One of the standard
procedures when teaching history at the primary and high school level is to
start with a period of antiquity, mentioning aspects such as the “old Greeks” and
“Greek democracy”. Therefore, Athenian democracy is often presented as one of
the first examples of the early democratic system in history. However, I personally never had
any experience within the educational environment where I was taught that
Athenian democracy also can be regarded and presented as “illiberal” democracy.
For more information, please read this interesting article of associate
professor Aristides Hatzis who is working at the University of Athens.
The Athenian
polis, a city-state, was also a “demos”, a collective with existence of
political identities and sense of community. This was a case based on a
“social contract” – citizenship between the members of the demos and its decision-making
institutions. From time context view it is important to understand that Athenian
citizenship was limited only to men, born in Athens with both parents being
Athenian-born, and who had gone through military training.
The Athenian
democracy was among the first city-states to introduce relevant aspects of
democracy that in modern meaning would be described as majoritarian rule and
popular sovereignty. However, citizens of the Athenian society also developed
populism without developing what is regarded as the rule of law principle.
Modern states are often described as rule of law states or constitutional
states. During the antique period institutions such as a constitution or rule
of law were not existing. As Aristides N. Hatzis argues, the Athenian democracy
was also an illiberal democracy.[1]
In principle, it was possible to change or
annul any law with a temporary majority rule. The political power of the
demos-people was, therefore, more or less unlimited. Aspects framed in modern
understanding as “checks and balances” were not in function. Juridical
processes were submitted to understandings of citizen’ majority or to judges.
Also despite the notion of the citizen the “individual” as a unit of society was
not existing. Meaning that individual freedoms and rights were not recognized
in the Athenian democracy – only the political rights were.[2]
The recognition
regarding rights was based on the right for the demos to exist as an institution
for a collective decision-making process. And only the citizens of Athens had political
rights despite being consisting minority in comparison with the population
numbers of residents. The political rights of citizens were limited only to
around 10-15% per cent of Athenian population The concept of ”liberty” and “individual”
was different from those which were constructed during the revolutionary
processes in later 18th and during the 19th century such as revolutions in USA,
France and German-confederation.
For example what in
modern terms would be regarded as “individualism” in sense of behaviour was
within Athenian society in principle regarded as something morally negative.
The principle of “ostracism” was, therefore, a kind of contemporary safeguard
where citizens and politicians who were considered as too selfish, influential
or powerful often were forced to abandon the polis and its demos.
Comparing to the
Athenian democracy the meaning of a modern liberal democracy is also seen
as a political sphere where certain decisions are to be excluded from the
decision-making process of majoritarianism. Meaning that the actors such as
society in general (demos) or government are prohibited to intervene and take
actions towards an individual citizen or resident based on the notions of civil
liberties and human rights. A liberal democracy is therefore organized by
including negative rights and freedoms which are limiting a government to
interfere in accordance with a legally binding institution as a charter,
constitution or basic law. Within the legal frameworks such as these the “safeguarding”
aspects and “checks and balances” are influencing the political behaviour of the
individuals and demos.
One
example of Athens not being a rule of law open society can be understood from
the terms of the trial of six generals after the naval battle of Arginusae in
406 BCE. Despite the Athenian victory over Sparta, 6 of the 8 generals were put on trial because they failed to
rescue the survivors of sunken triremes (warships) due to a wild storm in the
area. The six generals were sentenced to death after a messy trial, as a result
of a mix of political manoeuvres and emotional outbursts despite the attempts of
several officers to enforce the law and ensure a fair trial. One of the law-abiding
officers was Socrates who at the time was president of the court. He later argued and advocated for rule of law viewed from a modern perspective, that the
difference between democracy on one side and tyranny and oligarchy on the other
was that a democratic state is administrated by its laws.
The
failure of protecting the “rights” of the defendants in the Arginusae trial and
the dodging of the law to achieve political ends led to the prosecution of
Socrates himself. By such means, Athenian democracy was not similar to a constitutional
or liberal-democratic one. It was a society based on rule by male politicians
and not ruled by the law.
[1] Hatzis, N. Aristides. The Illiberal Democracy
of Ancient Athens. Publication date: 2016-07-21. Downloaded: 2016-11-05.
Website: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305473965_The_Illiberal_Democracy_of_Ancient_Athens
[2] Hatzis s.1.
