Athenian Democracy - Literature review Example

Running Head: Athenian Democracy Athenian Democracy [Institute’s Athenian Democracy There are several different forms of rule in different parts of the world, which include being ruled by the aristocracy, dictatorship, and other forms. One of the basic privileges available to mankind today is democracy which allows the people to choose their own leader. This system of leadership is popular all over the world and considered one of the basic rights of the people of any land. However, previously this was not the main form of rule and the people were ruled by leaders who belonged to a certain class or were royalty. Hence, the people had no say or no choices regarding the laws made for them and were forced to follow what was laid out for them by the autocratic leadership. However, democracy is a different branch of leadership, which aims to account for the opinions and needs of the people that the laws are being made for and they do not give the leader the right to oppress the people in any way. The leader or so-called government is answerable to the public regarding the laws, policies, and procedures taken. While this form of leadership seems just and fair, it has been in existence for a long time (Tharley, 1996, pp. 32-36). “Democracy” is a word taken from the Greek language and refers to a system of being “ruled by the people”. This system originated in Athens, Greece and has been prevalent for approximately 2500 years now. Before this time, people were ruled according to other systems for a period of approximately 4000 years. Hence, democracy has not been perfected yet as regards to other systems as it is relatively newer than the previous forms of rule (Tharley, 1996, pp. 26-28). However, Athenian democracy had its advantages and disadvantages while it prevailed as a system. Beginning in approximately the 5th century B.C., democracy has been practiced in varying forms and with different levels of thoroughness and understanding. However, it was regarded as one of the best systems till date (Laurex, 2006, pp. 167-168). The Athenians thought that the people should be given free will to express their ideas and this was carried out on a ten-day basis in an Assembly that constituted of all the male adults over the age of eighteen. The system was efficient and fair as all citizens were given equal rights to vote and common people were making laws for themselves. Another advantage was that were no protocols or extravagant arrangements made for elections or prolonged campaigns. Money was not wasted in this manner and ordinary people of the land got together and collectively decided upon laws for the whole land (Jones, 1953, p. 16). This was a reasonably good system and it worked well with the Athenians. The main reason for the continuous success of this system was the morality and righteousness of the citizens. Extremes were absolutely avoided in politics and the very first lawgiver of Athens believed in promoting the “greater good” which meant that all decisions were taken to benefit society as a whole instead of focusing upon individual goals. This feeling or phenomenon is greatly missing in society today and this notion is not prevalent in today’s politicians who are mainly seeking to promote selfish goals and their own individual benefits. The greater good for the benefit of society is missing and as society may want to play a role in their own governmental activities, they are not given active participation or due say in today’s democracy (Jones, 1953, pp. 13-14). However, looking at the Athenian system from a modern perspective, it can be said that while the system was fair in most regards and encouraged equal participation regardless of status, caste, or any other means of discrimination, it was biased against females. Females were not given due recognition if any at all in the Athenian system of democracy as mainly all the males over the age of eighteen were elected to assemblies and were given the opportunity to vote and make laws for everyone in the land. Females were not represented and their views were not taken. In modern day times, this form of democracy may be termed as biased or sexist and would not be regarded as fair by the female population. However, the rule of having ordinary people make the law regardless of any discrimination regarding caste, creed, color, or status is more than can be said about the prevailing system of most countries (Bonner, 1933, pp. 67-70). Essential and important decisions were taken during the Hellenic wars by the Athenian assembly, which greatly benefited the Hellenic nation-state. While most of the decisions taken were quite straightforward and easy, most of the Athenian assembly participants were well versed and well informed regarding public laws and issues. They were much better informed than the average person who votes in a country in a given election. Hence, these people who sought to run the state were educated and well-equipped to perform the task and were not handling responsibility in ignorance. That is also a commendable aspect of Athenian democracy as most politicians today need advisers and extra helpers to inform them of current policies, trends, and issues. Most of them are ignorant and are only elected because they possess the means to run the campaigns of elections. Many of them also use unfair means such as purchasing votes or influencing them through the use of blackmail, personal contacts, or false promises. Such corruption was not prominently present in the Athenian democracy (Sinclair, 1988, pp. 28-31). Athenian democracy represented a number of things that included justice, respect for citizens, and equality. This philosophy is now the basis of the Western democratic set-up and has strongly influenced the Western way of life. The Athenian system of democracy contained several interesting clauses and had various advantages. Pericles summarized or mentioned these advantages in his “Funeral Speech”. The advantages included that power was bestowed and distributed amongst everyone and was not subjected to a minority nor was it given to the elite. All people were considered to be completely equal in the eyes of the court and the law. Hence, no one was given preference over