Main Page | Table of Contents | Contact & Donate | Rules of Quotation | Printable Version | Theory Chronology |
MECHANICS OF HISTORY - laws to understand the histtory |
Polity of Ancient Athens (political institutions of Athens)
|
1. Before Solon |
4. Further evolution |
2. Solon's reforms |
5. Crisis of the Peloponessian War |
3. Cleisthenes's reforms |
6. After the War |
Here is a short, tendentious
and very simplified description of the evolution of the political
system in ancient Athens. But first two important reservations:
At first populistic
Athenian city-state was an oligarchic
state ruled by aristocratic families. There were a few state offices:
After some time all the officials mentioned above were called “archonts”. Former city-officials (archonts) formed some kind of council called Aeropagus.
The country was divided into 4 districts called phyle (pl. phylae).
This type of polity is typical for many oligarchic
populistic states. Renaissance Venice could be a very good example of a
similar political system.
<>To the top
Solon was an aristocrat politician (and poet) who was elected
for the archont office for the year 594/593 BC and reformed the
polity of Athens. His reforms were a compromise between aristocrats
protecting their privileges and other Athenians fighting for a more
righteous political system. The poorer citizens of Athens also argued
for a reduction of debts.
So, Solon cancelled some of the debts, took the personal dependency
from dependent peasants, introduced the new law codex, and gave the
Athenian citizenship to many of the previously dependent peasants and
immigrants living in Athens.
But he also introduced a completely new political system:
He also defined four social classes organized according to the annual income of citizens:
There were also two other political classes in Athens with no
citizens privileges:
From this time onwards political privileges depended on the
income of a citizen (each of the four classes elected a 100 members of
the Council of 400). And there was still the council of Aeropagus, and
still usually only the richest citizens were elected for city offices.
A political system of this kind is common for many populistic
states
(for example in XIXth century France or Germany
we could observe very similar systems where political and voting
privileges depended on a citizen’s income). That kind of populistic
system is the result of a political alliance between rich citizens and
middle-income citizens.
It is also useful to note similarities between these social classes and
the classes in the early Roman republic, and similarities between the
Athenian Council of 400
and the Roman comitia centuriata.
In ancient times social classes were often organized according to the
role of citizens in a city-state army, because war was in those days a
very profitable kind of “state-investment”.
The best resource about
Athenian “democracy” is Aristotle’s work: The
Athenian Constitution. Plus here you will find some other resources. |
Introduction of Bule. New Athenian Council (also called the Council of 500). Members of the Council were chosen randomly (using an “ballot-box” with black and white balls) from the candidates elected in each phyle. New Council of 500 was no longer a parliament like Council of 400, but rather a bureaucratic and court machine. For every 1/10 of the year members elected in one particular file worked as officials paid from the country budget, then members from the second phyle took over the presidency and so on.
The method of election again promoted the organized
faction of “democrats” and was against the aristocrats, who now had a
very limited chance to become a member of the Bule (because of the
random mechanism of the election).
Meeting of all citizens (Ecclesia). Following the reforms,
the meeting of all citizens of Athens was responsible for the most of
the political decisions. But several thousands of people could not
effectively carry out the function of parliament. There were too many
people to legislate laws, control the state budget, and solve other
more sophisticated problems. Actually the meeting was easy to control
by a charismatic leader, a well-organized political faction or a
skillful demagogue - as with every large crowd of people.
Here is an
example of how unstable and easy it was to dominate the
meeting. In the times of the Athens Sea Union one of the allied cities
on the isle of Lesbos rebelled against Athens. Athenians sent soldiers,
who pacified the rebellion. Then the Athenian meeting deliberated, how
to punish the rebelled city. At first, stirred up by populist
demagogues, the meeting decided to kill all adult men and sell all
children and women as a slaves. But the next day, calmed by some more
rational politicians, Ecclesia changed that cruel decision, and the
city survived. |
It is not obvious if these equalities were more
populistic slogans (like liberté, égalité,
fraternité slogans, we know from the Great French Revolution)
used by the faction of “democrats”, or if they were the real guaranties
of the political rights of citizens (isotimia probably was, at least
for some time). But they started the idea of political equality, and
thus created the ideological basement for modern European democracies.
Ostracism. Probably also
introduced by Cleisthenes. Once a year citizens of Athens had the
privilege of pointing out the politician who was a threat to democracy
(tried to become a tyrant). They wrote down the names of politicians on
broken pieces of pottery. The politician, who got the majority of such
votes (and no less than 6000) was banished from Athens for 10 years
(but his property wasn’t confiscated).
A true democratic country does not need such a
“protection”. A stable balance between different GPIs (groups of
political interests) plus institutions that are protecting individuals
against state abuses (passive protections) are the best shield against
tyranny. That kind of “active protecting” political tools are very
dangerous, because they can easily be used against political opposition
(while passive protections cannot).
It is informative to look at the names of politicians who were banished in this way: Themistocles, Thucydides, Kimon, son of Miltiades (political opponent of Pericles), Alcibiades the Elder, etc. Ostracism was a very nice tool to eliminate the most prominent politicians, sometimes men with great personal honesty. Let’s imagine that Winston Churchill or Franklin Delano Roosevelt were eliminated from politics that way. |
Board
of 10 strategi. A kind
of “government” of Athens. Each strategus (Greek: strategos), elected
by Ecclesia, was at the same time a political leader responsible for
politics of Athens, and an army commander. The tenure of strategus was
one year, but a politician could be elected as strategus many times (as
Pericles was).
Paragraph added - 3 December 2004
Secondly,
since the Efialtes reform in 462
BC Aeropagus prerogatives (area of
authority) were further restricted. Since then Aeropagus was no longer
privileged in controlling the legality of new laws.
Both reforms mentioned above eliminated the last
institution that could control the laws legislated by a Meeting of all
Citizens (Ecclesia), and thus there was no longer a way to control new
laws promoted by charismatic politicians.
A long Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta that
started in 431 BC ended the period of economic prosperity in Athens
and launched some changes in the relative power of different GPIs
(groups of political interests):
Generally, thetes were interested in war and zeugitai in
peace.
And every year of the war the middle-income citizens GPI became weaker
and Athenian politics and politicians became more populistic.
See Thucydides
The History of the Peloponesian War. And the Chapter XVII with Melian
Dialogues which disappeared from a version in MIT archives. |
Finally this resulted in political trials (a kind of “ witch
hunt”) of the “enemies of democracy”. A good example was the
elimination of the political faction led by Alcibiades. Then, after the
unfortunate expedition against city-state of Siracuse, the war went
very badly, and the political struggle became much more brutal. There
were a few coup d’etat, mass executions of political opponents, even a
civil war. Finally, defeated by Sparta, the Athenian Empire collapsed.
A very good test
to find out if a country is really democratic is
to observe, how well its political system behaves, when the country is
put thorough the mill. True democratic
systems survive serious
conditions (there are numerous examples from the history of Great
Britain or ancient Rome), but populistic
quasi-democratic countries
usually turn into a true populistic state. |
Main Page | Table of Contents | Contact with Author | Rules of Quotation | Theory Chronology | Printable Version |
MECHANICS OF HISTORY - laws to understand the history |