The Socratic Dictum

Part seven can be found here.

The Western ideas of legal restraint on majority rule, freedom, and equality are likely to impede and hinder the execution of the most extreme elements of human nature. Of course, when these values are discarded, ignored, or distorted the most probable result is terror, holocaust, or genocide. The absence of law, custom, and tradition does not produce a utopian paradise or more “individual” freedom, but chaos, destruction, and often, tragically, the loss of life. When people in a democratic society no longer believe in the institutions that have provided for a strong society, anarchy and all sorts of horrors are the ultimate end results. The veneer of civilization is frighteningly thin when it comes to human nature. Without custom, tradition, and a shared common culture based on law and accountability to hold human nature at bay a society is more likely to implode on itself than flourish. The ancient Greeks held a tragic and existential view of the world where human beings struggled for life in a fixed and absolute world rooted in human nature (a human nature mixed with virtue and vice) but understood that human nature itself had to be restrained. As Aristotle reminds us in his Ethics, “no moral virtue develops in us by nature; rather we have the potentiality for good implanted within us that can grow only through habit and custom.”¹

In these earliest examinations of the idea of democracy, there are several important ideas that have continued throughout the ages that shape the discussion of Western liberal democracies. These ideas are the rule of law, education, the free exchange of ideas, and a tragic, existential understanding of human nature. Of course, these are not the only ideas essential to democracy, but the ancient Greeks understood these ideas as the most essential.

Herodotus explains that an important element of democracy is that everyone ought to be considered equal before the law. The Greek word isonomy conveys the idea that everyone is equal before the law. If someone places himself or herself above the law or discounts the written laws, then lawlessness and tyranny results. (Of course, a democracy may elect a tyrant or dictator that functions under the rule of law with the consent of the people – as the twentieth century witnessed with Hitler in Germany.) The presence of law does not necessarily make a government democratic but there is a democratic impulse if it is admitted that no person ought to be above the law. This democratic ideal is realized when everyone falls under and has recourse to the same laws. A poor citizen can, or ought to win any legal case against a wealthy person if he has the law on his side. Citizens must really believe this if it is going to work (again, if citizens no longer believe in the institutions of democracy a break down in that democratic society will occur). Historically, the West has provided ways and opportunities to correct bad laws while preserving the ultimate rule of law. Civil disobedience is a way to accept a law, and show that it is bad while at the same time honoring the rule of law. Dissent itself is a Western value.

The Greeks had a high regard for the rule of law. Socrates, rather than breaking the law when he was given the opportunity, chose to drink the hemlock. And when Xerxes asks one of his Greek assistants why the Spartans will not flee from him (due to his overwhelming army), Herodotus records, “For though they be freemen, they are not in all respects free; Law is the master whom they won; and this master they fear more than thy subjects fear thee.”² In addition, the great historian Thucydides indicates the Greek respect for law and the abuses which occur when it is disregarded in his account of the revolt at Corcyra. He writes, “Indeed, men too often take upon themselves in the prosecution of their revenge to set the example of doing away with those general laws to which all alike can look for salvation in adversity, instead of allowing them to subsist against the day of danger when their aid may be required.”³ When law is discarded it will be difficult to find help from it when it is really needed. The greatest of the Greek writers all understood the importance of the rule of law and how its presence could be a democratic influence in society and the state. Rome during its Republican phase understood this too. The Concilium Plebis, election of Tribunes, and the Law of the 12 tables all worked together to support the rule of law.

The Greek idea that everyone should be equal before the law is the basis of modern liberal constitutions. Of course, this ideal is rarely met in the course of human history, including the Greeks – the law in Athens was not always fair – but the mere idea that no one should be above the law and that laws need to be written to provide equal access to all is an idea that should be taken seriously. Isonomy was the Greek ideal that everyone was equal before the law. This idea occurred first to the Greeks and not with the Hittites, Assyrians, or Egyptians. Even Hammurabi’s elaborate code of ordinances and procedures gave preferential treatment to the wealthy. Nonetheless, the rule of law does permit a space to be made for all people to be considered equal.

As we saw earlier, Herodotus’ debate between Megabyzus and Otanes is the first in history to examine the charge that democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Megabyzus was concerned that democracy is rule by the mob. But Otanes was equally concerned with this and countered that a true democracy rested on the rule of law. It is the rule of law and the idea that everyone is equal under the law, that protects citizens from a tyrant and a lawless mob. This is why he used the word isonomy. The rule of law holds everyone accountable and protects the weak from tyranny. Democracies can become a form of tyranny but only if the rule of law is discarded. The charge that democracies can become a rule of the mob or a form of tyranny is a legitimate concern. Nevertheless, when reverence and respect for the rule of law exists among the common citizens, mob rule is impossible. Mob rule will only exist when others place themselves above the law. In ancient Greece, laws were written on tablets of wood or marble and posted so all could see them. Everyone had access and the benefit of written, public, and accessible laws. In order to read the laws, however, education was necessary.

