According
to Professor Robert Dahl, one of the most prominent democratic theorists
of our time, modern democracy has four historical sources: the direct
democracy in ancient Greece, the republicanism of Roman and Italian
city-states in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, the theory and practice
of representative government, and the idea of political equality. This
essay is an effort to introduce some basic ideas and institutions of
the first democracy in human history, namely the ancient Greek democracy.
In this process, I also hope to offer a critique of the classical model
of democracy.
Throughout
the written history of human society, democracy has been a very rare
occurrence, and most previous commentators have also been critical of
the theory and practice of democracy. Indeed, not until the second half
of the 20th century was there any consensus on the appeals of democratic
ideas and institutions. One exception to the general paucity of democracy
in human history is the classical Greek democracy.
In the
5th century BC, a great political transformation occurred in the city-states
of Greece. This transformation was a democratic transformation, which
according to Professor Dahl was as important as "the invention
of the wheel or the discovery of the New World." At that time,
Greece was not a single country, but was composed of a number of independent
city-states, or "polis." Among them, Athens was described
as having the most innovative and sophisticated democracy.
What are
the political ideals and aims of the classical Athenian democracy? In
his famous book The Politics (written between 335 and 323 BC), Aristotle
points out that one basic principle of the classical democratic constitution
is liberty. To Aristotle, liberty means two things: (1) "ruling
and being ruled in turn" and (2) "living as one chooses."
As such, liberty and equality are "inextricably linked." In
fact, the first element of liberty, "ruling and being ruled in
turn," is based on a fundamental conception of equality, which
Aristotle labels as "numerical equality" (as opposed to "equality
based on merit"). "Numerical equality" means an equal
share of the practice of ruling for all, regardless of individual ability,
merit or wealth. "Thus understood, equality is the practical basis
of liberty. It is also the moral basis of liberty." (David Held)
However,
there is a potential conflict between the first and second element of
the Aristotelean liberty. A strict adherence to the doctrine of political
equality could endanger individual's liberty to "live as one chooses."
Classical democrats believe that there must be limits to individual
choices in order that one's exercise of free will would not interfere
unjustly with other people's freedom. So long as each citizen has the
opportunity of "ruling and being ruled in turn," the risks
associated with equality can be minimized and both elements of liberty
can be realized. "On Aristotle's account, then, classical democracy
entails liberty and liberty entails strict political equality --- a
matter which caused him to express grave reservations about democracy."
(Held) We will discuss more about the danager of extreme equality below.
The Athenian
democrats also showed a remarkable appreciation on the value of justice,
rule of law, and due process. "The Athenian did not imagine himself
to be wholly unconstrained, but he drew the sharpest distinction between
the restraint which is merely subjection to another man's arbitrary
will and that which recognizes in the law a rule which has a right to
be respected and hence is in this sense self-imposed." (Sabine)
"If the law is properly created within the framework of the common
life, it legitimately commands obedience." (Held)
In contrast
to later liberal positions, "Athenian democracy was marked by a
general commitment to the principle of civic virtue: dedication to the
republican city-state and the subordination of private life to public
affairs and the common good." There was no liberal distinction
between state and society, between specialized officials and citizens,
or between "the people" and government. "In this community
the citizen had rights and obligations; but these rights were not attributes
of private individuals and these obligations were not enforced by a
state dedicated to the maintenance of a framework to protect the private
ends of individuals. Rather, ..., they were 'public' rights and duties."
(Held). Unlike the modern liberal separation between public sphere and
private life, Athenians thought that the most desirable life was the
life in a "polis," where each citizen as a political animal
found ultimate fulfillment through political participation and public
debate. "The principle of government was the principle of a form
of life: direct participation." (Held) The governors were to be
the governed. The process of direct and active self-government was the
ultimate affirmation of Athenian citizenship.
