Once taking the time to think, one realizes that the ancient Greeks, especially the city-state of Athens, have affected nearly every facet of life. Athenian innovation continues to impact everyday American life. The Athenians are the basis of the American education system. They pioneered mathematics, philosophy, science, and the practice of medicine. Maybe the greatest single idea America learned from the ancient Athenians was the concept of democracy. America has embodied democratic principles since its inception in 1776. A constant debate in modern American political circles is whether democracy is still effective.
The Athenians never had this debate. Democracy was accepted and practiced by the entire city-state. The Athenians practiced direct democracy. According to Afro-Trinidadian philosopher C.L.R. James, the Athenians’ direct democracy should serve as the shining example of a perfect democracy. James’ argument is correct in the belief that direct democracy is the most ideal form of democracy and should be adopted by American politics because it was equitable & organized, each citizen possessed inherent political knowledge, and it was unifying. The Athenians ran a very equitable government. In fact, they didn’t refer to their government as a democracy. James states that the Athenians used the Greek word isonomia — translating to equality— and democracy interchangeably to describe the ideals of the city-state, believing the two words had the same meaning. The Athenians made every decision by way of a public assembly. The assembly was composed of every citizen in Athens. This said assembly organized the administration of the state, appointed officials to various councils, and made sure that these appointed officials did the jobs.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The Greek democracy was so equitable because the Athenians had previously lived under a representative democracy, having rejected it. They wanted to ensure that the political system under which they lived was tailored to their needs and organized. “Perhaps the most striking thing about Greek Democracy was that the administration (and there were immense administrative problems) was organized upon the basis of what is known as sortition, or, more easily, selection by lot. The vast majority of Greek officials were chosen by a method that amounted to putting names into a hat and appointing the ones whose names came out…Not only did the Greeks choose all officials by lot, but they also limited their time of service. When a man had served once, as a general rule, he was excluded from serving again because the Greeks believed in rotation, everybody taking his turn to administer the state. (James, 1956, Pg. 2)” C.L.R. James goes on to state that the organization of the Athenian government was far from primitive, but rather “it was a miracle of democratic procedure which would be beyond the capacity of any modern body of politicians and lawyers, simply because these believe that when every man has a vote, equality is thereby established.” (1956, Pg. 4) was an election process through which political officials were chosen as a random sample from a larger pool of candidates.
The system was implemented to ensure that all competent and interested parties had an equal chance of holding public office. It all but eradicated bureaucracy. The Athenians also had term limitations. Each official elected to a council served a one, rigid term of one-tenth of a year. After a citizen had served his term, they were barred from serving again, as to give way for fellow Athenians—who had not previously served—an opportunity. After several years, every citizen had boasted an opportunity to join the Athenian administration, ensuring the citizens comprising the assembly consisted of men who possessed a familiarity with the business of government. James called this one of the “great benefits of the system”. This is why James named his essay “Every Cook Can Govern”.
Athenian democracy possessed such equity that the poor, common man had just as great a chance to preside over the public assembly as the wealthy nobleman for whom he worked. 'At every turn, we see the extraordinary confidence that these people had in the ability of the ordinary person, the grocer, the candlestick maker, the carpenter, the sailor, the tailor. Whatever the trade of the individual, whatever his education, he was chosen by lot to do the work the state required. (James, 1956, Pg. 5)” Due to the fact that each Athenian possessed the opportunity to serve in an official capacity within the government, every person in Athens held inherent political knowledge. Aristotle shared this sentiment, hence he called man a naturally political animal. That man is much more a political animal than any kind of bee or any herd animal is clear. For, as we assert, nature does nothing in vain, and man alone among the animals has speech...Speech serves to reveal the advantageous and the harmful and hence also the just and unjust. For it is peculiar to man as compared to the other animals that he alone has a perception of good and bad and just and unjust and other things of this sort, and partnership in these things is what makes a household and a city…Although nature brings us together - we are by nature political animals – nature alone does not give us all of what we need to live together: Here is in everyone by nature an impulse toward this sort of partnership. And yet the one who first constituted is responsible for the greatest of goods. (Aristotle, Politics Book I, Lines 1253a8-1253a29)”
In fact, Athenians referred to any who refused to participate in his political duties as an idiot—translating to the modern English word idiot—because politics was an everyday part of life in Athens. They refused to let anyone know that much more information than the common citizen, as the common citizen could hold a position in the democracy at any given time. Sortition brought about a recognition that any citizen could be called upon to serve with each election. James noted that each Athenian did not acknowledge himself as an individual but in the city-state of Athens, and moreover, Athens was not more than just a collection of free individuals, titling itself a democracy. The Athenian saw democracy no other way. If they had, they feared democracy would lose its equity. “Pericles shows us that freedom, the freedom to do and think as you please, not only in politics but in private life, was the very lifeblood of the Greeks. In that same speech, he says: ‘And, just as our political life is free and open, so is our day-to-day life in our relations with each other; We do not get into a state with our next-door neighbor if he enjoys himself in his own way, nor do we give him the kind of black looks which, though they do no real harm, still do hurt people’s feelings. We are free and tolerant in our private lives, but in public affairs, we keep to the law. This is because it commands our deep respect.
