On Democracy I

The scorn and disdain of the ancient world

The most despised system of government in the history of mankind is today our solemn pride. The tenets of this self-aggrandizement are self-rule, plurality of viewpoints and preservation of individual rights. It is a supposed claim to the inheritance of the Classical traditions of Ancient Athens and Rome.

Nothing could be further from the truth. While these ideas should never be taken completely at face value in the first place, we must show why. Not only is this pretense incorrect, it is ripe with confusion and delusion. We will go through these lines one by one, case by case, and attempt to shed light over the cascade of cobwebs permeating the intellectual tradition of those who champion this cause, those who call themselves: social democrats, liberal democrats, or other such fluffy formulas.

The meaning of the word

It is generally assumed that the birthplace of democracy is Athens. We must absolutely dissect this assertion. Graeber makes the interesting point that the ideas behind egalitarian consensus building did not require majority rule and citizen bodies were certainly alluded to far earlier than Athens, they were just not as interesting to the modern democrats who wish to trace back their political ancestry. For instance, the Romans refer to some sort of an assembly, equivalent of the Senate, in Carthage which surely must have had imported some of its institutions from its Levantine mother-cities. We also find that Celtic and Germanic tribes held village assemblies.

To really analyze the Athenian model, we should start with the fact that “Democracy” is first and foremost a term, with loaded meaning which demands a historical context. We must try to understand what it meant to each person who uttered it. In this case the context is Ancient Greece, the playground of Thucydides and Herodotus.

The Hellenes measured their time with Olympiads, four year periods between the occurrences of Olympic Games. The first Olympiad is dated to 776 B.C. and the last one to 393 A.D. before Emperor Theodosius I outlawed the games. If we consider “Ancient Greece” to be a period of around a millennium give or take — we are not counting Mycenae — then the period of Athenian Democracy lasted around 140 years, if we are generous (it was interrupted by coups, dictatorships, etc).

What are the other forms of government we find? They are called μοναρχία/monarchia, ὀλιγαρχία/oligarchia — we won’t dwell on the philosopher’s thought experiments such as timocracy or others, the focus are on those that actually existed at the time. You immediately notice a pattern here, monarchy is the rule of the one as oligarchy is the rule of the few. That is the meaning of the word archos, a ruler.

Democracy is usually translated to “rule of the people”. Precision does not allow us such a hand-waved translation (at least for this era). Otherwise, we would see something like polyarchy, rule of the many or the multitude. Κράτος/Kratos means “strength", “might”. There is even a Greek god of the same name with these attributes as well as an ancient equivalent of MMA: “Pankration” where, as the name implies, pretty much everything was permitted.

As for the demos, they were akin to tribes, collections of neighborhoods that managed their affairs (as opposed to the gene — the democratic reforms wished to eliminate influential families). To be a citizen of Athens, you had to be a member of a demos (a group sharing values, customs, traditions) and thus it became a sort of common political entity in the eyes of the city. That is why we understand it to mean (as many authors rightly do) the common people. But we must never mistake the fact that this membership was exclusive. Only free adult males were part of the demos. Foreigners, slaves, women, children and anyone else were completely excluded. In practice, around less than 10% of the inhabitants of Athens actually participated.

So why this different wording? Perhaps there is no reason, but I like to imagine that it was an external characterization. When I think “might of the people”, I think of riots and that’s probably what other Greek cities thought of the Athenian experiment. Think of autocracy, it has this connotation of ruthlessness.

Contemporary accounts of the Athenian model

The main characteristic of the Athenian democracy was understood as widespread political engagement (among the citizens, of course). We should note that there exists not a single political treatise or any literary text for that matter in the period —nothing before pre-modern times — praising this idea. Instead, we find the exact opposite in abundance.

“The Constitution of the Athenians” is an amazing document, whose author remains unknown, it was once attributed to Xenophon but apparently he’s off the list. Not only does it mention that the rest of the Greeks criticize democracy, but also that its chief purpose is to perpetuate itself rather than the good functioning of the city:

First I want to say this: there the poor and the people generally are right to have more than the highborn and wealthy for the reason that it is the people who man the ships and impart strength to the city; the steersmen, the boatswains, the sub-boatswains, the look-out officers, and the shipwrights -- these are the ones who impart strength to the city far more than the hoplites, the high-born, and the good men. This being the case, it seems right for everyone to have a share in the magistracies, both allotted and elective, for anyone to be able to speak his mind if he wants to. […]

Then there is a point which some find extraordinary, that they everywhere assign more to the worst persons, to the poor, and to the popular types than to the good men: in this very point they will be found manifestly preserving their democracy. For the poor, the popular, and the base, inasmuch as they are well off and the likes of them are numerous, will increase the democracy; but if the wealthy, good men are well off, the men of the people create a strong opposition to themselves. […]