The Athenian
political ideals --- equality among citizens, liberty, and respect for
the law and justice --- have had great influence in the Western political
thought, "although there are some central ideas, for instance,
the modern liberal notion that human beings are 'individuals' with 'rights,'
that notably cannot be directly traced to Athens." (Held)
With the
above political ideals in mind, it is time to examine the institutional
aspects of the classical democracy. According to Professor David Held,
the Athenian democracy had the following institutional features. First,
Assembly of citizens had sovereign power, that is, supreme authority,
to engage in legislative and judicial functions. The citizentry as a
whole formed the Assembly, which consists of each and every citizen
of Athens. The Assembly met more than 40 times a year, and it had a
quorum of 6,000 citizens. The Athenian concept of "citizenship"
entailed taking a share in legislative and judicial functions, participating
directly in the affairs of the state. That is why the classical Greek
democracy is called "direct democracy."
The ideal
mode of decision-making within the Assembly was through consensus. Only
when issues became intractable was formal voting used. "Voting
was both a way of making explicit differences of judgment and a procedural
mechanism to legitimate a solution to pressing matters. The Greeks probably
invented the use of formal voting procedures to legitimate decisions
in the face of conflicting positions." (Held)
The following
quote from Professor Held gives a more detailed description of how the
Athenian democracy works: "The Assembly was too large a body to
prepare its own agenda, to draft legislation and to be a focal point
for the reception of new political initiatives and proposals. A Council
of 500 took responsibility for organizing and proposing public decisions;
it was aided, in turn, by a more streamlined Committee of 50 (which
served for one month) with a president at its head (who could only hold
office for one day). While courts were organized on a similar basis
to the Assembly, the executive functions of the city were carried out
by 'magistrates,' although their own power was diffused by ensuring
that even these posts were held by a board of ten. Nearly all such 'officials'
were elected for a period of one year (with service typically restricted
to two occasions in a lifetime). Further, in order to avoid the dangers
of autocratic politics or clientage associated with direct elections,
a variety of methods of election was deployed to preserve the accountability
of political administrators and the state system more generally, including
the rotation of tasks, sortition or lot and direct election." (Models
of Democracy, second edition, Chapter 1, pp. 21-3)
In Athens, the scope of sovereign power included all common affairs
of the city. There were no distinctions of privilege to differentiate
ordinary citizens and public officials. With the exception of positions
connected to warfare, the same office would not to be held more than
twice by the same individual, and all offices had short terms. Athenian
public servants received compensations.
In order
for the classical Greek democracy to work properly, there were several
important conditions. Robert Dahl summarizes the Greek democratic order
as requiring six elements. First, "[c]itizens must be sufficiently
harmonious in their interests so that they can share, and act upon,
a strong sense of a general good that is not in marked contradiction
to their personal aims and interests." Second, citizens must also
be homogeneous with respect to those characteristics (such as the amount
of wealth and leisure time) for which wide differences might create
instability and sharp conflicts regarding public good. Third, "the
citizen body must be quite small, ideally even smaller than the forty
to fifty thousand of . . . Athens." Fourth, citizens must be able
to assemble and directly decide on issues of legislation and render
judicial judgment. "So deeply held was this view that the Greeks
found it difficult to conceive of representative government, much less
to accept it as a legitimate alternative to direct demoracy." Fifth,
self-government not only entailed meetings in the Assembly, it also
meant citizen participation in the administration of the city-state.
Most Athens served as a public official at least once during their life
time. Sixth, the city-state should remain "fully autonomous."
Leagues, confederacies and alliances shoult not be allowed to preempt
the sovereignty of the Assembly within the city-state. (Democracy and
Its Critiques, Chapter 1, pp. 18-19.)
There
was an additional condition for the Athenian direct democracy to work
well: in order for each citizen to participate effectively into the
collective decision-making process, he (only male was allowed to vote)
must have enough free time to attend the frequently held Assembly meetings,
engage in time-consuming debates, and take part in public administration.
In Athens, this condition was met by a slave economy that created free
time for "citizens" (a subset of free adult Athenian men)
and by domestic service (the labor of women) that freed men for public
duties. The irony was that direct democracy for a subset of privileged
men in Athens was possible precisely because of the undemocratic elements
of the larger system: the existence of slavery and the exclusion of
women created one necessary condition for active and direct self-government
among qualified "citizens."
