A Critique of Athenian Democracy
Democracy, as a concept, has its roots dating as far back as the Hellenistic period. Athens has been the prime example of an early version of democracy, one based on equality and freedom. Pericles, in his famous Funeral Oration, praises Athens and its democracy and wills his Athenians to devote themselves fully to protecting Athens and its prestige. However, over the course of its existence, Athenian democracy was faced with harsh criticism from prominent Greek intellectuals and writers. This paper will list the various critiques made in contradiction to Pericles’s view of Athenian democracy being a “model to others” (Penguin Books, 1972, p.145–2–37).
Aristotle makes a subtle but fundamental attack on the rule of the demos (Jordovic, 2011, p. 37). He compares and uses extreme democracy to explain extreme tyranny. Using the Politics, a few key points out of the twelves features or methods of extreme tyranny will be used to explain the dissent felt towards Athenian democracy. These dissents have been used by many critics of Athenian democracy as a backing to their critiques.
The first point is prosecution and removal of prominent individuals. Aristotle uses the fourth type of democracy, this political system where the masses hold absolute control and consequently, the rich participate in the most important institutions of government (Jordovic, 2011, p.40). This system implies that the upper class basic civic rights are being jeopardized. Therefore, the rise of the demagogue is harmful to the interest of the best citizens. These problems will lead to struggles between the rich and the demagogue, in turn it will lead to a rebellion and ultimately the fall of democracy. This system within the democracy only leads to the suppression of outstanding citizens and can result in the exiling and deprivation of their influence (jordovic, 2011, p.41). Further, the rich and proud outstanding citizens develop a hostility towards the state (or polis in this case) and become unable to tolerate the political order. This all leads back to a common end goal: rebellion.
The second is favoring flatterers, with the guiding statement by Aristotle “nail is driven out by nail” (Jordovic, 2011, p. 42). He says that the demos (and tyrant) are alike, they are fond of flatterers who integrate themselves with them (p.43). Flatterers are the demagogue in democracy because it has great influence on its master. The demagogue is not only the central feature of the worst type of democracy but the main cause for the masses to display the traits of a despot: arbitrariness and lawlessness. Despots will use flatterers for their dishonourable act. This leads to the unjust treatment of the people.
The third is “sowing the seeds of dissension and slander, turning friend against friend, demos against aristocrats, and the rich against each other” (Jordovic, 2011, p. 43). The demagogue in democracy is sowing dissent, with the support of the demos, they can bring charges against officials, and therefore overthrowing the whole government. Further, they spread slander against the upper class which leads the people to turn against them. Therefore, the demagogue brings the state to a point of total division. In a section of the Republic 8, a comment is made saying “people condemned to death and exile under such constitution stay on at the center of things, strolling around like ghost of dead heroes, without anyone staring at them or giving them a thought” (Nails, 2012, p.13). As we can see trough this statement, the division has made even those exiled a target for hate.
The fourth is favouring the dominance of women in the homes and lack of discipline of slaves. The concept of women having more power at home means disobedience and betrayal towards their husbands (Jordovic, 2011, p. 43). Slaves would act in the same manner if the situation allowed. Plato’s view elaborates further on this concept as he sees the excessive freedom of women and slaves can lead to the beginning of tyranny (p.45). In Aristophanes’ plays, he makes an over dramatic and almost mockery of the idea of women having a hand in government. However, Socrates is in favour of equal educational training for both women and men (Nails, 2012, p. 16). Yet, education for women is practically non-existent in Athens (p.17). The few educated women we find are non-Athenians. Which demonstrates the reluctance the polis has in educating its female population.
The fifth is preferring foreigners over locals. This is strong critique that appeared after the expulsion of the Peisistratids; Cleisthenes had invited a large number of foreigners, slaves, and metics to be enrolled in the tribes (Jordovic, 2011, p. 46). Further the demagogue has enfranchised many peoples, including illegitimate children and those with only one citizen-parent (p.46–47). With Athens already complicated laws on citizenship, the addition of new bodies only adds to citizen dissent and arouses anger.
The sixth is the prohibition of hetaireia and similar institutions. The prohibition concerns various clubs, common meals, education, study circles and places for gatherings (jordovic, 2011, p. 47). The prohibition itself was to supress anything that could raise people’s pride and confidence. This ties into the seventh point, stopping people from knowing each other, by limiting interactions, the lack of mutual acquaintances among citizens (p.53). This prevents the demos from “learning the truth about the real magnitude of the plot and consequently fostered general despondency and suspicion that it impossible to take measure necessary to protect the democratic constitution” (Jordovic, 2011, p.53).