Someone might say that they ought not to let everyone speak on equal terms and serve on the council, but rather just the cleverest and finest. Yet their policy is also excellent in this very point of allowing even the worst people to speak. For if the good men were to speak and make policy, it would be splendid for the likes of themselves but not so for the men of the people. But, as things are, any wretch who wants to can stand up and obtain what is good for him and the likes of himself. Someone might say, “What good would such a man propose for himself and the people?” But they know that this man's ignorance, baseness, and favor are more profitable than the good man's virtue, wisdom, and ill will. A city would not be the best on the basis of such a way of life, but the democracy would be best preserved that way. For the people do not want a good government under which they themselves are slaves; they want to be free and to rule. Bad government is of little concern to them. What you consider bad government is the very source of the people's strength and freedom. If it is good government you seek, you will first observe the cleverest men establishing the laws in their own interest. Then the good men will punish the bad; they will make policy for the city and not allow madmen to participate or to speak their minds or to meet in assembly. As a result of these excellent measures the people would swiftly fall into slavery. […]

In regard to the allies: the Athenians sail out and lay information, as they are said to do; they hate the aristocrats inasmuch as they realize that the ruler is necessarily hated by the ruled and that if the rich and aristocratic men in the cities are strong, the rule of the people at Athens will last for a very short time. This is why they disfranchise the aristocrats, take away their money, expel and kill them, whereas they promote the interests of the lower class. The Athenian aristocrats protect their opposite numbers in the allied cities, since they realize that it will be to their advantage always to protect the finer people in the cities. Someone might say that the Athenians' strength consists in the allies' ability to pay tribute-money; but the rabble thinks it more advantageous for each one of the Athenians to possess the resources of the allies and for the allies themselves to possess only enough for survival and to work without being able to plot defection.

Also in another point the Athenian people are thought to act ill-advisedly: they force the allies to sail to Athens for judicial proceedings. But they reason in reply that the Athenian people benefit from this. First, from the deposits at law they receive their dicastic pay through the year. Then, sitting at home without going out in ships, they manage the affairs of the allied cities; in the courts they protect the democrats and ruin their opponents. If the allies were each to hold trials locally, they would, in view of their annoyance with the Athenians, ruin those of their citizens who were the leading friends of the Athenian people.

What do we learn from this? Athens is badly governed. The seemingly worst elements are at the helm, its allies are in reality vassals (as opposed to Sparta’s military alliances, Athens was truly running an empire), and our author is really an oligarchist who does appreciate the toil of the common man and thus his right to rule (but not really). He actually does remind me of modern counterparts, who preach rule of the many but by their actions demonstrate the opposite. Crucially, we find that it does a fantastic job at exporting itself like a virus and empowering its proponents abroad. Add to this the testimony of Athenians such as Socrates, Thucydides (a fervent oligarchist, whose thesis is that Athenian imperial subjugation led to its downfall), Aristotle, and you get a less than flattering picture of the situation.

He does make a very interesting point about the reasoning behind the infamous bad governance. It supposedly kept the people free and strong. But what do we observe in practice? We see that the masses could consistently oppress the few, and anyone could instead convince a few of his friends to exile his enemy. In fact, many of the ostraka, the pieces of pottery on which Athenians would write down their next victim, were found to be of identical handwriting. It’s as if one could break an amphora (roll credits) on site, write down the same name on all of them, and hand them out.

To add insult to injury, Plutarch records an amusing story where an illiterate man approached Aristides, the Athenian statesman and general whom Herodotus called “the best and most honorable man in Athens”. Not recognizing him, he asked him to write down his name on the shard. Aristides questioned him on his reasons, and the man replied that he was tired of hearing him called “the Just”… yeah. He did get ostracized if you’re wondering.

This was the fate of many of the most prominent generals of Athens. We find among them Themistocles, Cimon, etc. Many of them were quite successful and so offered their services to Athens’s enemies instead. Some of them went to Persia, some to Sparta such as Alcibiades — he got kicked out again for impregnating the queen.

They stopped doing the ostracism thing once Nicias and Alcibiades, both targets of ostracism by Hyperbolos and fierce rivals, teamed up to get him exiled instead. If you’re gonna play with fire, expect burns.

What’s more concerning is that compared to our modern implementation, these people were far more virtuous than we could ever hope to be. They truly believed in the rule of their law and helped strengthen its authority in every way even if it meant the ruin of their friends, the loss of their property, or even their own death at the hands of the courts.

As you can infer, the city did not remain a democracy throughout this small period falling regularly to demagogues and tyrants. During the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides tells us that a small group of oligarchs (perhaps counting our friend above among them) seized power after the disaster in Sicily to stop the bleeding. Of course, the Spartans won, replaced them with their own people, and finally Macedon ended the whole thing altogether.

