Introduction
The word “democracy” comes from the Greek language and means “the government of the people”. Issues of democracy were discussed for several thousand years, but the definition of this concept, with which everyone would agree, was never found. This can partly be explained by the fact that democracy is constantly evolving and changing. However, many will agree that democracy has certain characteristics, for example, equality of people in dignity and rights, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech and press, equality before the law and holding of free elections.
In a democratic society with general and free elections, persons who have the right to vote can vote for the party they want and politicians who will make decisions at the state, regional and local levels. Democracy can be characterized by the rule of law, political freedom, and legal equality. The earliest history of direct democracy can be traced back to the Athens and is known as the Athenian democracy of the 5th century BC (Rothchild, n.d.). Direct democracy also is known as a pure democracy involves the participation of the people in decisions that affect them directly without any intermediaries through voting. Direct democracy is different from representative democracy. In a representative democracy, people elect a group of people known as representatives who then make, create and enact policies on behalf of the public (Harris, 1992). The earliest history of direct democracy can be traced back to the Athens and is known as the Athenian democracy of the 5th century BC. The system was not all-inclusive, as certain groups of people were not allowed to vote. Slaves, women, and foreigners were forbidden from voting. The Athenian democracy was considered direct in the sense that decisions were made by an assembly of people and also, the people used the assembly, boule and law courts to control political processes with a majority of the population being involved in the public business. The Athenian democracy was the strongest among its neighbors since it was both powerful and stable and although it was emulated, none came close (Saxonhouse, 1993).
The question of whether democracy is good or bad continues to be discussed since the very idea of democracy emerged. According to some, the democratic system is not as speedy and effective as a dictatorship, where it is possible to quickly make single-minded decisions. Under democracy, everyone has the right to speak, compromises and decisions are needed in the voting process. Therefore, in certain extreme situations, the law allows for a temporary retreat from the democratic foundations in favor of efficiency and speed. In crisis situations, it may be necessary to make quick decisions in order to prevent a worsening of the situation.
There are many terrifying examples of undemocratic systems of government, oppressing and terrorizing people. Under a dictatorship, people may find themselves in prison or a concentration camp because of their beliefs or belonging to a particular ethnic group. History shows that a democratic system of government protects the freedom of the individual and human rights best. Democracy and peace reign where people from different countries communicate and maintain trade relations with each other.
Rule of Law
The rule of law assumes the basic principles of the functioning of the rule of law. These provisions are in close contact with the internal. The characteristics of law and legislation, their properties, the ratio of law with others regulators of social relationships in Athens. At the same time, they are considered as inalienable conditions for the realization of the requirements of democracy, freedom, justice, equality of all before the law, etc. Rule of law” cannot completely coincide with it, since the latter is characterized by a number of principles. Considering the law as the measure of freedom for every individual, higher justice, the law of God determines the priority of the highest social groups (Ober, 2004). Values in all spheres of nation-building, flight and social life (including law enforcement activities). Such an understanding of law makes it impossible to identify the law with the law and therefore contributes to the delineation of the principles of law and order. As a constituent element, often the principle of the law of vows is included as a constituent element, but it is only a legal law, that is, that reflects natural-legal principles, corresponds to inter-legal principles, does not restrict human rights and freedoms.
The Athenians did not leave behind such a legal heritage, as the Romans. The only known code of Athens was the Laws of the Draco – perhaps the first record of customary laws aimed at limiting the arbitrariness of eupotrist judges. The laws abolished the blood revenge, severely punished for the smallest crimes. The death penalty was intended for petty theft, “permissive way of life”, not to mention more serious crimes. Draco Laws were partially abolished, partially softened by Solon (Hatzis, 2016). In the future, the law of Athena was not codified, although it was his intensive development.