The eight, not in sequence with the order Aristotle uses, is knowing everything about what your subjects do. The people will not speak freely if they fear spies (Jordovic, 2011 p. 55). However, this has been a key part of Athenian democracy and a point of tension. The encouragement of denunciation was to ensure that demos’s influence in the allied states were visible. This has made the upper-class Athenians, who are prone to defamation and false accusation, to fear this form of political control.
In the end, what Aristotle is trying to demonstrate through these eight points out of twelve is that Athenian democracy is imperfect as it uses various power tools to instill fear in its citizens. Praised as the most effective democracy, the system itself is flawed and imperfect and creates an imbalance. The critiques that follow fall in line or have a connection to certain points presented in this section.
Next, many Athenians were proud of their constitution and were deeply attached to it, however, many Greek intellectuals and writers would disagree with this opinion (Jones, 1953, p.2). In Pericles’s Funeral Oration, he talks about Athenian democracy as being a model to others, that powers lays in the hands of the whole people, political life is free and open, we do not mind the business of our neighbours, and in public affairs we keep to our laws (Penguin Books, 1972, p. 145–2–37). This list of what is important in Athenian democracy, stated by Pericles, is exactly what has been criticized by Greek intellectuals like Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon and so forth. The first criticism is Freedom, freedom of action and speech were the proudest slogan of Athens (p.4). Plato complains in The Republic that under the democracy, everyone is free, there is liberty of free speech, each man can plan their own lives as they please (p.3). Yet, as Athens praises itself on free speech, the concept in itself was flawed. Socrates’s trial is a prime example of the limit of free speech. Socrates had helped the democracy not by active public participation, but by educating the people to be proper politicians (Kroeker, 2009, p. 225). Unfortunately, Socrates was tried and found guilty of refusing to recognize the gods that are recognized by the state, and of introducing new divinities. He is also guilty of corrupting the youth and therefore was sentenced to death. The assumption can be made that Socrates was sentenced because he freely spoke, therefore proving that free speech was not at all free (Jones, 1953, p. 4).
The second point of criticism as Plato states is “that ‘it distributes a kind of equality to the equal and the unequal alike” (Jones, 1953, p.4). There are two equalities: one that allots the same for everyone and one that allots what is appropriate for each. Athenians tended to draw a divisionary line between political functions. What this criticism is trying to explain is that within Athenian society, jobs or “special” skills were divided among those who knew and mastered the skill (p.6). If you were, for example, a carpenter trying to tell a black smith how to do their job, you would not be acknowledged. Yet, in an assembly, regardless of social standing, a carpenter and a smith, or any person, all had the same authority, regardless whether they were taught by a teacher. Therefore, those doing the judging did not have the credentials to judge (Cammack, 2015, p. 635). This criticism raises the irony of Socrates who states that everyone is willing to appoint someone by lot, in the assembly, but will not hire a carpenter for a black smith’s job if they were appointed using the same method (Jones, 1953, p.6). This method of lot-based decision can make a non-guilty official look guilty if the public depose of him because of scrutiny. If charged with abuse of authority or inefficiency, by lot they could be removed without a chance of fair trial. What this alludes to is no one has the proper credential to judge, and therefore on the standard Greek conception, rule (Cammack, 2015, p. 637). Aristotle is critical of lot-based decision because it enabled the poor to practice their political right (p.8).
The third critique is that the people are sovereign over the law. This happens when the assembly overrides an existing law, in a sense acting like a Greek tyrant (Jones, 1953, p. 9). According to Xenophon, quoting Socrates, laws are what citizens have agreed upon, what must be done and what must be avoided; what can be enacted can be revoked, just like declaring a war they can make peace (Jones, 1953, p. 9). After the year 403, the assembly met to discuss which laws stay and which laws should be modified or removed (p.10). The problem is we have laws that are contradictory. Commissions are elected to solve the issue, but how can they solve a problem without no end. Following this same critique, Plato declares that democracy only exist because the poor attack the other and expel them and share the constitution and offices with the rest (p.11–12). On the other hand, the poor are not the perpetrator, but democracy is attacking and abusing the rich. Democracy found alternative ways of soaking up the benefit of the rich that was not through taxation (p. 14). The rich would we be condemned on trumped up charges and their propriety confiscated. Informers were used as scapegoats. They would blackmail rich men who had guilty consciences or disliked facing the ordeal of public trial (p.15). When money ran short in the treasury, jurors were tempted by informers on the prospect of seizing a rich man’s estate for gains, who somehow found himself charged of some serious crime. It created a state of distrust. The rich believe the poor purposely sabotaged them because they wished to increase their payments from public funds by confiscating private property, and that rich men who were applauded in the assembly were condemned by the secret ballot of the juries. This is corruption in Athenian democracy. Since the people found themselves above the law meant that Athenian politicians spent a good deal of time defending themselves in court and often received stiff penalties for a wide variety of political charges, including treason, accepting bribes, deception, making illegal proposals and proposing disadvantageous laws (Cammack, 2015, p. 614). Adding onto this critique, Demosthenes raises the problem of indecisiveness and indiscretion that comes with such system (Saggar, 2009, p. 1399). He doubts that the assembly can structurally make decisive decisions; “Collective deliberation, which he saw as prone to contentiousness, and therefore to inertia” (Saggar, 2009, p.1399). If orators have the power to give the “best” advice, then authority and consent can easily be reconciled through speech.
