The Athenian Radical Democracy - Essay Example

Athenian Democracy The purpose of this essay is to elaborate upon the various aspects of the judicial and the political s of theAthenian democratic system, with special focus on the notion of radical democracy. The paper discusses in detail how the institutions in the city state of Athens functioned before and after the reforms of the radical democracy were introduced. Also, the disadvantages of the system are outlined so as to judge whether the reforms were appropriate for the entire city state. The paper also makes a comparison of the radical democracy in Athens to the present Australian system of government. Radical democracy Radical democracy, as Starr (1990) reveals, meant to “pay for service.” This means that in a radical democracy, the Athenian citizens were to be paid by the state (or the government) to take part in the public affairs that included political affairs too. The direct impact of this reform was on the majority of the people. Many different components of the policy enabled hundreds of Athenian poor males to become a part of the political system. Before the radical democracy was introduced, the Athenian democracy was dominated by the Cliesthenic democracy, as Jones (1964) relates. In the Cliesthenic democracy, the people who owned a certain amount of property or the ones who were willing to pay a certain amount of money were allowed to participate in political decisions. This meant that the people who were rich were only considered the members of the parliament and the officeholders. The poor, on the other hand, were not given the right to determine or discuss any of the decisions made by the government. Consequently, the oppression of the poor was quite common. The concept of radical democracy was quite different from the former system of government. According to Roberts (1998), the main fact about the radical democracy was that all the matters of the public policy were determined by the voting at different meetings in the Assembly or the Ekklesia. All of the people who had a good standing were entitled to vote. Further, the Council (or more appropriately the Boule) was to draw out five hundred people up the agenda for the purpose of participation in the Assembly. But it did not really control the Assembly because the Assembly had the right to amend or reject any of the decisions made by the Council. Also, the Council was also obliged to present proper drafts for the decisions on any matter to the Assembly. The system of radical democracy presented a representative democracy to the males residing in Athens. This meant that the direct feel of the democracy could not be felt by the people until they were allowed to participate in the meetings of the Assembly. For this reason, the questions of foreign policy, finance and legislation were debated upon in open air meetings that were attended by thousands of people. Radical democracy determined that the poor males also participated in the meetings. Hence, the meetings got further representative in the era of Pericles. Aristotle does not approve of the democratic structure of government very much but it seems that he did endorse some of the principles laid down by Pericles. Regarding the era of Pericles, he said that the system of government could be called a democracy because the government was in the hand of the majority and not a few people. He also said that in the private affairs all the people were considered equal. As far as the public affairs were concerned, a person was preferred over the other because of his good reputation (such that excellence could be achieved), and the poor people were not debarred from the participation in the government as long as he had done good service to the state and maintained a good reputation in doing so. All the public meetings were conducted in a particular manner. In the beginning was a purifying ritual. Then the chairman for the day asked the people to speak about the problem that had to be discussed that particular day. After that the question of “Who wishes to speak” was asked and then the people were allowed to speak about the matter. Every single individual had the freedom to speak about the matter. Although most of the speaking was done by a particular group of people (who were mainly rich and well born) yet it was considered unwise to speak of any topic on which one was not informed. The people who spoke regularly on several occasions were called the rhetores and had the status of the public politicians. Despite the fact that these politicians did not have the status of magistrates (as the magistrates were not considered similar to the politicians) and were not accountable to the Assembly as such, yet the prestige of the politicians always lay in their policies that had succeeded to fulfil their purpose. The magistrates were accountable to the Assembly. The magistrates were basically the ones who were to consider the problems of the people and then create a set of rules and values which had to be followed. The subordination of the magistrates to the assembly was persistent because the Assembly was responsible for the selection of the lot as Robinson (2004) discusses. Although the Athenian radical democracy was more representative in terms of the increasing number of poor men participating in the political affairs, yet the democracy was still restricted to the women. The women, even the very rich and educated ones, were not entitled to have the freedom to speech and vote. Additionally the democracy created a large number of jobs that were for the benefit of the individuals. For instance, Stockton (1990) states, that Pericles spent a lot of money, on the construction of public buildings and meeting areas. This meant that a lot of the poor people could participate in the public affairs of construction and earn money. Consequently there was an alleviation of poverty to some extent. However this also meant that the people were obliged to vote for Pericles. It was obvious that the people who had been given benefits by Pericles were in favour of him ruling. So the freedom that the radical democracy claimed to provide in Athens was compromised. In fact the Athenian democracy did not really provide the complete freedom that it posed to provide. Another problem with the system was that Pericles was very determined to control the wheels of the democracy. This political strategy of his failed because in doing so, he had not given proper time and training to his predecessors. The result was that after his sudden death no decision could be made about the ruling of the empire that Pericles had created. In comparison to the Australian democratic system It seems that the Australian democratic system is quite different from the radical democratic system of Athens. One particular undemocratic feature of the Australian democracy, that is often overlooked, is the fact that there are many separate electorates. This means that a decision requires a majority in the majority subdivisions. This kind of majority is very different from a simple democracy. In Athens, the radical democracy ensured that the majority rule determined the decisions undertaken by the parliament. In the case of Australia, a party may be able to get a majority of the votes nationwide but still may not be able to achieve a majority in the parliament. In other words, the Assembly is divided into many classes and tribes and may not be a uniform institution. Also, the Australian democratic system requires a onetime voting for the members of the parliament. This means that unlike the Athenian system, the Australian one requires the majority to vote once and that too indirectly for the selection of the Prime Minister (through the Members of the Parliament). The Prime Minister’s powers are not exactly democratic but dictatorial. There is however a similarity between both the systems in the context of the term the Prime Minister serves. Since the parliament is sovereign, t he Prime Minister is allowed to rule for an indefinite amount of time, as long as he or she enjoys the confidence of the Parliament. This means that the members of the parliament (or the Assembly for the Greeks) are more powerful than the rulers that are appointed. Additionally, the Greeks knew that the political culture could only exist where there was a general political ethos. This fact is not valid for Australia. Many business and organisations are undemocratic in nature and still Australia claims to have a democratic government that is representative of all people. Conclusion To conclude, the Athenian radical democracy, unlike the Australian system of government, represented a system where the people were more participative in the public affairs. Although the women and the outsiders were mostly kept out of the system, the poor men were given more representation. Still the claim of the radical democracy to provide the freedom of expression and voting to every single male individual was compromised because the system failed to provide complete autonomy. References Aristotle. Constitution of Athens Jones, A. (1966). Athenian Democracy. US. John Hopkins University Press Roberts, J.(1998) City of Sokrates. London. Routledge Robinson, E. (2004). Ancient Greek Democracy. Carlton. Blackwell Starr, C. (1990), The Birth of Athenian Democracy. Oxford. Oxford UP Stockton, D. (1990).The Classical Athenian Democracy. Oxford. Oxford UP Read More