Athenian Democracy

[MarxItUpSome]

The other day I was talking to a fellow leftist who suggested that a fair and equal society could run on the principles of Athenian Democracy. Effectively, all decisions would be made by the people on a one-man-one-vote system. So that rather than electing a government to make decisions for you (as is the case now) issues would be raised and all people in society would be eligible to vote on it. This way, society would follow a course its citizens wished it to follow.

Thoughts on this?

[LSD]

What you're describing is basically, in a political sense, the broad strokes of Anarchism. Anarchism is predicated on eliminating all hierarchies, which includes governments and even "elected" leaders. People are quite capable of making their own decisions and that's what true democracy is about.

...although, obviously, Athens itself hardly lived up to this ideal.

[Black Dagger]

Effectively, all decisions would be made by the people on a one-man-one-vote system.

I'm glad you used the correct phrase, 'one man-one vote', because in this 'great' Athenian 'democracy' you speak of, women could not vote, nor could slaves, men under 18, nor non-citizens. The only people who could vote for adult men.

As far as direct-democracy, workers self-management etc, those principles of direct-control over decision making are the base of anarchist theories of organisation
here (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA2.html#seca211)

[MarxItUpSome]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 11 2005, 04:49 PM

Effectively, all decisions would be made by the people on a one-man-one-vote system.

I'm glad you used the correct phrase, 'one man-one vote', because in this 'great' Athenian 'democracy' you speak of, women could not vote, nor could slaves, men under 18, nor non-citizens. The only people who could vote for adult men.
Sorry, I should have made that clear - the situation I was suggesting would not discriminate against gender, ethnicity, social class (that one in particular would not be an issue in a classless society). I am well aware that Athenian democracy was not totally fair, but I was using it as the example of the one time in history that humanity got close to a truly just system.

[danny android]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 11 2005, 04:49 PM

Effectively, all decisions would be made by the people on a one-man-one-vote system.

I'm glad you used the correct phrase, 'one man-one vote', because in this 'great' Athenian 'democracy' you speak of, women could not vote, nor could slaves, men under 18, nor non-citizens. The only people who could vote for adult men.

here (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA2.html#seca211)
Not to mention that to be a citizen you had to be a rich land owner. Very autocratic society. Philosphers like Plato hated it. Plato even wrote a book about how bad it was and his solution to it. Though plato's solution "The Republic" may not have been the best idea.

[LSD]

I should say not!

In modern terms, what Plato advocated would be considered akin to fascism.

[redstar2000]

The Communal Polis - Identity and Organization in a Communist World (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1098908960&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[monkeydust]

I think there is a lot to be learnt from the workings of Athenian democracy - although certainly we'd update it given our better technology these days.


Not to mention that to be a citizen you had to be a rich land owner. Very autocratic society.

Lies!

I think you'll find the rich had it worst off in Athens. Not only did their class - the pentakosiomedimni (try spelling that!) - have no priveleges greater than the zeugitae class, but they ended up losing tons of money when the Spartans invaded the surrounding countryside of Athens including their estates nearly every year in the Peloponnesian war.



I'm glad you used the correct phrase, 'one man-one vote', because in this 'great' Athenian 'democracy' you speak of, women could not vote, nor could slaves, men under 18, nor non-citizens. The only people who could vote for adult men.


I don't consider this a valid crticism of the Athenian system.

No society can abstrasct itself from its contextual historical prejudices completely. Considering how progressive it was for its time, I think Athens did about as well as was possible.

[Black Dagger]

No society can abstrasct itself from its contextual historical prejudices completely. Considering how progressive it was for its time, I think Athens did about as well as was possible.

That's irrelevant. This topic is not meant to be a discussion of the relative historical achievements of athenian democracy- it's a dicussion of the 'pros and cons' of athenian democracy (as stated in the thread title)- I outlined some of its cons.

[monkeydust]

The post was more of a general one, given at least a couple of posts in this thread and others about how restrictive the Athenian democracy was.

