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.

Email for notes

Top