Next time, we will explore how education benefited the earliest democracies and what that means for our own day.

1 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 9, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 348.

2Herodotus., 233.

3 Ibid, Thucydides, 438.

Part five can be found here.

Apart from the ancient political philosophers, however, the ancient poets, historians, and playwrights also presented significant insights into the idea of democracy. The earliest examinations of democracy are given to us from Homer, Herodotus, and Euripides. These contributions are important because they shape the entire Western debate about consensual government.

The first impulse of shared rule is found in the Iliad, one of two surviving works of the blind poet Homer. The Iliad is one of the earliest writings of Western literature and tells the story of a coalition of Greek forces that attacked Troy in Asian Minor around 1184 – 1174 B.C. The Trojan Paris ran off with the beautiful Greek queen, Helen. Helen’s husband Menelaus and brother-in-law Agamemnon (also a king) gathered a great military expedition to retrieve Helen and punish Troy. Throughout Homer’s narrative, Agamemnon would meet with his generals and soldiers in a kind of tribal war council for military advice and guidance in conducting the siege. All soldiers participated in these councils. We learn this from Odysseus’ comment to a deserter “you count for nothing, neither in war nor in council.”1 At one point, after a defeat by the Trojans, Agamemnon considers leaving Troy and going home. Odysseus convinces Agamemnon to continue prosecuting the war because the soldiers would rather stay, fight, and die with honor, rather than leave in shame. Agamemnon is forced to seek a better way and he democratically seeks advice from anyone who would give it. Homer tells us,

At that the king of men Agamemnon backed down;

“A painful charge, Odysseus, straight to the heart.

I am hardly the man to order men, against their will,

to haul the oar-swept vessels out to the sea. So now

whoever can find a better plan, let him speak up,

young soldier or old. I would be pleased to hear him”.²

In this single passage Homer gives us an early glimpse of the necessary elements of consensual government including mutual debate, discussion, and consensus building. Agamemnon was not willing to force his troops to do something against their will but rather, was willing to listen to any soldier young or old for a better plan. Essentially, Agamemnon gave up his authority and placed it in the people, (in this case, his soldiers) and sought to hear them and listen to them, also another quality of democratic leaders. Democracy also has a pragmatic emphasis and the Greeks understood this too. Achilles’ great friend, Patroclus, tells us, “the proof of battle is action, the proof of words, debate.” The Greeks loved to debate but also understood the necessity of action. Democracy itself survives by debate, consensus building, and putting ideas into action.

Sometimes authors will criticize Homer as undemocratic.³ In one passage in book two, Odysseus punishes Thersites for insolence and yelling obscenities at Agamenmon. The fact that Thersites is punished is taken as proof that Homer does not support free dissent and is therefore undemocratic. It is difficult, however, to make this charge because Odysseus and Agamemnon are sensitive to the needs of their soldiers, offers them a voice in decision making, and will listen to them (even deserters are allowed to attend the council) . Odysseus does punish Thersites but it was for breaking military protocol, insubordination, and arguing over plunder. Odysseus may have been wrong for punishing Thersites, but that is a separate question from whether or not he was a democrat.

One can find both elements of democracy and elements of aristocracy in the Iliad. A democratic influence can be seen when his main characters are open to the advice of common soldiers and not just the aristocracy or landed nobles. However, the Iliad is not a treatise on political theory. Homer never gives the kind of systematic analysis of government or the state in the way a Plato or Aristotle would. The Iliad is a great work of imaginative poetry exploring the existential human predicament of living life in the face of death, war, and the mortal struggle for immortality. It is also worth remembering that Homer was telling his story at the same time as the rise of the Greek city-states (around 700 B.C.). Homer was speaking of events that occurred almost 500 years prior to his telling of the story, and having familiarity with the changing political structures of his time, could have inserted democratic ideas into the oral tradition. Homer was telling his story when different conceptions of government were being explored. No longer was aristocracy, oligarchy or monarchy the only options for the citizens of emerging city-states. Like the poet Hesiod, it is possible that Homer understood the changing political climate of his times (although Hesiod was no friend of rule by the people) and realized the significant shift from aristocracy to popular or democratic rule. Nonetheless, it is Homer who gives us the first minute glimpse of consensual government in the history of Western civilization. However, it is Herodotus that gives us the first historical debate on the values and dream of democracy.

The Greek historian Herodotus provides the first political discussion in Western thought about the benefits of democracy against the strengths of oligarchy, and monarchy.⁴ This debate sets up the entire conversation in Western thought regarding many of the challenges and advantages of democracy as a form of government. Ironically, this early debate over consensual rule did not occur in Greece but in Persia. Herodotus sets the scene after Darius I rises to power through a conspiracy of seven men from the aristocratic class of Persia. These men resented the fact that Persia was ruled by a Mede and decided to kill their king, Smerdis the Magian. After their successful coup, the men debated about how to set up the new government and how to best rule the Persian kingdom. Otanes, one of the conspirators, suggests democracy (the rule of the many), Megabyzus submits oligarchy (the rule of the few) as the best form of government, and Darius argues for monarchy (the rule of one).