The battle of Athens went far beyond a simple exchange of fire. Historians noted that it was bloody, but the decisive battle between two socio-political cultures, a clash of past and future local, state and, eventually, federal authorities. The result was a reaffirmation of the deeply rooted in American society of the idea that we have the right to assert our rights in the face of tyranny, even if it has taken root in our own home. Beautiful, but absolutely empty words. Outraged residents of Athens repeatedly turned to the authorities for help, but all their calls were ignored. For example, in 406, after the battle of the Arginusae Islands. Judged by the naval strategists, who did not comply with the order because of the storm. The Council demanded their execution and execution of those who defended them. “The people,” writes Xenophon, “loudly cried out that those who refuse to put to the vote were also brought to trial. Then all the dwellers, terrified by this, agreed to put the proposal to a vote – all except Socrates, the son of Sofronis. The latter stated that he would do everything in everything according to the law. He understood that the anger of the crowd was dictated by the bitterness of losses, not by considerations of common sense or the letter of the law. Therefore, he boldly contrasted his opinion with the raging mass.
Two lessons can be drawn from this incident. The first and main lesson: the Battle of Athens, like many other similar events, clearly demonstrated why it is necessary to consolidate in the Second Amendment to the Constitution the inalienable right of citizens to have and carry firearms. The right of citizens to have and bear arms is rightly regarded as the bulwark of the republic’s freedoms, for it erects a powerful moral barrier to the usurpation of power and the arbitrariness of rulers. In addition, even if they are successful at first, this right will allow the people to resist and triumph over them. The second lesson is that the sacred right to support and protect freedom acts not only against external enemies. The champions of freedom must show no less willingness to stop encroachments on it from the side of internal enemies. Not without reason, since ancient times, politicians, rushing to unlimited power, invariably made attempts to disarm the population. The potential tyrants were well aware that by taking away the means of self-defense from people, they would not only deprive them of the opportunity to defend their rights but also break their will to resist.
The doctrine of the state law of Athens was the civil equality and the supremacy of the people. Every citizen from the age of 20 included the right to participate in the national assembly, the legislative initiative, the right to criticize any official, the right to prosecute any crime in court. People’s assemblies issued laws, elected archons, strategists, warlords, declared war, made peace, controlled officials, approved the budget, were the supreme court in the most important cases. The vote was open, except for cases of ostracism. The decisions of the meetings were drawn up by the protocol and began with the formula: “The Council and the People have decided”. The council of five hundred, heliya, Areopagus, the board of archons and strategists were controlled by the people’s assemblies. The Athenians did not know the notion of a quorum: it was believed that citizens who did not appear at the meeting entrusted their right to the present. Any citizen at the people’s meeting could challenge the proposed law or decision. Such a protest-accusation “graph paranomon” was considered by a jury under the chairmanship. If the protest proposed to cancel the law or decision, then the author of the law, if it was not supported by one-third of the judges, was fined.
Political Freedom
Freedom of the individual can be absolute in the mind and in the soul because it is based on self-esteem. Freedom of a citizen, based on political self-expression, depends on the rights and needs of other citizens. And the freedom of the state, based on self-government, is limited by the rights and needs of other states. For example, in Athens, a class of citizens enjoyed political freedom, with the exception of 404-403, until the end of the Lamian War, and the Macedonians enjoyed political freedom until 1977. When they were subjugated by Rome. Leading states of Greece in the IV. up to 338, they understood freedom in foreign policy as the right to subjugate weaker states by imposing puppet governments and garrisons on them, demanding tribute from them, and resorting to andrapodismos as a last resort. Sparta, Athens, and Thebes were less interested in self-government than hegemony – a manifestation of power over other states. However, at the same time, another concept of freedom developed, according to which states were entitled to cooperate and live their lives without puppet governments, garrisons and tributes imposed by them or imposed by other states. Large federal entities, such as the Second Athenian Alliance at its founding and the Polis League, understood this new idea very broadly.
Of all the Greek republics, Athens was the most commercial and, moreover, they gave their citizens incomparably greater individual freedoms than Rome and Sparta. If I could enter into historical details, I would show that under the influence of commerce, the Athenians have disappeared many of the properties that distinguish ancient peoples from modern ones. The trading spirit of Athens is similar to the spirit of today’s merchants. Xenophon says that during the Peloponnesian War, the Athenian merchants seized their capital from enterprises on the mainland and transferred funds to the islands of the archipelago. Commerce created their turnover. Nevertheless, since other circumstances that determine the character of the ancient peoples were also inherent in the Athenians. Since there were slaves in Athens and their territory was very limited, we find there all the signs of the freedom that was characteristic of antiquity (Campa-Thompson, 2014). The people create laws, supervise the behavior of magistrates, demand a report from Pericles, condemns to death all the military leaders who led the battle of the Arginusae Islands. At the same time, ostracism, which seems and must seem to us today a flagrant lawlessness, this legitimate arbitrariness, praised by all the legislators of the time, proves that the individual in Athens was still completely subordinated to the supreme authority of the social body, which is now not found in any of the free social states of Europe.
