On Democracy

I’m currently reading a book called First Democracy: the Challenge of an Ancient Idea, by a guy named Paul Woodruff, about Athenian democracy. This is a popular little book, very accessible, and it discusses the components of Athens’ democracy. I have learned about the features that are often paraded as democracy in our contemporary world, but which, in and of themselves, do not constitute democracy. Each alone, would not have made Athenian democrats very satisfied. Woodruff points out that democracy is not just majority rule (what about the rights of minorities?) and it is not just voting (some tyrants require voting in elections in which there are no opposition candidates.)
Democracy requires a number of features, including the rule of law, a belief in the natural equality of citizens, the ability of the citizens to reason without having certain knowledge, and a harmony among equals. Athenian democracy, was a big experiment that was never completed and perpetually struggled with. It seems that it was made possible, in part, because of the scale of the society, (about 30-40,000 citizens which excluded of course, slaves and women.) It was an extremely active phenomenon. It happened, in part, because Athens was very prosperous, financed by a slave economy and an expanding empire. And it gave, via a series of reforms and class compromises over a period of about 200 years, unprecedented political power to the poor (farmers and “peasants’). It was an unusual thing—far from perfect, but an incredible, if blemished, achievement.

Perhaps one of the most notable things about Athenian democracy was the composition of representative institutions through lotteries (vs. elections). Legislative bodies and courts were selected by lot. Even the Assembly, the major governing body, was composed in a rather haphazard way; the first 6000 men to arrive at the Pnyx, a hillside near the Acropolis, became the legislature for the day. If 6000 failed to show up, the Athenians did a sweep of the local public spaces with a red rope, and literally rounded up more citizens to participate in the Assembly.

What would happen if membership in most of American institutions were to be chosen by lot from the general population? (One can easily see how education must be an essential part of democracy.) If this were the case, I suspect that we would quickly become interested in the human development and well being of our neighbors, who might at any time become our judges, legislators, and constables. And I suspect that we would be more interested in equality among citizens. Even Plato, who was certainly no democrat recognized the liabilities of inequality “Any city, however small, is in fact divided into two, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich; these are at war with one another." (The Republic)

Although it is good book, and I recommend it, I don’t think that the Wooddruff book is as good as one I read a while ago, and which I may have previously written to you about, called Class Ideology and Ancient Political Theory: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle in Social Context by Ellen Meiksins- Wood and Neal Wood. (Sadly, this book may be out of print.) The goal of Class Ideology… is to show that ‘the greats’ in Western Philosophy, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, were not just ethereal abstract truth-seekers exclusively interested in the good, the true, and the beautiful, but were historically embed individuals writing under the political conditions and concerns of their day. The authors argue that a common ideology inspires these guys, and that although their writings cannot be reduced to a crude apologetics for their class (there are trans-historical insights to be gleaned from their writings) these philosophers were, nonetheless, united by a loyalty to the values, attitudes, and way of life of a an increasingly besieged (by democratic forces and reforms) landed aristocracy. “In a significant way, the political thought of the Socratics can be conceived as a supreme expression of the increasing class consciousness of the aristocracy during the fourth century (BC), a consciousness that seemed to become more pronounced as the class was progressively threatened with extinction.”

I find interesting about Class Ideology and Ancient Political Theory, not just the analysis of the way that the philosophical idealism of Socrates and his inheritors (Plato and Aristotle) offered transcendence, justification, and solace to the anti-democratic, agrarian, Athenian landed aristocracy of the 4th and 5th century BC, but that the authors also show that the historical struggle for Athenian democracy was a struggle against the power of aristocratic elites whose rule was grounded in ties of kinship (blood lineage) and hereditary property. In short, the progress of democratization in Athens, in which the middling classes (artisans, traders, peasants, and propertyless workers) began to wrest some power vis a vis the ruling aristocrats (in a struggle that in fact, created the very institution of “politics” with its corresponding notion of “citizenship”) was a prolonged historical struggle, spanning a couple of centuries, requiring the erosion of the traditional power and customary rule of strong men, wealthy families, and inherited power.—all of which dominated “Homeric society.” Moreover, the rule of powerful families and inherited wealth had been rooted in the “okios,” the household, while the power of the people, in democracy, required the invention of public, commonly held, institutions that transcended the household, the clan, and the tribe. It is not just that democracy is a kind of politics, but democracy is the force that creates politics, and the political sphere. Before democratization there were no ‘politics,’ per se. There were only private courts run by the wealthy and the priestly. Tribal law prevailed. It was an eye-for-and-eye-society. But with democratic reforms, (and the concomitant growth of differentiation and conflict) Athens begins to create a political society, in which there is a world beyond that of the private lordly household, a world where justice is meted out by civic institutions, rather than appeals to wealthy ‘protectors.’ The polis is that place where public power and the possibility of civic justice is born.