Otanes, arguably the first promoter of consensual government in Western history, gives a profound speech explaining the merits of rule by the people. He remembers the tyranny of one of their former kings, Cambyses, and argues for democracy because their kings have been unaccountable. He asks the question,

“How indeed is it possible that monarchy should be a well adjusted thing, when it allows a man to do as he likes without being answerable? Such license is enough to stir strange and unwonted thoughts in the heart of the worthiest of men. Give a person this power, and straightway his manifold good things puff him up with pride, while envy is so natural to human kind that it cannot but arise in him.”⁵

Otanes understands that unrestrained power will easily corrupt the best of men. Centuries before Lord Acton, Otanes was aware that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Otanes also hints at one of the greatest concepts and values in the history of Western thought – the necessity of public audit and accountability for political leaders. Human nature is too easily corrupted and needs to be held responsible for its actions. But the worst of all, according to Otanes, is that the king, “sets aside the laws of the land, puts men to death without trial, and subjects women to violence.”⁶ Otanes is also pointing us to the necessity of the rule of law. But Otanes goes further; he envisions a government where everyone is equal before the law. He explains,

The rule of the many, on the other hand, has, in the first place, the fairest of names, to wit, isonomy; and further it is free from all those outrages which a king is wont to commit. Their places are given by lot, the magistrate is answerable for what he does, and measures rest with commonality. I vote, therefore, that we do away with the monarchy, and raise the people to power. For the people are all in all.⁷

Otanes understands that democracy can succeed if everyone falls under the same rule of law, if official leaders are held accountable, and procedures and decisions ultimately rest with the “commonality”.

Megabyzus, another conspirator, suggests setting up an oligarchy (or rule of the few). Long before Plato, Megabyzus was concerned that democracy was nothing more than mob rule. He called it a “rude unbridled mob” and explains,

The tyrant in all his doings, at least knows what he is about, but a mob is altogether devoid of knowledge; for how should there be any knowledge in a rabble, untaught and with no natural sense of what is right and fit? It rushes wildly into state affairs with all the fury of a stream swollen in the winter, and confuses everything.⁸

Megabyzus is the first to articulate that the idea of shared consensual rule will be a disaster if the uneducated are allowed to participate in government. He believes a few of the worthiest citizens should rule the many. According to Megabyzus, the best of the aristocratic class should rule Persia and the collective wisdom and advice from these men will prevail and provide the finest form of government. In other words, Megabyzus believes that the ignorant and common people are incapable of governing themselves and he believes the wisdom of the best men (in Megabyzus’ understanding the aristocracy) acting in concert will ensure the best type of rule.

Darius then speaks about the strengths and benefits of monarchy. He agrees with Megabyzus about weaknesses of democracy. He believes democracy will ultimately become a form of mob rule, or tyranny by the majority. He also thinks, however, that oligarchy will break down among competing aristocrats. He thinks the oligarchs will end up fighting among themselves, civil war will break out, and the safety of the kingdom will be at risk. The oligarchs will be too busy fighting among themselves to address real issues of crime, foreign policy, or administering justice wisely. Darius claims that ultimately one oligarch will win and become the monarch which supports his view that the best form of government is monarchy. On the other hand, he believes a benevolent monarch will have the best interests of his people in mind and will rule in a magnanimous and prudent way. Darius explains,

What government can possibly be better than that of the very best man in the whole state? The counsels of such a man are like himself, and so he governs the mass of people to their heart’s content; while at the same time his measures against evil-doers are kept more secret than in other states.⁹

Interestingly, one of Darius critiques of democracy has to do with crime. He believes democracy will foster crime (“malpractices” and “villainies”) to such an extent that someone will come to the defense of the commonality and be so admired that this person will become a king. Darius’ other argument for monarchy is an appeal to tradition. He appeals to the ancient hereditary laws that support monarchy (never asking if these laws are right or wrong). Darius, became Darius I, expanded the Persian Empire but was defeated by an alliance of Greek forces at the Battle of Marathon in 490 B.C. when he tried to invade Greece.

In the next post, we will discover what ultimately happened to Otanes’ vision of democracy and an Athenian poet who found himself defending the idea of democracy.

1 Homer. Iliad. Trans. by Robert Fagles. (New York: Penguin Books, 1991), 106.

2 Ibid. 433.

3 For example, Paul Woodruff in his book, First Democracy simply states, “Homer is no democrat,” on page 129. Professor Woodruff is wrong.

4 Herodotus lived between 484 – 425 B.C., he probably wrote his History around 440 B.C.

5 Herodotus, 107.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid., 108.

9 Ibid., 108.