In a series of Greek reformers, one can not pass by the Athenian Cleisthenes. After a lively struggle for power in Athens, in which the Spartans intervened, Cleisthenes proceeded to implement democratic reforms. Instead of the traditional division of Athens into four territorial-clan districts, which were called philos and were the backbone of the tribal nobility, Cleisthenes introduced a new territorial division. On the basis of the generic principle of the unification of the Athenians came purely territorial. First of all, Cleisthenes’ reforms consisted of strengthening the importance and organization of the activity of the people’s assembly in Athens – the ecclesia. It gathered 40 times a year, it was regular. It was the supreme authority, and all the Athenians could attend.
A Council of five hundred (fifty representatives from each fila) is created, which acted between the meetings of the people’s congresses and prepared an agenda for these meetings. In principle, every citizen could speak at a meeting, but to be regular and not turn into anarchy, one had to prepare an agenda for the day. It is clear that direct democracy, which was in ancient Greece, is different from modern, and the representation was not very large. In reality, the quorum in making the most important decisions did not exceed a quarter of the citizens, because not all could attend. To prevent attempts to concentrate power in the hands of the tyrant, a procedure of ostracism was introduced, that is, the expulsion of a citizen from Athens, who was suspected of seeking to establish a dictatorship. Such a system is created by Cleisthenes. Later it was called “democracy,” that is, “the power of the demos, the power of the people.” It was based, as the Greeks believed, on three foundations: the isonomies (equality before the law), and the political (equality in the exercise of civil rights) and isegory (equal opportunities to speak in the people’s congregation, sometimes this term is not quite correctly translated as “freedom of speech”). The very word “democracy” appears a little later. All this set of measures – the reforms of Cleisthenes – is considered the first model of democracy, although scientists believe that the first democracies were in other Greek policies, in Rhodes, they simply were not documented, we do not have sources. Historians believe that Cleisthenes completed the consolidation of Attica on a democratic basis with its reforms, which made the Athenian Republic more stable and created conditions For the future power, achieved already under Pericles. Another eminent leader of the demos became Pericles. He made a separation of powers (legislative – ecclesia, executive – Council 500 and magistrates, judicial – helium); introduction of payment of posts; civil reform (a full-fledged citizen of Athens was the one whose parents are Athenians). Young men of noble families, in accordance with the traditions of their families, were attuned, more often than not, negatively to Athenian democracy and Andocides was no exception in this regard. Andocides “was considered a hater of the people and an adherent of the oligarchy. This was manifested, among other things, in the compilation and recitation of all sorts of political pamphlets directed against the demos and its leaders, demagogues, upstarts. Compositions of this kind have not reached us, but it is characteristic that two contextual fragments, preserved from speeches unrelated to the case of the Germas and Mysteries, demonstrate a clearly anti-democratic sentiment. In addition, in the completely extant speeches of Andocides, you can feel this attitude towards the authorities of his native city. So, even begging from fellow citizens the right to return to Athens, he cannot refrain from reproaching democracy.
From all that has been said, it follows that we can no longer follow the ancient type of freedom, which consisted of an active and constant participation in the collective exercise of power. Our freedom must consist in the peaceful enjoyment of personal independence. That participation, which everyone took in antiquity in the exercise of national sovereignty, was not, as it is today, an empty abstraction. The will of each had a real impact, the realization of this will delivered a lively and constant satisfaction. As a consequence, the ancient man was capable of great sacrifices in order to preserve his political rights, his share in the government. Each proudly felt the value of his voice, found considerable satisfaction in the realization of his personal importance. The goal of the ancients was the division of public power among all citizens of the country. This is what they called freedom. Political liberty brings to the study and consideration of citizens their most cherished interests, develops reason, ennobles thoughts, establishes among all people a kind of intellectual equality that makes up the glory and power of the people.