You're perfectly correct in pointing out that drawback, perhaps I was wrong in having a go at you, but let me make clear that I have seen a large number of people come on here and say elsewhere that Athens was somehow "reactionary" in its treatment of slaves, women, metics and so on. I don't think that's a valid criticism, but to be fair you didn't really make it yourself.

Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part.

[Lamanov]

Just to clear up some things: [after all, I'm a Historian ;) ]

Athenian democracy developed over a long period of time. Pentakosimedimni were constituted in Solon's reforms after 594. BC, by timocratic system which split a society into 4 'classes' by their material wealth. Pentakosimedimni were the riches one, and their name says it.

But democracy in it's full-Athenian form does not start with Solon, but with Klisten after 508. (after the fall of the Pyzystrate's tyrrany), and especially with Pericles, when such wealth limitations from the thimocratic time of Solon were totaly eliminated.

Athenian institutions were: Bula [the 500 people council, elected in their philae], heliley [the grand jury], 10 Stategists, and on top of all - Eklesiae - the people's parliament.

This eklesiae was a top intitution of Athenian democracy, where every male citizen over 20 years old could participate. But this wasn't so accurate, and it never could represent the general opinion, since in eklesiae only up to 3000 people take participation, from 35000 citizens overall [which, again, were at most a 15% of the general population].


Any questions? [this is a rather large subject]

[fernando]

"Democracy today is the same as in the days of ancient Greece, freedom for the slave owners."
- Lenin

[monkeydust]

Just to clear up some things: [after all, I'm a Historian ]

Show off :P (incidentally, so am I and this is one of my favourite topics...so I'm going to clear up your lol)


But democracy in it's full-Athenian form does not start with Solon, but with Klisten after 508. (after the fall of the Pyzystrate's tyrrany), and especially with Pericles, when such wealth limitations from the thimocratic time of Solon were totaly eliminated.


Who on earth is Klisten? I think you're referring to the democratic reforms of Cleisthenes in 508/507 BCE; although this didn't mark the start of "radical" democracy.

As for your comment about Pericles, it's not entirely accurate either. The main exponent of the reforms of 462/1 was Ephialtes - Pericles carried on where he'd left off having been assassinated. The only reforms solely attributed to Pericles were the implementation of pay for jurors and the citizenship reforms of 451/0 BCE.

(Also, don't assume that these "individuals" were necessarily as important as the demos as a whole in instituting these changes).


Athenian institutions were: Bula [the 500 people council, elected in their philae], heliley [the grand jury], 10 Stategists, and on top of all - Eklesiae - the people's parliament.


Well...sort of.

You have:

- Boule (the Council): A body of 500 citizens elected by lot which acted (a) as an administrative "hub" and (b) prepares motions (probouleuma) for the Assembly.

- Ecclesia (Assembly): The sovereign body in the state responsible for most major decision and composed of however many citizens decided to turn up to the Pnyx near the Acropolis (thought to be about 6,000).

- Heliaea (Courts): A body of about 6,000, further subdivided into "dikasteria" composed of about 250-1000 citizens, responsible for justice in Athens and also having an implict but significant political role.

- 10 Strategoi: These were the elected generals of the army (all military officers were elected. Instantly recallable.

- Boards of magistrates: these, with a few exceptions, were elected by lot. Usually they were boards of 10 citizens with a specific remit (like maintenance of the roads, of looking after the water supply).

- Local government: the demes (villages, districts or small towns) each had their own mini-assemblies and demarchs (which fell somewhere between a mayor and a local councillor).

Clear now?


This eklesiae was a top intitution of Athenian democracy, where every male citizen over 20 years old could participate. But this wasn't so accurate, and it never could represent the general opinion, since in eklesiae only up to 3000 people take participation, from 35000 citizens overall [which, again, were at most a 15% of the general population].


This is completely inaccurate.

For a start, any citizen of 18, not 20, could participate. Your figure of 20 is from historians who assume that all Athenians did 2 years military service at 18. They didn't, though a large number did.