Alexander and his generals did encourage democratic mechanisms in the cities within their empire, but it was not to preserve the liberty of their subjects. It was because they thought it made those cities particularly easy to rule.

The praise that is actually levied at Athens does mention its artistic tradition, its philosophical schools, and its cultural output in general. Perhaps it was indeed a direct consequence of its system of government, but don’t mistake that for a general esteem of the assembly.

The Roman view of democracy

The Romans rarely hid their opinions on the manner in which the Athenians governed themselves. It was regularly used as a warning on exactly the wrong way to manage a city. Cato the Elder famously banned Greek philosophers from entering Rome after an audience with three envoys from Athens, being convinced that their rhetoric would corrupt the youth.

This can of course be dismissed as the complaints of a mostly aristocratic regime which would naturally dislike the idea of empowered masses. This is not a bad observation, but these complaints do not simply come from the patricians but also from the plebeians! In his defense of the governor of Asia, Lucius Flaccus, Cicero outlines some of the common conceptions that Roman lawmakers held on the matter:

But all the republics of the Greeks are governed by the rashness of the assembly while sitting. Therefore, to say no more of this Greece, which has long since been overthrown and crushed through the folly of its own counsels; that ancient country, which once flourished with riches, and rower, and glory, fell owing to that one evil, the immoderate liberty and licentiousness of the popular assemblies. When inexperienced men, ignorant and uninstructed in any description of business whatever, took their seats in the theater, then they undertook inexpedient wars; then they appointed seditious men to the government of the republic; then they banished from the city the citizens who had deserved best of the state. But if these things were constantly taking place at Athens, when that was the first city, not only in Greece, but in almost all the world, what moderation do you suppose there was in the assemblies in Phrygia and Mysia? It is usually men of those nations who throw our own assemblies into confusion; what do you suppose is the case when they are by themselves? Athenagoras, that celebrated man of Cyme, was beaten with rods, because, at a time of famine, he had ventured to export corn. An assembly was summoned at the request of Laelius. Athenagoras came forward, and, being a Greek among Greeks, he said a good deal, not about his fault, but in the way of complaining of his punishment. They voted by holding up their hands. A decree was passed. Is this evidence? […]

Remember, therefore, that when you hear decrees you are not hearing evidence; that you are listening to the rashness of the common people; that you are listening to the assertions of all the most worthless men; that you are listening to the murmurs of the ignorant, to the voice of an inflamed assembly of a most worthless nation. Therefore examine closely into the nature and motive of all their accusations, and you will find no reason for them except the hopes by which they have been led on, or the terrors and threats by which they have been driven […]

But even suppose those documents were not tampered within their own city, still what authority or what credit can they now have here? The law orders them to be brought to the praetor within three days, and to be sealed up with the seals of the judges; they are scarcely brought within thirty days. In order that the writings may not be easily tampered with, therefore the law orders that after they have been sealed up they shall be kept in a public office; but these are sealed up after they have been tampered with. What difference, then, does it make, whether they are brought to the judges so long after the proper time, or whether they are not brought at all?

Cicero is obviously using some lawyer rhetoric to get his friend off the hook here, but you can see where he is going with this. The written testimony of these public assemblies of Greece could not be trusted, the mob ruled and punished men with the mere approval of the crowds. Furthermore, Cicero rightly points out that whereas Athens with all its known faults appeared to be the most prominent city of Greece (for a time), what possible good governance could have been present in its lesser counterparts? In any case, it appears he was convincing enough since Flaccus was acquitted.

Naturally, our current regime loves to liken itself to classical systems of government, especially that of Rome. To be fair, that has been a common aspiration throughout history and we are no different. The Romans however, unlike us, evidently did not view democracy positively. But being practical they identified it as a natural political force that the masses would embody, and therefore took into account the three forms of power known to them: democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy. This is vaguely the origin of our Liberal “separation of powers”, but as you can see they were far more honest about it.

Democratic forces in Rome

But Rome had elections did it not? Well, it turns out that democracy does not hold a monopoly on voting or on the electoral process. Indeed, I direct your attention to a very old institution called the Catholic Church. What is its form of government? It is a monarchy of course, as only one person rules it. That person is infallible and chosen by the Holy Spirit himself. But the instruments of his will are the esteemed members of the Curia — so many callbacks to Rome, how lovely — those crimson draped cardinals, who operate by secret suffrage.

Whereas in Athens, only a few of their officials were elected. The rest were randomly selected by lottery, including their magistrates and judicial positions. It was preferable to trust the judgement of the gods than that of men, how ironic. It was probably also a convenient way of preventing influential men from retaining certain powers for long.

