
Birth of Democracy: The Ekklesia - walterbell
http://www.agathe.gr/democracy/the_ekklesia.html
======
Xophmeister
I have this [uninformed/idealistic] view that Ancient Greece was generally a
very peaceful place, where people discussed ideas and freedom of thought was
paramount. I'm aware that there was of course still war within and around
Greece, per the likes of Homer's Iliad, but it punctuated an otherwise highly
enlightened society. (Beyond external influences, my reasoning is based on
asking, "How could things like democracy, philosophy, mathematics, etc.
flourish in an unstable environment?")

Moreover, I also have the view that afterwards -- whatever that may mean --
things kind of went to pot! The Romans were obviously great engineers, etc.
but my impression of them is more that they were the start of Europe's descent
into imperialism and warmongering. Something that the West is still clinging
on to thousands of years later.

Is my view of Ancient Greece wrong and it actually was a politically unstable
and bloodthirsty place to be, where all the good stuff was fostered out of
luck? If not, what went wrong? Could we be a thousand-or-so years more
advanced if we'd stayed on the right track?

~~~
restalis
"How could things like democracy, philosophy, mathematics, etc. flourish in an
unstable environment?"

Greeks had a developed (and wide available) writing system, Greeks had a not-
so-restrictive religion, and (perhaps most importantly) - Greeks had a great
economical advantage over a lot of other people around them. Yes, Greeks were
good warriors, but they liked very much to just use others (mostly as
mercenaries) in order to solve things, and trowed themselves in battles only
as a last resort (like when the Greek cities fought among themselves and
persuading others to join them was somewhat difficult). Greeks had a very
large network of economic centers and all that value of connecting cheap
worlds was primarily theirs. The flourishing of the arts and science was just
a result of the general wealth flowing all around - life was cheaper and
easier compared to other places, so what the average ἀνήρ was supposed to do
with their spare energy? (Hint: connecting the dots here and there, just the
way Greeks as a people used to do all the time.)

~~~
atmosx
I disagree. The Persian empire was just as (if not more) wealthy than the
Greeks although not as technologically advanced.

I think what distinguished Athens (and Greece) was "tolerance" towards
foreigners. Although they called them 'Barbarians' (meaning Not Greek - with a
strong negative flavor), at the same time foreigners were welcome to study and
teach in Athens. Most sophists (e.g. Protagoras and Gorgias) were not
Athenians. Aristotle was not an Athenian citizen.

Socrates was poor. But he was craved by the young because of his spirit. At
the same time you have political Satire openly mocking Socrates and other
major political (some extremely powerful) figures of the Athenian life.
Euripedi's 'Trojan Women' play, was essentially a commentary on the capture of
the Aegean island of Melos and the subsequent slaughter and subjugation of its
populace by the Athenians earlier that year! It's incredible the fact that he
dared to do so! Of course that's the reason we still watch his plays (2.500
years later...).

IMHO it was tolerance that made Athens great.

~~~
restalis
The Persian Empire had a lot of subjugated populace. The worry of rebellion
and other problems plagued them all the time. Greeks on the other hand were
very laid back in comparison. The conditions for investment of available
effort was very different between those two. The tolerance vs. discriminating
attitude are in fact derived from the political relation which a group of
people is with another group of people in such instance.

~~~
dghf
> The Persian Empire had a lot of subjugated populace. The worry of rebellion
> and other problems plagued them all the time. Greeks on the other hand were
> very laid back in comparison.

Maybe not all the Greeks. The Spartans were a small group ruling over a much
larger subjugated population (the Helots), who they would try to keep in check
through things like an annual murder spree, at least according to Aristotle:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helots#Treatment_by_Spartans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helots#Treatment_by_Spartans)

------
peterclary
Arguably, the problem with the Assembly was that they'd vote for whoever spoke
the most convincingly, as opposed to who had the best argument. This wasn't
much of an issue when Pericles was around, as he tended to be quite
intelligent, but after his death the Sophists made their money by teaching
people how to speak well (but not how to think well, as some of their
contempories lamented), leading to a lot of persuasive idiots in the assembly.

Memorably, late in the Peloponnesian War, Sparta (who were winning) offered
Athens an opportunity to end the war with no reparations. A pretty good offer,
you'd have thought, but some people were making good money off the war and
they spoke convincingly in the Assembly to persuade the people to keep
fighting.

~~~
abecedarius
Greek democracy had problems, but I wonder how much of our picture of them
derives from source bias. Thucydides, Aristotle, Plato, Xenophon: none a fan
of democracy (and Plato to me seems actively dishonest). Writings in its favor
would face obviously greater trouble making it to us through Roman and
medieval times -- and most of what was written did not make it, on any topic.
What do we still have from democrats of the time? I'd like to know.

(Am not a historian.)

~~~
peterclary
IANAH(istorian)

The above was what I remembered from my Classical Civilisations lessons back
in Secondary School (some 25 years ago). I'm very good at remembering stories
but not so good at remembering dates, which meant that my prowess in Modern
World History and Classical Civilisations was a bit...mixed.