The fourth critique comes from Thucydides, who blames democracy for Athens poor conduct in war (Jones, 1953, p.19). A prime example is the Melian Dialogue. In this situation Athenian delegates push aside all moral consideration and use power as coercion (p.20). Athenian policy at this time was driven by pure selfish consideration (p.21). The polis acted wrongfully in not allowing their allies to secede; autonomy regarding another polis was not part of the conversation (p.22). Athens kept a tight rein on her allies notably in concentrating criminal jurisdiction in her own hands. Her friends in the allied cities were protected and her enemies suffered. The polis exploited her allies openly and especially in using a part of the federal reserve fund to rebuild temples and in giving her own citizens land forfeited by rebellious allied communities or individuals.
The fifth critique is by Xenophon. His critique emerges from his comparison of Athens and Sparta. He states that everyone, meaning the other Greeks, praise Sparta’s system but none wish to imitate it (Kroeker, 2009, p. 202). The Spartan system is the alternative that could fix Athenians issues (p.203). He brings up many points of critique such as man-boy relationships (pederastic relationships). This type of relationship is fundamental in Spartan teaching but highly regulated in Athenian practices. This practice is of noblest education. Further, Xenophon acknowledges Sparta as the ideal, he vaguely mentions Athens, instead he incorporates the polis with the “other” (p.205). This portrays Athens as being not being unique.
The final critique comes from Dio. He views Athenian practices as outrageous and Athenians are not worthy of their city and glory (Jazdzewska, 2015, p.255). They are disgracing themselves; their reputation is bad and there is not a single practice in Athens that does not bring shame upon its inhabitants. He finds especially shameful the Athenian practice of watching gladiatorial contests and bloodshed in the theatre. Contemporary Athenians, are an object of everyone’s pity. Just like Socrates, he criticizes the demos for being manipulative and intimidating to the speakers (p. 256). In short, the demos are a bad demos. His deep hatred for the demos has its roots in the trial of Socrates that eventually led to his death. Many of the critiques presented by Dio are like those presented by other intellectuals and authors. His main target is Athens and its democracy. Rooted in deep hatred, his critique can be misleading but still very important in understanding the dissent Athenian democracy has brought upon its people and citizens.
In summary, Athenian democracy has being the topic of critique for many Greek intellectuals and authors during and after its rise to power. As much as it has been the foundation for current democracy, it lacked structure and stability. Athenian democracy would meet its match during the Sicilian expedition, the encounter with Alexander the Great, and the Romans. The Polis’s flaws stem from its lack of stability and leadership. Freedom of speech was not entirely free. The people ran the courts and the judicial system. Corruption was inevitable. Yet in all her glory, she remains one of the most powerful Greek state to ever exist.
Bibliography
Cammack, D. (2015). Plato and Athenian Justice. History of Political Thought, 36(4), 611–642.
Jones, A. (1953). The Athenian Democracy and Its Critics. The Cambridge Historical Journal, 11(1), 1–26. Retrieved October 28, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3021105
Jordović, I. (2011). ARISTOTLE ON EXTREME TYRANNY AND EXTREME DEMOCRACY. Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte, 60(1), 36–64. Retrieved December 1, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/29777247
Kroeker, R. (2009). XENOPHON AS A CRITIC OF THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY. History of Political Thought, 30(2), 197–228. Retrieved October 28, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26224098
Nails, D. (2012). PLATO’S “REPUBLIC” IN ITS ATHENIAN CONTEXT. History of Political Thought, 33(1), 1–23. Retrieved December 1, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26225685
Sagar, R. (2009). Presaging the Moderns: Demosthenes’ Critique of Popular Government. The Journal of Politics, 71(4), 1394–1405. doi:10.1017/s002238160999017x
Thucydides (1972). Thucydides: History of the Peloponnesian War. Penguin Group