Aristotle, Athens and Democracy |
||||
|
Q.
Evaluate the role of democracy in explaining the rise to greatness of
Athens as well as the nature of Athenian society during the Classical Age. A.
To explain the role of democracy in any society, the term must first be
defined. The definition of democracy has changed little over the
millennia, as exemplified by comparing Aristotle's definition, "all
should rule over each, and each in his turn over all" to the modern:
"political control...shared by all people." And it seems that
democracy in practice today, as in the Classical Age, defies either
definition. Perhaps the hope of fulfilling the ideal contributed to the
rise of Athens, and the realization of failure to its decline. In
his Politics, Aristotle tells us "The basis of democracy is
liberty.... Every citizen...must have equality, and therefore the poor
have more power than the rich, because there are more of them...." In
setting forth characteristics of democracy, he mentions, "everybody
receives pay." If we accept this definition strictly, we must rule
out the possibility of Athens being a democracy primarily because of the
issue of human bondage and the profligation of the international slave
trade. Although Aristotle limits liberty to "every citizen," he
does not limit payment for services rendered to citizens: "Everyone receives pay." Work shall be recompensed for all in a democracy.
Furthermore,
we may gather from Pericles' speech as recorded by Thucydides that the
Greek idea of democracy was something of an ambiguity. Although it
espoused the idea of limited liberty of the commonwealth, it calls on all
to serve the state in whatever capacity the state might design, rather
than vice-versa. Each individual's prime duty, no matter what their social
condition, poverty, slavery, or aristocracy, was to contribute in some
significant way to the well being of the state. That contribution may not
have been self-defined, but rather defined by whatever "demo’s
happened to be in the "ocracy." The Athenian democracy, and the
resultant justice the masses sought, favored the "distinguished"
as a reward for meritorious service, birthright, etc. So, Greek democrats
meted out justice in accordance to set laws for the majority, while the
ruling, or distinguished, minority enjoyed a different, higher, and
preferential status. (Pericles' memorial speech as reported by Thucydides,
The History of the Peloponnesian War) Although
the Epicurean idea of free life was sober reasoning, the teacher himself
contributed to the rationale of the ruling class in his Fragment XXXIV by
writing that "Injustice is not evil in itself," but fear of
undeserved punishment is (so I interpret the platitude). This is an
example of how education and philosophy reinforced the position of
personal inequality held by the founders of Athenian democracy. I say that
it contributed in that it helped to reify Greek mind-set toward the main
anti-democratic bulwark of the political system: slavery -- the means by
which the economy survived by providing cheap labor, thus luxuriant and
non-Epicurean liberated living. Finley,
in his idealistic if not realistic account of Alexander the Great, may
have implied that the ruling class had certain inalienable rights to
dispense justice as it saw fit. He theorizes that the Greek
"politician-generals" (my term, which I define as the ruling
class), while in civil power, bankrolled the entire polis. If democracy
and capitalism are partners, the politician-generals did indeed have
rights - rights of ownership. One chooses to be benevolent or abusive with
property. If the ruling class owned the majority of property, then the
democracy that emerged in Greece of Greeks was truly outstanding. Plato
was an outspoken critic of the Greek democracy. His Republic almost seems
to satirize Athenian modus operandi. He sites that democrats may
choose from "a complete assortment of constitutions..." and
"pick out the one that suits" them. That, through democracy,
rulers might tailor-make the government into anything that serves them
under the disguise of mass rule. It is his observation that
"many" who have been sentenced to death for crimes against the
state are free to go about their business as though it were the normal
course of events, since "nobody sees or cares." Ideally, Plato
would have preferred "morally perfect philosophers" to
self-styled democrats. Hooper, in Greek Realities, contends that
the homogeneity of the Greeks through democracy was perhaps a facade; that
the majority of Greek city-states did not ascribe to the principle, and
that the vast majority of Greeks were not politically minded, rather
content with superstition and ignorance over reason. This
thought leads me to wonder if many aspects of reported democracy did not
even exist, being but the writings of the vocal minority. Perhaps we might
go as far as to say that the ambiguous democracy practiced by Athens may
have been the main ingredient in its fall. True demos may have lost their
sense of community (nationalism?) through the liberty that they enjoyed.
Those privileged with the opportunity for education were being taught how
to "live at ease" rather how to protect their freedom.
Prosperity and abundance, the results of slave labor and enhanced trade,
were no doubt very attractive to powerful enemies within and without.
Jealous allies may have taken advantage of their liberty by spying on the
military, which was open for observation with weaponry being no secret
(Hooper). The
measure of freedom endowed to the citizenry by Pericles and his successors
certainly gave the masses the necessary motivation for making Athens what
it was, and what it stands for today - "the first democratic society
known to man." The decadence to which freedom (after bondage) leads
was no doubt a prime factor in its demise. 9/28/87
|
||||