One perennial
problem of democracy without a constitutional framework is that people's
irrational passions can be stirred by demogogues and despots to create
devastating consequences. This problem was sharply reflected in classical
Greek democracy. In ancient Athens, there was no institutional or constitutional
constraints on people's irrationality, vanity, emotion, passion, etc.
The Assembly of citizens was often controlled by a small number of influential
families and at times it displayed various problems associated with
unconstrained popular sentiment: irrationality, tyranny of uncontrolled
passion and tyranny of majority. One of the most striking examples of
democratic tyranny, impulse and injustice was the story of six Athenian
Generals who were sentenced to death by the Assembly around 406 BC.
Around that time, there was a significant Athenian naval victory which,
however, left many Athenian soldiers dead. Eight Generals (two of whom
did not return to Greece after the battle) in charge of the expedition
were accused of unnecessarily leaving men in sinking boats to drown.
Several demogogues stirred public emotion and led the Assembly to violating
some basic procedures of a fair trial. In the end, the six Generals
were put to death by the Assembly without a formal judicial trial and
without a full opportunity to present a defense, although "[n]ot
long afterwards the Athenians repented and voted that preliminary plaints
be lodged against those [demogogues] who had deceived the People..."
(Xenophon) This story "highlights the accountability of officials
and citizens to the Assembly" and "popular control of commanding
officers" in Athens, but it also illustrates "the vulnerability
of the Assembly to the excitement of the moment; the unstable basis
of certain popular decisions; and the potential for political instability
of a very general kind due to the absence of some system of checks on
impulsive behavior.... A number of constitutional checks were built
into the structure of Athenian democracy at a later date to safeguard
it precisely against hasty irreversible decisions. These changes tried
to balance popular sovereignty with a constitutional framework capable
of protecting enacted law and procedure, although it is doubtful whether
these changes were sufficient for this purpose..." (Held)
Another
problem associated with the classical Greek democracy was the danger
of strict political equality. Plato, one of Athens' most famous critics,
was dismayed by the notion that each citizen had equal rights of political
participation. Most people, according to Plato, have neither the experience
nor the knowledge for sound public decision-making. If we let people
make all public decisions directly, they will either do a poor job or
be misled by sycophants and demogogues. In addition, Plato continued,
"[p]olitical leadership [in a democracy] is enfeebled by acquiescence
to popular demands and by the basing of political strategy on what can
be 'sold.' Careful judgments, difficult decisions, uncomfortable options,
unpleasant truths will of necessity be generally avoided. Democracy
marginalizes the wise." (Held) Finally, Plato was also worried
that the notions of liberty and political equality are "inconsistent
with the maintenance of authority, order and stability ... (because)
social cohesion is threatened, political life becomes more and more
fragmented and politics becomes riddled with factional disputes."
As we will see in the next several discussions in this series, most,
although not all, of Plato's worries are resolved by a constitutional
and representative democracy.
There
are, as Professor Dahl points out, several other problems associated
with the classical Greek democracy. The first problem was its exclusivity:
both women and slaves were excluded. Even "immigrants" whose
families had settled in Athens several generations earlier were also
excluded. The second problem, as mentioned above, was that the Greeks
did not recognize inalienable rights of individuals. In a democratic
polis, "freedom meant the rule of law and participation in the
decision-making process, not the possession of inalienable rights....
There were no theoretical limits to the power of the state, no activity,
no sphere of human behavior, in which the state could not legitimately
intervene provided the decision was properly taken for any reason that
was held to be valid by the Assembly." (Finley) Lastly, as mentioned
above, Greek democracy was inherently limited to small-scale systems.
Various problems notwithstanding, however, the classical Greek democracy
and its critics remain a legacy from which our present and future generations
can learn a great deal.
Bo Li
References:
1. David Held, Models of Democracy, Second Edition, Stanford University
Press, 1996
2. Robert A. Dahl, Democracy and Its Critiques, Yale University Press,
1989
3. Aristotle, The Politics, The University of Chicago Press, 1984
4. Plato, The Republic, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974