How Democratic Was Democratic Athens

1 Introduction

Athenian democracy is traditionally viewed as one of the early samples of a democratic political system, where the political power remained in hands of many rather than in hands of a few or one individual only. Formally, people held the control over the political power in Athens, while all legal and political decisions were taken by people at the Assembly, the legislative body where citizens of Athens voted for legal acts and took political decisions, supported or rejected policies run by the government, which role performed the Council or the Boule. In addition, there were courts which tried cases publicly and were also run by Athenian citizens, although courts were non-professional and citizens could not be judges more than once in their lifetime.

At first glance, Athens had all essential attributes to the contemporary democracy, such as the power of people, who elect the officials, the division of powers, and others. However, in its essence, the democracy was quite different in Athens compared to the contemporary democracy. The fact that Athenian democracy was direct is not the only fact that makes it different. Instead, there are issues which make Athenian democracy undemocratic, to a significant extent, such as the limited rights of people, many of which did not have basic rights, such as a voting right, supreme power of Assembly and citizens of the power of laws, as was the case of the execution of six generals and Socrates, and the persisting strife of the ruling elite and the upper-class of Athenian society for power which involved manipulations with the public opinion to gain their support to have political gains to take more power and personal benefits. Therefore, Athenian democracy was not really democratic in its essence because democracy, as the political system, where people have the determinant political power and where rights of all people are respected and protected by laws, did not work properly in Athens, where elements of direct democracy functioned but could not provide equal rights and political participation to all citizens and people, who reside in Athens on the permanent basis.

2 The Council – its power, membership, and efficiency

The most important task of the Athenian Council was to draft the deliberations for discussion and approval in the Assembly. The Council also directed finances, controlled the maintenance of the fleet and of the cavalry, judged the fitness of the magistrates-elect, received foreign ambassadors, advised the generals in military matters, and could be given special powers by the Ecclesia in an emergency. The election did not involve voting and people could not influence the election to the Council. At the same time, any citizen of Athens, who was male and above the age of 30 could participate in the election to the Council and become a Council member if elected by the lot (Saxonhouse, 1993).

The Council performed functions of the management of the legislative branch of power as Council members run committees that were responsible for specific state functions and policies and elaboration and implementation of laws. The Council could also get involved into the decision making process in regard to the war that means that, when Athens was engaged in a way, the Council could advise generals and participate in the decision making process, although generals still took decisions concerning military operations and the war and it was their responsibility and duty to conduct the war (Saxonhouse, 1993). The Council could conduct negotiations and declare or stop the war on the ground of the decision taken by the Assembly. The Council could not start a war, for example, on its own without having this decision authorized by the Assembly.

The efficiency of the Council was relatively low because the decision making process involved the Assembly the Council had to interact with and all important decisions taken by the Council needed the support of the Assembly. Council members introduced their laws or suggested new policies but they could not introduce them by their own decision or by the decision of the Council alone. Instead, they needed the approval from the part of the Assembly, which was the major legislative body which authorization and approval was required in all issues and decisions in Athenian political life. The efficiency of the Council was also low because the Council members could not elaborate and conduct long-term policies because they were elected for one year only. This is why initiatives of Council members could not always be continued by their followers, who took their position the year to follow. New Council members might be just unwilling to continue those policies, or they might just have a different view on such policies, or whatever reason they might have that discouraged or prevented them from continuing policies launched by their predecessors.

