesia as the embodiment of the classical democrac$.
Closer inspection, however, will re@uire us to @ualif$ the meaning of the term
democracy in that characteri&ation. Hecent scholarl$ stud$ proves that onl$ a
minorit$ of the citi&en bod$ was in attendance at an$ given time. The !e$ reason
given is the si&e of the meeting place8a low, sloping hillside near the Agora called
the %ny.. %ts seating capacit$ under the democrac$ was no greater than si-
thousand. Because this number corresponds to the number given b$ written
sources for the Assembl$:s @uorum ,that is, the minimum number of citi&ens
re@uired to be in attendance in order to do business., one scholar has plausibl$
suggested that seating capacit$ and @uorum were meant to coincide8that when
the 5n$- was full the @uorum had been attained. The point is that, once si-
thousand were seated in the auditorium, no others were needed8or permitted8
to enter. But what was the citi&en population of Athens at this timeI About
/00000100000 ,out of a total population of appro-imatel$ 2300000, although
this number is ver$ controversial sub1ect.. Thus decisions ta!en in the name of
the entire citi&en bod$ were actuall$ made b$ no more than one 'fth of those
citi&ens.
The principle of full democrac$ could be saved if it could be shown that, even
though onl$ si- thousand voters were present on a given occasion, it was not
alwa$s the same si- thousand> that this was full democrac$ based on the
principle of rotation. But this is highl$ unli!el$. 9an$ citi&ens lived at a great
distance from the seat of government, and the realities of ancient modes of
transportation ,especiall$ wal!ing, the most common mode. would have made
travel to town prohibitivel$ burdensome. Garmers were alread$ fatigued enough
b$ their agricultural labors. True, famil$ members and slaves were available as
supplementar$ sources of labor, but it would be ris!$ to assume that the head of
the household could easil$ be absent for a full da$ or two, and b$ Aristotle7s time,
the Assembl$ met about C0 times per $ear. An overnight sta$ in town might
entail unwelcome e-penses. At all events, the few literar$ witnesses who
address the topic suggest an urban composition of the citi&ens in attendance in
the Assembl$. 5lato, for e-ample, mentions blac!smiths, shoema!ers,
merchants, shippers, rich poor, the elite, and the )humble.+ <e are driven to the
conclusion that, from one meeting of the Assembl$ to the ne-t, the si- thousands
in attendance were largel$ the same si- thousand. Again, the urban bias of this
government continues to emerge, with the added wrin!le that in this instance it
appears that we are loo!ing at an urban minority. The inevitable eJect was that
those man$ citi&ens who lived in demes located outside the urban center were at
a great disadvantage should the$ wish to e-ercise their civic rights.
Democracy4s Harshest Critic%&ato
5lato is the single most in(uential critic of democrac$ in the histor$ of the <est.
The philosopher lived in Athens in the fourth centur$ B.C., during which time he
saw his teacher and idol #ocrates put to death b$ a democratic court. 9uch of
5lato:s writing can be seen as a response to the anger and despair aroused b$
that event. The Republic is the summation of 5lato:s political philosoph$, a
massive dialogue in which #ocrates and his friends outline a blueprint for the
perfect societ$. The criticisms that 5lato put into #ocrates: mouth have
dominated western thin!ing on democrac$ ever since. The$ have helped shape
modern democrac$, but the$ have also helped shape 4itler:s fascist state and the
communism of the #oviet "nion. 5lato, it seems, has a lot to answer for.
5lato:s 'rst and most lasting criticism is beguilingl$ simple, $et its eJect on
modern democrac$ is devastating. The argument is most seductivel$ put in a
series of dialogues between #ocrates and the citi&ens he meets. ;%f $ou want
advice on how to ma!e shoes,; as!s #ocrates, ;whom would $ou as! for that
adviceI; ;A shoema!er,; comes the response. The sta!es graduall$ rise= ;%f $ou
want advice on who is good at pla$ing music,; continues #ocrates, ;would $ou as!
someone who is an e-pert at pla$ing musical instrumentsI; ;2f course,; the
interlocutor agrees. ;%f $ou want to !now who is good at math, $ou would as! a
mathematicianI; ;Certainl$.; And so on, until the crunch @uestions= ;%f $ou want
advice about politics, would $ou as! a shoema!er or a musician, or would $ou as!
an e-pert on politicsI Bac!ed into this corner, the interlocutor 'nall$ agrees that
in each 'eld there is an e-pert who is best. <ho, then, is the e-pert in politicsI
#urel$ not the shoema!ers or the others who ma!e up the populace.