Legal Equality
Already in ancient Greece, people’s congresses were guided by three basic democratic principles. The first principle of “isigory” gave equal rights to citizens and an opportunity to express their opinion in matters of politics. Each meeting the chairman began with the phrase “Who Wants to Speak?”. The second principle of “isonomia” is equality before the law. The third principle of “ipopolitia” meant equality in voting and the possibility of being elected to any member of the assembly.
Despite the fact that in theory all citizens were equal and had the right to speak, in practice only a small number of citizens spoke and offered concrete actions. The reason for this was that a citizen who proposed any actions could be prosecuted in the future if his proposal was deemed illegal or that it could damage the city. There was a rule that citizens over 50 had the right to be heard first.
Predominantly two features were noted still ancient in the Athenian democracy, as the main, as the most characteristic and expensive for the Athenian. This is – isonomy, i.e. equality before the law, equality, equality of voice, equal right to freedom of speech, participation in political life. These words were for the Athenians about the same as for the French since the times of the liberty revolution and the egalite. “The rule of the masses,” says Herodotus through the mouths of one of the Persians, who reason with him about the advantages and disadvantages of various forms of government, has, firstly, the most beautiful name of all – isonomy, equality, and secondly, what the monarch does; posts are elected by lot, each authority is liable and all decisions are made to the general assembly (Harris, 2006). “Only Athens citizens, that is, a minority of the entire population, used political rights, taxonomy, and allegory.
The court in Athens was characterized by a variety of process forms. At the People’s Assembly, cases of the overthrow of democracy, conspiracies, criminal communities, deliberate surrender of the city, troops, and fleets were considered. The Ethiopian court considered cases of intentional murders, mutilations, killing of Skeks, and allowed murder. State betrayal, betrayal, conspiracy against democracy, dishonesty, godlessness, intentional murder were punishable by death penalty: offering or drinking a cup of poison (so Socrates was executed), or giving a sword or a rope and a three-day suicide choice. Sales were commonplace in slavery, exile, deprivation of civil rights (atimia), confiscation of property and a monetary fine. Anyone who was sentenced to exile and did not go in due time could be punished.
Conclusion
The Athenian democracy was the strongest among its neighbors since it was both powerful and stable and although it was emulated, none came close to it. It was a direct democracy where the people had the power and influenced policies directly through voting. Although the system was democratic, it lacked a few elements of democracy like equality. Women and slaves were considered inferior and prevented from voting. Athenian democracy involved three main bodies which were; the assembly, the boule, and the courts which worked together to ensure peace and justice was maintained. As the economy of the city grew, so did the rift between the rich and the poor with the rich getting their way with the assembly. In the end, the pure democracy of Athens proved not to be too democratic.
References
Campa-Thompson, N. (2014). I Do What I Want: Freedom and Power in Classical Athens. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/26267/CampaThompson_washington_0250E_13442.pdf?sequence=1
Harris, Edwards M. Pericles’ Praise of Athenian Democracy Thucydides (1992). Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 157-67
Harris, E. (2006). The rule of law in Athenian Democracy. Retrieved from http://www.ledonline.it/Dike/allegati/Dike9_Harris-judicial-oath-Athens.pdf
Hatzis, A. (2016). The Illiberal Democracy of Ancient Athens. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305473965_The_Illiberal_Democracy_of_Ancient_Athens
Ober, J. (2004). Classical Athenian Democracy and Democracy Today. Retrieved from https://www.britac.ac.uk/sites/default/files/122p145.pdf
Rothchild, J. Introduction to Athenian Democracy of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE. Retrieved from http://homepages.gac.edu/~arosenth/265/Athenian_Democracy.pdf
Saxonhouse, Ariene W. Athenian Democracy: Modern Mythmakers and Ancient Theorists. (1993) Political Science and Politics, 486-90
The terms offer and acceptance. (2016, May 17). Retrieved from
"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016.
freeessays.club (2016) The terms offer and acceptance [Online].Available at:
"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016
"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016
"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016
"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016