3 The Assembly – the power of the people, its membership, and decision making

The Assembly was the major legislative body of Athens that involved all citizens of the state which had the right to participate and vote in the Assembly. At this point, it is worth mentioning the fact that only Athenian male citizens, who have reached the age of 20, had the right to participate and vote in the Assembly. In the 5-4th century BC, there were about 30,000 to 60,000 of male citizens, who had the right to vote in the Assembly with the participation in the Assembly normally involved from 200 to 6,000 voters only. In such a way, the involvement of all or the majority of citizens, who had the right to vote, was not essential for the Assembly and legitimacy of decisions taken by the Assembly. Therefore, just a small share of the total population of Athens had the right to vote but even smaller share of the population did participate in the voting and decision making process. In fact, it was just about 10 to 20% of Athenian citizens that were involved in the government, courts and legislative body in Athens and, thus, participated in the political life of the state. They also defined the political development of Athens, including vitally important decisions, such as decisions on war and peace. A large part of the population of Athens did not even had the right of citizenship and could not vote in the Assembly. For example, according to different estimates (), there were from 100,000 to 150,000 in Athens in 5th-4th centuries BC, but slaves had no rights at all. Women and foreigners, who lived in Athens, also had no right to vote or participate in the political life of the state. Therefore, a larger part of the population of Athens remained unrepresented and did not participate in the political life of the state and decision making process that actually contradicts to the principle of the involvement of all citizens in the political life or, to put it more precisely, the principle of granting the right to all citizens to participate in the political life of the country.

In such a situation, the decision making process in the Assembly was effective but not engaging a larger part of the population of the city-state. Moreover, the problem of the low involvement of people of Athens in the decision making process in the Assembly was particularly challenging for democratic principles because the Assembly took all important decisions and laws introduced in Athens since the government or the Council could not introduce them without the approval of the Assembly by means of voting (Saxonhouse, 1993). Generals responsible for the military operations and conducting the war were elected by Athens by the Assembly. Voters elected ten generals, who conducted the war.

However, the decision making process was not always effective in the Assembly because members of the Assembly were non-professionals and they were not expert in the field of law or policy making. As a result, some of decisions taken by the Assembly were controversial not only from the ethical but also from the legal perspective. At this point, it is possible to refer to the case of the execution of six generals, who have lost the battle to Spartans and were tried by the Assembly, who had the judicial power over politically important cases. The six generals were tried together and sentenced to death, although such procedure contradicted to Athenian law. Socrates reminded of the law that required trying each general individually and he refused to participate in the trial. Nevertheless, citizens in the Assembly being driven by their emotions neglected the law, tried, and sentenced the six generals, although they admitted later their error and breach of the law. Such case is quite noteworthy because it reveals the violation of the truly democratic principle of the supremacy of law for all, including Assembly members. Whatever their views were, they had to respect the law above all.

4 Unjust trials and executions

The case of the six generals was just one of many unjust trials and executions. The major reason for unjust trials and executions was unprofessionalism of judges and their role of laymen rather than judges in the contemporary meaning of the role of a judge. To put it more precisely, trials were similar to Assembly procedures, where cases were tried by jurors and the decision were taken by voting without any time set aside for deliberation that means that once taken the decision of the court was implemented. There were private suits and public suits. Private suits were minor, private cases, while public suits involve important cases which affected a large number of people and were important for the people of Athens.

However, the court procedures were quite controversial and unprofessional in terms of the contemporary justice system. Jurors’ number varied from 200 to 6,000, while the regular size of jurors was 1,000 – 1,500. Cases were put by litigants and each party had a limited time to deliver the speech. As parties exchanged speeches, the jurors took decision. The trial could not last longer than a day and each trial has to be ended by the sunset. In such a situation, the trail could not be objective and outcomes of the trial depended rather on the eloquence of parties involved in the trial or the mood of jurors than on actual facts and laws.

The death of Socrates is one of the most notorious cases of the unjust decision taken by the Athenian court. Socrates was tried, sentenced and executed for corrupting the youth and believing in strange gods (Mirhady, 2002). However, his case was not properly investigated and the court’s ruling was grounded on beliefs and political views of jurors rather than on actual facts. He was executed for the different view on current policies and social life of Athens. His criticism of policies and the lifestyle of Athens resulted in his trial and execution. However, such unjust trial is another evidence of the lack of democracy in democratic Athens because the respect to diversity and freedom of speech is one of the key principles of the contemporary democracy.