Moreover most people assume that the Assembly could count on around 6,000 in attendance. We know this because certain actions performed by the example - ostracism being one example - required a quorom of 6,000 to have been undertaken. There's no indication in our sources that, at least up until the 4th century, there was a problem in attendance.


Any questions? [this is a rather large subject]


Give me your questions, dammit! ;)

[Lamanov]

Ahhhh! well, don't pull my tongue! This was a snappy explanation, you know ;)


"Who on earth is Klisten? I think you're referring to the democratic reforms of Cleisthenes in 508/507 BCE"

Yes... -_- that one [I speak Serbo-Croatian so don't know how to type all personal names accurately]
Same goes for institutional names... [of which you gave a more detailed explanation]


"The main exponent of the reforms of 462/1 was Ephialtes - Pericles carried on where he'd left off having been assassinated"

Yes. In 462 there was a constitutional blow to the Areopagues [did I spell that right?], political intitution of the oligarchs. Ephialtes was a demos leader then. He was killed that same year - right? And when leader of the aristocrates Kimon returned from Egyptian tour ekklesia evicted him. The death of Ephialtes could not stop the rise of demos. After him Pericles took over as their leader.
It's interesting how Plato talks about Ephialtes as a "man who got demos drunk with freedom".


Hmmm... I guess we studdied from a different literature.
Ancient Greece is your favorite subject ?

[monkeydust]

Lol, I guessed Enlgish wasn't your first language; you still seem to be able to speak it very well though. Sorry for any criticism regarding spelling on my part earlier.

The stuff you added on there all seems correct to me.

And yes, I find Ancient Greece to be a very interesting topic - it's certainly one of the things I know most about so I like to show off that knowledge from time to time :) .

[rebelafrika]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 11 2005, 04:49 PM

Effectively, all decisions would be made by the people on a one-man-one-vote system.

I'm glad you used the correct phrase, 'one man-one vote', because in this 'great' Athenian 'democracy' you speak of, women could not vote, nor could slaves, men under 18, nor non-citizens. The only people who could vote for adult men.

As far as direct-democracy, workers self-management etc, those principles of direct-control over decision making are the base of anarchist theories of organisation
here (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA2.html#seca211)
SLAVES in a DEMOCRACY? Go figure.

[pofi]

Anyway, Voting for laws and others decision all days long would be boring and a waste of time for most of the people. Democracy is a beautiful thing but it require a lot of time to be acheive correctly and people have other things to do.

[monkeydust]

Some people - I forget the individual names - have suggested in seriousness that the Internet may be able to help in that regard.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:00 AM
Some people - I forget the individual names - have suggested in seriousness that the Internet may be able to help in that regard.
And that suggestion is briliant.

[MarxItUpSome]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+Jun 14 2005, 11:28 AM--> (DJ-TC @ Jun 14 2005, 11:28 AM)
[email protected] 14 2005, 06:00 AM
Some people - I forget the individual names - have suggested in seriousness that the Internet may be able to help in that regard.
And that suggestion is briliant. [/b]
...so long as it remains a fair system, ie without double voting or ghost voting.

[danny android]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 02:57 PM
I think there is a lot to be learnt from the workings of Athenian democracy - although certainly we'd update it given our better technology these days.


Not to mention that to be a citizen you had to be a rich land owner. Very autocratic society.

Lies!

I think you'll find the rich had it worst off in Athens. Not only did their class - the pentakosiomedimni (try spelling that!) - have no priveleges greater than the zeugitae class, but they ended up losing tons of money when the Spartans invaded the surrounding countryside of Athens including their estates nearly every year in the Peloponnesian war.



I'm glad you used the correct phrase, 'one man-one vote', because in this 'great' Athenian 'democracy' you speak of, women could not vote, nor could slaves, men under 18, nor non-citizens. The only people who could vote for adult men.


I don't consider this a valid crticism of the Athenian system.

No society can abstrasct itself from its contextual historical prejudices completely. Considering how progressive it was for its time, I think Athens did about as well as was possible.
no