Athenian Democracy example essay topic

It has been said that democracy is worst form of government except all those others forms that have been tried from time to time. - Winston Churchill in the House of Commons, 1947 Democracy - a word that has been used for a century just to share responsibility between people for all individual crimes in the history. Hitler called his Nazis Germany a kind of 'democracy', Soviet Union during era of communism with single leader party was 'democracy'. America was 'democracy' when millions of people were slaves. Even Britain today is called 'democracy' when millions of people never exercise their right to vote. So who invent this word and where does it come from?

The word democracy came from two Greek words: a noun, demos, which means "people" and a verb, Kra tein, which means "to rule". Its basic meaning is "government by the people" or "rule by the ruled". The origin of democracy lied down 2500 years ago in city-state of Athens in Greece, where first inventors had been exercised it in practise and until now, democracy is still in practise with varying degrees of changes. But everything began in the middle of the 5th century BC in Athens. Athenian rules were very simple: every male who was above eighteen years old had the right to attend meeting place of Assembly, which was held in early morning on the rocky hillside, as a frequent regularity every ten days. So if you were not lazy to get up and had a good voice to be heard by 6000 people, you could speak and be the part of the ruling people.

It did provide political equality in the sense that all citizens had the same political rights and the same obligations to carry out political duties and to hold public office. (Dorothy Pickles, Democracy) Of course the more respectful and richer you were, the more chances you had to be heard, just like today. The inequality was based on people who were not great speakers, but had some smart thoughts did not have any other choice except to 'improve their listening abilities'. Usually, it ended up with individual ideas and massive agreement, as from my point of view people are made to be ruled but not to rule except individuals who have to do all 'dirty jobs'!

Anyway, they had right to speak and what more important was the right to vote, as any decisions made by the assembly became land law. The Athenian rules may look unrealistic, as a given right to so many people could lead to the anarchy and slowing down the process of governing, but in actual fact it worked out very well. What was the secret? Without any doubt, the key was in the quality of the citizens, which tended to think more about common goods rather than individual interests, while today it seems totally contra version. The classical polis was marked by unity, solidarity, participation and highly restricted citizenship. (David Held, Models of Democracy).

Of course it doesn't mean that the Athenian were angles, who thought only about the goods of others. They were selfish humans just like people in nowadays, but with slightly more respect of public interests and this was enough to make their democracy system work. The other advantage of the Athenian democracy was that citizens were much better informed than today. Every citizen who took active part in Assembly could go to Angora, which was a kind of Public Park for collecting enough information in order to make at least reasonable vote according to his will. In our time, it is impossible to be entirely informed as the Manifesto includes too much information.

In addition, the content is always far from reality, which makes it less interesting and practical. Perhaps one of the other reasons why Athenian democracy worked well was not just based on its system. Any law that has been passed by Assembly had to be proposed by certain person, so called proposer, who should take full responsibility for it in the future. So there were not so many people that seeking for fame and glory, as if citizens found out that proposer made mistakes, they can take him to court and he might have to pay a considerable fine, which could bankrupt him.

The result was that people thought very carefully about politics, as well as personal responsibilities. Also there was a contest known as an "ostracism", which was set on a certain day during the year. It meant that on that day Assembly would choose the most hated man in assembly. If some one person got more than 600 votes he could be sent in exile. I can imagine how well these would work today.

One of the most important institutions, which helped Assembly to work well, was 'the Council of 500'. It carried out by dividing the city and its surrounding into 10 districts and each district could vote 50 males members, who were above 30 years old. All together they represented their districts in the council of 500. The Council had the responsibility to make agenda and usually to advice the Assembly.

The reason why members in the Council 500 did not use their position in private interests was because they had been chosen only for one year. No one could be two years in row or twice in their whole life. From my point of view, this was the most democratic form of representative government that ever exist. However, if this could happen again today, I think no one wants to be involved in politics.

On the other hand, Athenian democracy had many disadvantages, since many people were not allowed to vote. First and foremost, women were not allowed to take part in the Assembly, so in this way we can say that democracy in Athens was not "ruled by the people" but "ruled by the men behalf". Secondly, I have to challenge the convention that men had to be above 18 to be part of assembly. In my opinion, many children at 16 or 17 could make better decisions than some adults. In another aspects mentally ill people were also not allowed to be in the Assembly, as they were not able to follow or take a part in discussions. So in a word, Athens democracy was ruling only by healthy men, who were above 18 and were willing to spend most of they private time on discussing problems of their land, which was in a relatively limited content.