We give our obedience to those whom we put in positions of authority, and we obey the laws themselves, especially those which are for the protection of the oppressed, and those unwritten laws which it is an acknowledged shame to break.’ (James, 1956, Pg. 11)” Because the Athenian democracy was nothing more than a collection of individuals, each citizen possessed a certain uniqueness about them that they could bring to the various Athenian councils and the public assembly. This uniqueness equated to fresh ideas which each citizen was able to share with fellow councilors. Together, these ideas helped to maintain the continuity and improvement of Athenian democracy. The inherent political knowledge each citizen possessed therefore caused a unification throughout Athens. Before Athens was a highly revered direct democracy, it went through many different political regimes. They were for a time a respected republic, but first, they were ruled by a series of magistrates. These magistrates—the Areopagus— formed what is now known as an aristocracy. They ruled to enrich themselves and often neglected those which they ruled. This aristocracy did not promote equity, and the Athenians repulsed it. As time progressed, the aristocrats and their respective families began to feud among themselves, further exacerbating the long-suffering of the Athenian populace, which include merchants, sailors, artisans, and the poor. During the 6th century BC, Solon authored a constitution, laying the groundwork for the revered Athenian democracy.
The constitution was widely regarded and supported by the populace, though they were still excluded from the democratic processes; only noblemen were qualified to hold office in Solon’s constitution. Nearly a century later, a nobleman named Cleisthenes implemented a radical system: a democracy in which the populace could participate. Some years after Cleisthenes, Persia tried to invade Greece. The Athenian populace, and especially its naval men, unified to defeat the Persians. This victory also provided a sense of unity in the quest to achieve direct democracy. “How shall we end this modest attempt to bring before modern workers the great democrats of Athens? Perhaps by reminding the modern world of the fact that great as their gifts, the greatest gift they had was their passion for democracy. They fought the Persians, but they fought the internal enemy at home with equal, if not greater determination. Once, when they were engaged in a foreign war, the anti-democrats tried to establish a government of the privileged. The Athenian democrats defeated both enemies, the enemy abroad and the enemy at home. (James, 1956, Pg. 19)” The Athenians took great strides to ensure direct democracy would prevail. A unified populace was the only way in which democracy could continue.
Throughout the era of Athenian direct democracy, Athens was home to history’s greatest philosophers: Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, etc. Their philosophies are a basis for Western democracy. Plato and Aristotle vehemently opposed Athenian democracy. Plato did not agree that the Athenian populace could rule because he did not recognize the common man as intellectually elite. According to him, the world possessed three types of people: Producers (craftsmen, farmers), Auxiliaries (soldiers), and Guardians (rulers, politicians) Plato said in a perfect society, only the intellectually elite shall be fit to rule. He was of the belief that as children, the intellectually elite should be segregated from society and raised to rule said society. Aristotle pontificated on a man’s fitness to serve politically due to teleology, a man’s willingness to live his life in accordance with his virtue. Aristotle believed only the most virtuous were acceptable politicians as they would promote partnership. “For Aristotle, remember, politics is about developing the virtue of the citizens and making it possible for them to live a life of virtue. We have already seen that women and slaves are not capable of living this kind of life, although each of these groups has its own kind of virtue to pursue. But there is another group that is incapable of citizenship leading to virtue, and Aristotle calls this group 'the vulgar'. These are the people who must work for a living. Such people lack the leisure time necessary for political participation and the study of philosophy: ‘It is impossible to pursue the things of virtue when one lives the life of a vulgar person or a laborer’ (1278a20). (IEP, Clayton, 2018)”
These sentiments are unfounded, as the Athenian democracy is regarded in modern circles as the model democracy. Because Athens allowed its populace—comprising of its working classes—to hold office within the democracy, the democracy was able to use the element of collective intelligence, shared intelligence that emerges from the collaboration, collective efforts, and competition of many individuals, appearing in consensus decision making, i.e. the Athenian councils and the Athenian public assembly. Collective intelligence can only be achieved if each citizen is given an equitable chance to serve and possesses a certain forethought or insight on that which they and their peers are collaborating on. This factor of collaboration and quest for improvement is why Plato and Aristotle were able to freely write and share their philosophies. “…More than that, Plato spent the greater part of his long life discussing and devising, and publishing ways and means of creating forms of society, government, and law that would be superior to the Greek Democracy. And yet, Plato owed everything to democracy. He could think and discuss and publish freely solely because he lived in a democracy. We should remember too that the very ideas of what could constitute the perfect society he was always seeking, came to him and could come to him only because the democracy in Greece was itself constantly seeking to develop practically the best possible society. It is true that Plato and his circle developed theories and ideas about government and society which have been of permanent value to all who have worked theoretically on the problems of society ever since. Their work has become part of the common heritage of Western Civilization. (James, 1956, Pg. 15)” Plato was weary of democracy as if it would lead to tyranny. He stated that in excess of freedom, an individual with poor education would become of the thought that he must pursue his insatiable thirst for bodily, monetary, and material gain.