The implications of this argument for democrac$ are ruthlessl$ e-plored in the
Republic. %n the ideal state, 5lato sa$s, the ruling class will be the philosopher*
!ings, men especiall$ selected and trained for the business of government. %t is
to them, he sa$s, that ruling should be entrusted. ,<oman ma$8theoreticall$,
at least8be included.. The militar$ class will be those men best 'tted and
trained for protecting the state. The others8the wor!ers, the producers, the
ordinar$ men and women8will live happil$ in the perfect and stable cit$,
enchanted b$ the noble lie, the m$ths circulated b$ the philosopher*!ings that
oJer 1usti'cation for wh$ the state is as it is.
5lato:s 'rst criticism, then, is that e-perts should 1udge in their sphere of
e-pertise. The people have not been educated into rule, cannot be e-pected to
ma!e informal 1udgments, and cannot reasonabl$ be as!ed to evaluate comple-
arguments. <hen democrac$ places authorit$ for decision ma!ing in the hands
of the people, it is tantamount to as!ing a shoema!er for advice on music or a
musician for advice on horsebac! riding. This argument has become a
commonplace of modern democrac$. ?conomics, foreign polic$, education, and so
on are all comple- areas overseen b$ trained professionals. These e-perts should
be entrusted to ma!e informed decisions8or, more commonl$, re@uired to give
politicians advice. The 5latonic criticism of democrac$, in other words, has
become part of the structure of modem democrac$.
5lato would have no diAcult$ in pointing out the (ims$ logic of this apparent
acceptance of his criticisms. <hile e-pertise is hard won and absolutel$
necessar$, it needs evaluation b$ those who govern. <hat training or e-pertise
does a politician haveI 4ow does the electorate evaluate such e-pertiseI The
sarcastic 5lato would delight in dissecting the ;training; of a modem politician**
especiall$ when it comes to the ethics of government.
Being a politician, #ocrates declares, is li!e being a man in charge of a 'erce and
irrational wild beast. The man oJers it food, watches the animal:s moods, and
learns what voice to use when he wants to soothe or anno$ it. 4e cannot tell
which of the animal:s desires is good for it, or bad, and he cannot give a rational
account of what he is doing. ;That man,; concludes #ocrates, with a sha!e of the
head, ;would be a ver$ strange sort of educator.;
5lato:s image vividl$ suggests that in a democrac$ a politician cannot be simpl$
committed to truth or 1ustice but has to follow the whim of a 'c!le and willful
people, or tr$ and deceive it. ;5ublic opinion,; rather than educated 1udgment,
becomes the rule. The abilit$ to do what is right is constantl$ compromised b$
the need to please the people8the untamed beast. 5lato:s second crushing
criticism is that in a democrac$ politicians do not lead but follow the ,ill*informed.
pleasures of the people.
9odern politics, especiall$ in America and Britain, has become obsessed with
presentation. Although this is often lamented as the sad collapse of modern
politics awa$ from some cleaner and 'ner past, it was a much discussed problem
in the classical cit$. Gar from being a modem problem, ;spin; has been a concern
of democrac$ from the beginning. 5lato despaired of democratic politicians:
insistence on presentation rather than the bare truth. Ket what for 5lato was a
biting criticism has in modem societ$ become an industr$. ?ver$ political part$
has its 5H department, its advertising campaign, its media manipulators8all of
which are 1udged b$ the sole criterion of ;public opinion.; 5lato:s criticisms once
again have been full$ institutionali&ed.
5lato recogni&ed that the freedom and liberalness of democrac$ are attractive,
;li!e gail$ colored things are to women and children.; But the democrat, he
argues, can:t see that there are good and bad pleasures= ;4e sha!es his head and
sa$s all pleasures are e@ual and should have e@ual rights.; #o, one da$ it:s wine,
women and song> the ne-t, a faddish diet. 2ne da$ it:s stud$> the ne-t, sports.
;There is no order or restraint in his life, and he rec!ons his wa$ of life is pleasant,
free, and happ$.; Bemocrac$ means social and ps$chological lac! of control.
<hen an$thing goes, order cannot be maintained.