Nevertheless, the key of the problem was not outside but inside the Assembly. The question was "could 6000 people really be heard?" Or again it was just the form of hiding real rulers inside the 6000 people. My answer is yes. Most people followed their instincts, rhetorical wind, while just a small minority followed by their brain and again, the Athenian democracy was nothing more than just a theatre, in which the best actors of all the time played their roles as "the roles of the men": the men who were selfish and followed personal interests and individual wills. This is the reason why democracy cannot exist in a pure form. However, we can criticize Athenian democracy although our criticism is useless, as we cannot offer a better alternative, a system that is better than theirs.

That's why every time we say something about their democracy, we should take deep thought about in what kind of system we are living and only then, give our 'brilliant priceless correction'. On the one hand, democracy in a pure form seems to be the fairest way of ruling but many people will not agree. Plato attacked the principle of political equality on the grounds that the mass of the people posses neither the wisdom nor the experience to rule wisely on their own behalf. (Andrew Heywood, Politics).

Only a certain individual, such as a good educated leader, is able to rule or control. Many wealthy and educated people did not accept the equality of men in Athens and even today. They felt that they are better, more capable and worth more of political power. This view will be debated forever. I think this point seems very unfair because the definition of inequality is not the perfect choice despite there is no better ones.

That's why the system will mostly succeed when one individual comes and keep everything under his control. In this case, he should be able to do it in the right way or we can say in the good way, but not perfectly. The formula for the good result is if his personal interests are less or even equal to the interests for his nation. Luckily, in the second half of the fifth century this kind of man came. The Athenian gave huge support to Pericles. He was an aristocrat, who no surprisingly gained support by helping to reduce the power of the conservative the Council of the Areopagus.

He introduced State pay for services on the Councils of 500 and the jury. In that way, even the poorest citizens could take part in public life. Nearly through out 440-430 BC, he was elected to be in the Board of 10 Generals. His brilliant mind, thoughts and rhetoric skills allowed him to get support from Assembly in all his polices of democracy, at home and imperialism aboard. He was the person who had his personal interests like everyone, but also truly believed and wanted to see Athens as a great polis. As a result, he spent public money on Acropolis and other great public works, which created many employment opportunities for Athens citizens.

At this stage, any democracy becomes very questionable system. It allows individuals to gain considerable support from people, at the same time, people became more dependent to their leaders. But the problem is who can be sure that the leader will be patriotic and will really care public interests. Or even if they do so, do they do it in the right way?

The worst example was in Germany, when people elected Hitler in the same way as they elect today. How good democracy can be for people? How far people can go with Democracy? On the one hand we have system, which brings too many bad memories, and on another hand this is the system that pushes civilized world forward. However, if we want to know does the democracy benefit more general interest than individual, we should consider separately different events in history. Nevertheless, Athens had the longest-lived democracy from 508 to 267 BC, which has yet existed.

No democratic structure, moreover, has gone further, by direct vote, to ensure that every citizen had the same power. Debates over democracy last from the Athenian times till today and probably will last forever. Mostly all criticisms were known already in the Athenian times, but the answers were not found even today. Greek democracy was poorly regarded by all the Greek philosophers and historians whose writings have survived, including Plato, Aristotle and Thucydides. (Anthony Birch, The concept and theories of modern democracy).

Some people look at the democracy as the greatest system of governing, especially associating with the Western World. Others see great defects of the democracy that caused many troubles to mankind, just because of using this word for wrong purpose. In my opinion, whatever we said we have to admit that Athenian democracy brought the strong fundamental of all civilized world. Certainly it has some disadvantages because everything has two sides of medal, but in fact there are not many systems, which benefit modern society as much as democracy, whose roots lies in ancient Athens. -Reference- Anthony H. Birch: The concept and theories of modern democracy. Dorothy Pickles: Democracy.

Anthony Ar blaster: Democracy. Cross and Woolley: Plato's republic, A philosopher Commentary. John Dunn: Democracy, The unfinished Journey. web web web.