the other and all laws were equally applicable to all citizens. Freedom was given to citizens in the manner that no other nation-state promoted as they were allowed to devise their own laws by mutual consensus. All citizens were given due respect in their private and personal matters and their private life was allowed to be kept secret. It was not flaunted or revealed in front of the whole city nor was it questioned in the case of it being personal. Moreover, while all citizens were encouraged to participate in the Assembly, it was not an obligation. Hence, those that did not feel comfortable in participating or did not have any interest in such matters did not have to participate in the Assembly. Freedom of choice was given to individuals and there was no system of forcing individuals to act in a certain manner. In the same way, those that wanted to participate were more than welcome despite of the stratus of society that they belonged to. One of the biggest advantages of the system was in the fact that every citizen was given an equal right and was also duly informed about public policy and what was going on in the state. The Assembly did not consist of ignorant self-glorifying individuals but of responsible and hard-working citizens who knew what they were talking about (Laurex, 2006, pp. 156-158). Democracy that referred to a condition of equality and justice for all was misinterpreted by many. However, Athenian democracy highlighted the way that democracy actually should be and how every individual must be given the due right to vote and decide upon issues pertaining to themselves and the society that they belong to. Hence, instead of being representative like democracies today, Athenian democracy was direct and made by the people for themselves. Issues were decided according to majority vote and everyone was given the opportunity to voice their opinion (Sinclair, 1988, p. 145). Other people considered Aristotle’s definition of democracy to mean that people were to be ruled by the poor, as they were more in number. However, Aristotle defended his view by stating that if a society is only ruled by the elite and the rich as it is today, that is a form of oligarchy instead of democracy. In democracy, people should be ruled by people of their kind who can understand their problems as accurately as possible (Laurex, 2006, pp. 89-91). There were several systems put into place to preserve and run the system of democracy smoothly. However, one criticism put up against Athenian democracy was the issue of having limited or no bureaucracy. All the paperwork and note taking was done by a few slaves and there was no proper administrative set up (Stockton & Kelly, 1991, pp. 186 -187). Another system that was set up, which ensured that every person discussed and reviewed assembly issues with responsibility and care was the procedure of writing the name of the person who proposed a law next to the law that he/she proposed. If the law was found to be disregarding of the constitution within a year from its inception, then the person who proposed the law would be fined a huge sum of money. This enables everyone to take their responsibility seriously instead of aiming to gain popularity or other means (Bonner, 1933, pp. 56-59). Another way of getting rid of over ambitious politicians was the unpopularity contest that occurred in the Assembly. Every person was required to write down the name of the person that they hated the most and the person that received a majority vote (over approximately 600) was then sent into exile for a period of ten days. This prevented over ambitious politicians from forcefully influencing people with their decisions and the people that were not seen as beneficial to society were punished accordingly. However, this system could also have been misused as people may accuse the wrong person and send them into exile without fair regard (Bonner, 1933, pp. 43-44). The Central Committee of 500 people was responsible for steering the whole procedure of the Assembly and finalizing the laws. The commendable aspect of the Assembly of 500 was that it comprised of mature males over the age of 30 from each tribe belonging to Athens. Hence, fair representation was given and no person was allowed to serve for more than one year. Unlike today’s democracy, there was no threat of dictatorship or politicians who would take their seat and not forego it (Sinclair, 1988, pp. 36-40). However, there were a few criticisms levied against the Athenian democracy that included the exclusion of women and the slave system instead of a proper bureaucratic set up. Moreover, the Athenian system of government has also been accused of being corrupt in some instances and the system has been accused of being ignorant and without knowledge. It means that people who were making the system or deciding upon issues were not properly educated or lacked the knowledge to decide upon these issues. Some people alleged that it was necessary to leave such issues as government to the intellectuals or the people who have expertise in the area. It is also a criticism that Athenian democracy emphasized upon the poor ruling the rich. However, this is not the actual concept of Athenian democracy as it emphasizes upon everyone giving their equal opinions and no particular class ruling the other (Sinclair, 1988, pp. 23-25). Amongst the consequences and the advantages of Athenian democracy, it is evident that Athenian democracy has left a lasting impact upon the concept of Western democracy today. However, some changes must be made to the present system in order for it to match the advantages that the Athenian system carried. References Jones, A. H. 1953. “The Athenian Democracy and Its Critics”. Cambridge Historical Journal. Vol.11, No. 1, pp. 1-26. Tharley, John. 1996. Athenian Democracy. Routledge. Bonner, Robert. 1933. Aspects of Athenian Democracy. University of California Press. Sinclair, R. K. 1988. Democracy and Participation in Athens. Cambridge University Press. Laurex, Nicole. 2006. The Funeral Oration in the Classical City. Zone Books. Stockton, David. & Thomas, Kelly. 1991. “The Classical Athenian Democracy” History; Review of New Books. Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 185-186. Read More