5 War – its meaning and costs

The war comprised an integral part of the life of Athens since the state was almost constantly engaged in military conflicts either with its neighbor city-states, especially Sparta, or foreign, non-Greek power, such as Persia or Macedonia. At the same time, the war was a tool used by some Athenian citizens to raise to power because the war granted special rights to the Council and generals, while some generals and political leaders of Athens could use that special power to become a Tyrant (Rosivach, 1988). Tyrants overthrew the existing regime and Athenian Tyrants could even suppress democracy for the time of their rule (Forde, 2004). For example, Peisistratos was a Tyrant, who attempted to undermine the rule of aristocratic families in Athens, which traditionally held a strong position in Athens.  

Generals were military leaders elected by Athenian citizens. Their task was to lead Athenian army in war but they have extended authority of the army in the time of war. They were professional and had the popular support. Otherwise, they could not take the position of generals. They participated in the government but their primary task was the war.

Rulers of Athens comprised mainly representatives of Aristocracy, although rulers of Athens do not exercise any authoritative power, unless they breached Athenian laws and become tyrants. Officials in Athens, who may be viewed as rulers, where elected by lot or by Assembly vote. They were public officers and, as a rule, had a limited term to serve which normally lasted for a year.

6 Actual concern for the people vs. deceit for political gains

The low involvement of people of Athens in the political life resulted in the focus of political leaders and officials on interests of the few rather than interests of all people of Athens. Even though Athenian politicians declared their concern for the people, they actually pursued their political and personal goals. Often, political leaders attempted to suppress democracy and become tyrants, although not many political leaders succeeded in those attempts. The limited political rights admitted only 10 to 20% of Athenians to participate in the government of their state. Politics was a way to the enrichment and improvement of one’s social status since officials, who held positions in the Council or government often pursued their personal goals or goals of the groups which supported them. This is why declared concerns for the people was often a mere populism and deceit for political gains.

7 Conflict resolution and peace

The conflict resolution referred to two aspects of the political life of Athens. First, there were military conflicts which involved the Assembly decisions taken on the ground of achievements and propositions made by generals, government and the Council. Second, there were civil conflicts, like internal conflicts within Athens which involved the use of different tools, including the pressure or attempts to gain support of voters (Bachteler, 1997). Such conflicts could also lead to court trials and decisions being taken by jurors.

8 Conclusion

Thus, Athens was not democratic in terms of the contemporary concept of democracy. The larger part of the population was just left aside of the political life and could not influence vitally important decisions taken by the government. The Council and courts were inefficient because they were non-professional. The Assembly run by the Council and its committees was also inefficient because often decisions of the Assembly were grounded on emotions and political preferences of citizens rather than laws. This is why fundamental principles, such as the supremacy of law, respect to individual rights, freedom of speech and other were often neglected or even suppressed in Athens, as was the case of Socrates.

References:

Bachteler, T. (1997). Explaining the Democratic Peace: The Evidence from Ancient Greece Reviewed, Journal of Peace Research, 34(3), 315-323.

Forde, S. (2004). Thucydides on Ripeness and Conflict Resolution, International Studies Quarterly, 48(1), 177-195.

Mirhady, D.C. (2002). Athen’s Democratic Witnesses, Phoenix, 56, 3/4, 255-274.

Rosivach, V.J. (1988). The Tyrant in Athenian Democracy, Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica, 30(3), 43-57.

Saxonhouse, A. W. (1993). Athenian Democracy: Modern Mythmakers and Ancient Theorists, PS Political Science and Politics, 26(3), 486-490.

The terms offer and acceptance. (2016, May 17). Retrieved from

[Accessed: March 19, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016.

[Accessed: March 19, 2024]

freeessays.club (2016) The terms offer and acceptance [Online].
Available at:

[Accessed: March 19, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 19, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 19, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 19, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 19, 2024]
close
Haven't found the right essay?
Get an expert to write you the one you need!
print

Professional writers and researchers

quotes

Sources and citation are provided

clock

3 hour delivery

person