Basic ideas of ancient Greek democracy and their relevance for modern conceptions of democracy

Basic ideas of ancient Greek democracy and their relevance for modern

conceptions of democracy

Structure:

♦ Introduction

♦ The power of the people ♦ Equality ♦ Liberty ♦ The rule of law ♦ Conclusion

Introduction

The fascination that springs from the first democratic polity of history, the ancient polis of Attica, remains undaunted right up to now and the examination of this alluring topic will certainly occupy future scientists as well. The main questions are: How – and most of all why – did democracy develop at this time and at this place? How was this political system organised? And what lessons can we draw from the rise and fall of the Athenian democracy? In the following, I am going to touch some of these issues while analysing what the basic ideas of Athenian democracy looked like, comparing the ancient with the modern understanding and investigating to what extent they might be relevant to current theories of democracy. Thus, I am going to concentrate more on the abstract, intellectual foundations of the political system than on concrete manifestations like institutions and procedures. From my point of view, this approach appears to be more advantageous anyway because the formal frame could only be applied much harder to modern states than general ideas might be. As the basic ideas which led to the genesis and shaped the form of democracy may be considered the power of the people (commonly known as the rule of the people but I am going to show why this is not the appropriate translation), equality, liberty and the rule of

law. After having examined the nature and consequences of these concepts, I am going to summarise my results.

The power of the people

First of all, it is required to explain why I do not speak of “popular rule” – the English equivalent for the German word “Volksherrschaft” – which is obviously a far more common expression. Nevertheless, it is based on an inappropriate translation. “Demokratía” contains – next to “demos”, the people – the verb “krátein”, which means to hold power. To rule, on the other hand, is expressed by the greek word “árchein”, as in “oligarchía” for example. 1 This differentiation may seem fastidious but it is the linguistic manifestation of the idea to annihilate all rule and mastery of men over men. 2 In other words: the ruler shall be identic with the ruled people, i. e. the people shall govern themselves. This is the core of identity theories – as advocated e. g. by Jean-Jaques Rousseau – which are the basis for theories of direct democracy.

In a direct democracy there is no authority of the state that is not identic with the citizenhood whereas for representative democracies the division of powers into legislative, executive and judiciary are generally accepted as obligatory. The German “Grundgesetz” states in article 20, paragraph two: “Alle Staatsgewalt geht vom Volke aus. Sie wird vom Volke in Wahlen und Abstimmungen und durch besondere Organe der Gesetzgebung, der vollziehenden Gewalt und der Rechtsprechung ausgeübt.“ 3 This applies in similar ways for most modern democratic systems. The sovereignty belongs to the people – who can vote for their representatives – but it is exerted mainly by legislative, executive and judiciary whereas in

/t/

Ds sDd

direct democracies, e. g. ancient Athens, only the people as the single authority shall exercise political power. Plato, a strong critic of democratic visions, attested “complete freedom from all mastery, i. e. authorities” 4 to the greek democracy.

Recapitulating it might be said that the ancient understanding of popular sovereignty included that the only political authority is identic with the people. These thoughts can be rediscovered in the works of Jean-Jaques Rousseau. On the other hand, the majority of thinkers who shaped modern democratic conceptions – as for example John Locke and Charles de Secondat Montesquieu – advocated representation and the division of powers as essential for a well-performing democracy. Today, most people share this comprehension of popular sovereignty although a reviviscence of direct democratic ideas can be recognized. It must certainly be admitted that ideas like the division between the state and the civil society, opposition to the absolute power of a sovereign and the derivation of the sovereignty of the state from the sovereignty of the people are modern ideas that developed no earlier than in the middle of the 19 th century. 5 The aspiration of not being ruled by anyone except oneself has an additional implication. The citizens of Athens shared the wish that democratic politics should minimise interventions into their self-reliant lifestyle. Thus, every restrictive measure was in need of thorough legitimisation.

All in all, the Athenian citizen was a) qualified for active participation as a subject of politics and b) exposed to only very little heteronomy as an object of politics. 6

Equality

The Athenian democracy was characterized by the idea of the “Equality of the unequal” (“Gleichheit der Ungleichen” 7 ). Following this conception, not only the members of the political elite – aristocrats and wealthy people – shared the same political rights (→

WE 't,

W W