------
eternalban
In case the word Ekklesia rang a bell for you too:
[http://www.hisholychurch.net/ekklesia.php](http://www.hisholychurch.net/ekklesia.php)

~~~
crapnewdevs
If only it was the birthplace of paying due taxes, not letting everyone retire
too early, and paying back loans!

------
speakeron
"In theory every assembly represented the collective will of all the male
citizens of Athens"

That doesn't sound like democracy to me. An oligarchy, perhaps?

The true birth of democracy (at national level) was in New Zealand in 1893
when women were given the vote and, for the first time in history, virtually
all adults were enfranchised.

~~~
throwaway7767
Indeed.

This is also the case with Iceland, where the althing is also commonly cited
as the "oldest continuously functioning democratic parliament in the world".

This sounds great, and does wonders for national pride. Especially since most
Icelanders have an extremely rose-tinted view of their own past (thanks to
propaganda during the independence campaign in the last century), and most are
not aware that the only people who had voting rights were landowners, and
everyone else was basically a slave. That's not really a democracy by any
definition.

~~~
cjsthompson
Actually it's the opposite. Today's western parliamentary regimes are
oligarchies and in absolutely no way democracies. Electing a bunch of assholes
who then get to do whatever they wish is not and has never been democracy,
it's elected oligarchy. Democracy is when all the people vote the laws. Which
was the case in ancient athens and iceland. Today the only country which comes
anywhere close to this is Switzerland. Western parliamentary regimes call
themselves 'democracies' to look good just like soviet countries did.

~~~
throwaway7767
> Actually it's the opposite

What is? I'm not really sure which part of my post you are replying to here.
Can you quote a specific bit?

> Democracy is when all the people vote the laws. Which was the case in
> ancient athens and iceland

No, at least in the case of Iceland, the entire point of my post was that only
a very, very tiny group of people got to vote on the laws. Kind of like
representative democracy without the democracy part (because the
representatives are not elected). Also known as a plutocracy.

~~~
cjsthompson
I'm not completely sure about iceland. I think I read it was one vote per
family. But as far as ancient athens goes, every male regardless of wealth or
status got to vote the laws and decrees. And were in fact very much encouraged
to do so. The word 'idiot' actually comes from 'idiotes' which is what people
who didn't debate/vote were called in ancient athens. It originally meant
people who only care about their private affairs as opposed to public affairs.
This made it impossible for the rich to rule, because the rich are always far
fewer than the poor. So while one might be right to point out that it wasn't
fair that women were left out (but women were second class citizens also in
cities which weren't democracies at all like for instance Sparta), it still is
very different and far more egalitarian system than what we have today.

~~~
throwaway7767
Well, I was only talking about Iceland in my comment. My knowledge of Greek
history is insufficient to comment; you might want to take that discussion up
with the commenter that was talking about Greece.

As for Iceland, I really recommend you read up on the history if you are going
to start correcting people about it, because you seem to be completely
misinformed. And no, it was most certainly not "one vote per family"; I have
explained how these things worked at least twice in this discussion. I know
this because I am from Iceland, and I have read up on our history from primary
sources instead of the ridiculous whitewash that gets taught in elementary
school and on tourist buses.

~~~
cjsthompson
But you mentioned Iceland because you were agreeing with the parent poster who
was talking about ancient Athens. So I was replying to both of you. I probably
need to research Iceland, but I did the work for Athens :

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogens_Herman_Hansen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogens_Herman_Hansen)

------
calibraxis
Misleading title, something that always bugged me with questions. An
anthropologist explains in "The Democracy Project":

 _" Democracy was not invented in ancient Greece. Granted, the word
"democracy" was invented in ancient Greece—but largely by people who didn't
like the thing itself very much. Democracy was never really "invented" at all.
Neither does it emerge from any particular intellectual tradition. It's not
even really a mode of government. In its essence it is just the belief that
humans are fundamentally equal and ought to be allowed to manage their
collective affairs in an egalitarian fashion, using whatever means appear most
conducive. That, and the hard work of bringing arrangements based on those
principles into being._

 _" In this sense democracy is as old as history, as human intelligence
itself. No one could possibly own it. I suppose, if one were so inclined, one
could argue it emerged the moment hominids ceased merely trying to bully one
another and developed the communication skills to work out a common problem
collectively. But such speculation is idle; the point is that democratic
assemblies can be attested in all times and places, from Balinese seka to
Bolivian ayllu, employing an endless variety of formal procedures, and will
always crop up wherever a large group of people sat down together to make a
collective decision on the principle that all taking part should have equal
say."_

(He goes onto explain why political scientists ignore such assemblies... a
confusion of voting — which has many problems — with democratic
decisionmaking.)

~~~
cjsthompson
I think he's right except you don't have to believe that humans are
fundamentally equal at all to want democracy. Humans are in no way equal. If
humans were in fact equal, they wouldn't be able to evolve as evolution
requires variability which is just another word for inequality. So when you
want to promote cooperation over competition and you know that humans as any
other DNA based life forms are fundamentally unequal, what you do is you give
them equal deciding power so that noone can rise above the others.