Hence, there is no contradiction. In fact, Rome operated quite strictly in the conduct of its elections. The nominees for consulship were chosen by augury. They were first selected randomly before a magistrate carefully observed, and awaited a sign from the gods to see if they approved of the candidates. If the gods did not approve of even one of the two, then only one was permitted to run for consul. This was very serious business, not something the Romans would leave to the “People”.

The legions were not allowed to cross into Italy without permission, and were never allowed inside the city walls of Rome without the approval of the Senate. Why? It is likely because they were afraid that the legions formed the most potent and obvious display of democracy. A cohesive mass of armed men within the gates of the city presented a very dangerous implication. And while they were kept in line by their generals, they also owed their well-being to those same men. Of course, that is one of the reasons why the Republic finally became an Empire.

It is not the primary cause however, merely the mechanism. Instead, we see a gradual increase of the democratic elements in Roman government. While the Tribune of the Plebs was initially elected by the Comitia Curia (Curiate Assembly, which excluded the Plebeians), that power was then transferred to the Tribal Assembly. This prompted a long line of Tribunes who were elected by promising subsidies or free food. And as it happened in Athens, any semblance of self-rule would evaporate the instant the masses felt themselves so dependent towards their representative.

Plebiscites, resolutions passed by the Plebeian Council (which excluded the Patricians), could not be law unless approved by magistrates or the Senate. These measures would simply express the opinion of the Plebeians on certain matters, and often required response, or compromise. In 287 BC, this was changed and plebiscites then instantly became law. This caused growing politicization of Roman society which culminated into the reforms of the Gracchi Brothers which ended in blood, thus sparking the tensions between the Populares and Optimates in the Senate.

And what was the end result of the growth of democratic forces within the Roman republic? Elections became a show of force and they were regularly disrupted by armed thugs. In the election of 55 BC, Cato was injured by Pompeian thugs after he had showed up early to make sure there were no irregularities (it turns out there were). Once Pompey had won his bid for consul, he was immediately placed in charge of the conduct of the very same elections he had just participated in — the prior gridlock and street thuggery had delayed the elections of the consuls. Once Cato’s bid for Praetor came up and he started winning, Pompey declared bad omens and stopped the voting. Armed thugs then made the rounds of the different voting blocks and Pompey restarted the count. Surprisingly, the votes changed and Cato lost.

Armed mobs started roaming the streets on a regular basis, prominent political leaders were killed in full view of the public, and consuls were given exceptional powers in response to quell the violence. The conclusion was that the masses empowered Caesar (rather he got them to empower him, via spoils of war and reforms) which they correctly viewed as a proper competitor to the rotting oligarchs of the state, and finally Augustus ended the whole thing by neutering the aristocrats and democrats alike.

A tool for regime change

It is not my aim to pronounce democracy as an evil that led to the downfall of the Roman republic. Far from this, the Republic was doomed as soon as the balance of the three powers was altered. We primarily focused on the democratic elements, but the oligarchs in the Senate are perhaps the most to blame. In this case, democratic power was fueled and encouraged in order to successfully overthrow the oligarchs. But it was never the end goal of the perpetrators, and its expressions are unpleasant to say the least. They cannot be seriously observed as positives.

We see that in Classical times, democracy is often used as a tool for regime change and that it rarely stands up on its own for long. In Athens, democracy was initially brought by Solon to stop the abuses of the city’s powerful families. It instead created a tyranny of the masses which was interrupted by coups and tyrants on an almost regular basis. The medicine is sometimes worse than the disease.

The elusive “true democracy” spoken of today as a potentially desirable yet flawed model, pretty much never existed anywhere unless at the very smallest of scales (possibly why we barely hear of it), say the level of a village. We should thus cease the practice of pretending criticism of democracy should be confined to that idea of a full and universal electorate which rules directly with no representatives. It is nothing but linguistic confusion and distraction of the real problem.

The biggest issue is that, unlike the Classical republicanism, democracy denies and attempts to eliminate its political competitors. It cannot coexist with other systems, precisely because their very existence questions its legitimacy. Athens constantly interfered in the politics of its allies and neighbors, empowering its democratic forces, to ensure that no city could escape its clutches.

In all of these cases, we never see the idea of self-rule materialize as the crowds are manipulated by those who aim to abolish the system, or are captured by few interests that conveniently are able to hide oligarchic mechanisms. Moreover, the system does not spread freedom as it pretends, it instead terrorizes those who upset the mob, and seeks to create dependent slaves of its allies — or rather vassals. The plurality of viewpoints instead manifests itself as rampant conformism, exploited to banish dissenting voices. This throws the conception of modern social democracies as the heirs of Classical tradition not only as a horrible model if maintained, but more importantly as a lie used for deception. Which would be fitting, and perhaps one of the few legacies its proponents could pretend to uphold.