This thought would cause him to thrust his way into power and enslave his fellow citizens so that they might be forced to follow and execute his every desire. “So simple and easy to grasp in all its relations was the city-state that the total conception with which the Greeks conceived of the universe as a whole and man’s relation to it was extremely simple and, despite the fact that it was crammed with absurdities, was extremely rational. The Greek gods were essentially human beings of a superior kind. The Greeks placed them on top of a mountain (Olympus) and allowed them their superiority up there. But if any citizen looked as if he was becoming too powerful and might establish himself like a god in Athens, the Athenian Democracy handled him very easily. They held a form of a referendum on him and if citizens voted against him, he was forthwith banished for ten years, though when he returned, he could get back his property. Gods were strictly for Olympus. (James, 1956, Pg. 12)' The Athenians dealt with many potential tyrants throughout their era of democracy. Each inquisitor was swiftly halted. This being because each citizen knew his role and his neighbor’s role within Athens, and anyone trying to surpass their niche could be easily detected. Aristotle believed monarchy was the ideal political regime and tyranny was the most flawed political regime. He saw democracy as a flawed regime because the constant struggle for power between the wealthy and the poor would create political instability.
Contrary to Aristotle’s purview, monarchies are often the ideal pathway into tyrannical and authoritarian regimes. The power struggle between classes in Athens was evident: “The struggle was continuous. The old aristocratic class and some of the wealthy people made attempts to destroy the democratic constitution and institute the rule of the privileged. They had temporary success but were ultimately defeated every time. In the end, democracy was defeated by a foreign enemy and not from the inside. One notable feature of Athenian democracy was that, despite the complete power of the popular assembly, it never attempted to carry out any socialistic doctrines. The democrats taxed the rich heavily and kept them in order, but they seemed to have understood instinctively that their economy, chiefly of peasants and artisans, was unsuitable as the economic basis for a socialized society. They were not idealists or theorizers or experimenters, but somber, responsible people who have never been surpassed in the practical business of government. (James, 1956, Pg. 19)” However, it did little to affect everyday political life. The collective intelligence prevalent in Athens allowed citizens to find a healthy balance of power between the wealthy and the poor. The Athenian direct democracy was far from a perfect political regime.
Like any regime, direct democracy dealt with and eventually thwarted threats from both inside and outside Athens. It only spanned 262 years, when Athens was conquered by Philip II of Macedonia. However, it should still be viewed as the gold standard. The Athenians ran an efficient democracy that included the insight of all its citizens. During the Athenian era of democracy, Athens was home to the fathers of philosophy (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle), historically great poets and playwrights (Homer, Aeschylus, Aristophanes, Sappho), politicians (Solon, Pericles, Cleisthenes), historians (Thucydides), and scientists & mathematicians (Pythagoras, Archimedes, Hippocrates). None of these men and accomplishments would notable if Athens’ direct democracy had not been equitable, promoting political forethought, and possessing a sense of unity among its citizens. “Athenian Oath If any man subverts the democracy of Athens, or holds any magistracy after the democracy has been subverted, he shall be an enemy of the Athenians. Let him be put to death with impunity, and let his property be confiscated to the public, with the reservation of a tithe to Athena. Let the man who has killed him, and the accomplice privy to the act, be accounted holy and of good religious odor. Let all Athenians swear an oath under the sacrifice of full-grown victims in their respective tribes and demes, to kill him. Let the oath 20 be as follows: “I will kill with my own hand, if I am able, any man who shall subvert the democracy at Athens, or who shall hold any office in the future after the democracy has been subverted, or shall rise in arms for the purpose of making himself a despot, or shall help the despot to establish himself. And if anyone else shall kill him, I will account the slayer to be holy as respects both gods and demons, as having slain an enemy of the Athenians. And I engage, by word, by deed, and by vote, to sell his property and makeover one-half of the proceeds to the slayer, without withholding anything. If any man shall perish in the slaying, or in trying to slay the despot, I will be kind both to him and to his children, as to Harmodius and Aristogeiton and their descendants. And I hereby dissolve and release all oaths which have been sworn hostile to the Athenian people, either at Athens or at the camp (at Samos) or elsewhere.” Let all Athenians swear this as the regular oath immediately before the festival of the Dionysia, with sacrifice and full-grown victims; invoking upon him who keeps it good things in abundance, but upon him who breaks it destruction for himself as well as for his family. (James, 1956, Pgs. 19-20)” Maybe America and its oft-controversial democracy can learn a few things from the Athenian and direct democracy.
Stuck on your essay?
