Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy, Part Four

by Dave Seng

Part three can be found here.

The ancient theorists of political philosophy were, of course, Plato and Aristotle. Plato was no friend of democracy, while Aristotle believed a certain form of democracy was possible (though he rejected what he called “extreme democracy”). Both of these thinkers are important not only for their ideas but how they set the stage for subsequent thought and development about the dream of democracy. Also, these ancient political philosophers were very much concerned with human nature – with the enduring drives, passions, fears, hatreds, and aspirations of human beings (elements of humanity that are true across time and space). For the ancients, these important elements of human nature were the starting point of their political (and ethical) philosophy. This was especially true for both Plato and Aristotle.

Plato wrote one of the most important books in political history called the Republic. It is not only a work on politics and the state, but describes the intricate relationships between political thought and ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, and even art. Plato had a peculiar view of the state but his understanding of the state comes from his theories of knowledge (epistemology) and reality.

In order to understand how Plato’s epistemology influenced his political theory, it is important to see first what forms of government he rejects. Moving from bad to worse, Plato rejected timocracy, by which he meant the rule by those who are primarily motivated by ambition and honor. In such rulers, an inferior part of the soul, the spirited and emotional part, has gained dominance. He also rejected oligarchy or plutocracy, the rule of the (few) rich. According to Plato, a preoccupation with wealth is even more base than a preoccupation with honor, and, moreover, the rule by the wealthy would inevitably bring about class warfare and alienation.1 Next he rejected democracy as yet a further degeneration of government, though what he meant by this word is something different from a modern understanding of it. For Plato, in a smallish city-state like that of Athens, democracy meant the actual and equal participation of every citizen in the affairs of state, rather than participation by representation.2 When one examines Plato’s formation of democracy it is easy to see that democracy has evolved and developed from his conception of it. Plato’s classic critique of democracy is that majority rule ultimately becomes mob rule. Finally, Plato rejected despotism and dictatorships as acceptable forms of government.

Plato’s solution was to create a regime of the best, or better yet – an aristocracy. But Plato didn’t mean rule by the landed nobility. Aristocracy simply means “rule of the best” and for Plato the best were philosophers. And this is where Plato’s epistemology comes into play. Plato believed philosophers were the only ones who have escaped the world of becoming and peered into the transcendent world of pure being. From this, Plato believes philosophers can discover the absolutes of truth, goodness, and beauty. Philosophers are those who have been unchained from the mundane elements of this world and able to discover the ultimate truths of reality. According to Plato, they have escaped the darkness of the Cave and have beheld the Good.3 Plato himself calls this the central thesis of the Republic: “Philosophers must be kings.”4 In the Republic, Plato uses Socrates to explain why a philosopher king would be the best ruler,

Unless either philosophers become kings in their countries or those who are now called kings and rulers come to be sufficiently inspired with a genuine desire for wisdom; unless that is to say political power and philosophy meet together, while the many natures who now go their several ways in the one or the other direction are forcibly debarred from doing so, there can be no rest from troubles, my dear Glaucon, for states, nor yet as I believe, for all mankind; nor can this commonwealth which we have imagined ever till then see the light of day and grow to its full stature. This it was that I have so long hung back from saying; I knew what a paradox it would be, because it is hard to see that there is no other way of happiness either for the state of for the individual.5

Plato believes that the best form of rule is the “philosopher king” and such a person will have the innate qualities of temperance, courage, graciousness, and one who loves truth, justice, and wisdom. Plato rhetorically asks the question “Since the philosophers are those who can apprehend the eternal and unchanging, while those who cannot do so, but are lost in the mazes of multiplicity and change, are not philosophers, which of the two ought to be in control of the state?”6

Plato did try to install a philosopher kingship in Syracuse but was asked to leave when his project failed. It is difficult to conceive of such a regime in the twenty-first century. It is unlikely that, today, many will accept the idea that philosophers should rule over the masses. Not everyone holds to Plato’s metaphysics of truth and reality and it would be difficult to find a Platonic philosopher-king today that will appeal to a majority of people. History has rarely seen a philosopher given to political pursuits, or a politician given to philosophical investigation. While there have been many political philosophers throughout history, few have been able to combine a genuine pursuit of philosophy with the pragmatic, consensual, and daily concerns of political life. (A couple of rare exceptions would be Marcus Aurelius and perhaps Vaclav Havel in the twentieth century.) Nonetheless, any form of intellectual aristocracy would fail to gain the consent of a large segment of a society that is always suspicious of intellectual or philosophic elites. Furthermore, not everyone would like other features of Plato’s social-political program. While it is true that he was one of the earliest advocates of women’s rights (the philosopher-king could easily be a woman for Plato), he also proposed a full-scale social program of shared community property and children, eugenics, arranged marriages, and censorship. While Plato was no friend of democracy, his critiques of shared rule have shaped the discussion of democracy for thousands of years. It was Plato’s student Aristotle that is among the first of the ancient theorists to give a presentation and defense of democracy. The next post will explore the political contributions Aristotle makes to political thought.

1 Miller, 494.

2 Ibid.

3 In the Republic, book seven, Plato gives his analogy of the cave. Plato argues that most people take this world for ultimate reality when in fact the particulars of this world actually reflect transcendent reality that is more real than this world. Only by escaping the embodied reality of this world – the cave – and peering into the transcendent realm can one find truth and ultimate reality.

4 Miller, 494.

5 Plato, The Republic, 473C – E, tr. Francis MacDonald Cornford (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945).

6 Ibid., 484B.

Consensual Government, Intellectual History

On Democracy, Part Three

by Dave Seng

Part two can be found here.

The sovereign authority in classical Athens was the Assembly (ekklesia – people’s assembly). This Assembly would debate important issues of the polis and vote on decisions relating to foreign and domestic policy. The people in the Assembly were empowered to elect military and financial magistrates. The Assembly also had the power to appoint a panel of legislators to initiate legislation and to appoint judges for political trials.1 Decisions made by the Assembly were done by majority vote – usually a show of hands.

The Assembly met forty times a year on a hill called the Pnyx (just outside the Acropolis) and consisted of 6,000 male citizens. Any adult male citizen could take part and if numbers were wanting, the magistrates ordered a sweep of public places with a scarlet rope, which brought in enough people for business to be transacted.2 Pericles introduced payment for duty in the Assembly and although it was less than a days wage it was attractive enough that the magistrates had to keep people out. Pericles introduced pay to allow the poorer citizens a chance to participate in the governing body of Athens. Any adult male citizen could speak in the Assembly; the right to speak openly and freely was known as parrhesia – the most precious right of all Athenians. Nonetheless, this right was sometimes given over to rhetors, those who could sway the assembly by their powerful speaking abilities. In contrast, Sparta allowed its citizens the right to vote, but speaking was restricted only to the kings, magistrates, and senior council members.3

The Assembly worked in conjunction with the Council. The Council served as a check on the majority rule of the Assembly. The Assembly could only vote on proposals that had first been approved by the council. In this sense, the council served as our legislative bodies do today.4 The council was appointed annually by lot, equally from the ten tribes. It represented a cross-section of Athenians, and would normally keep illegal proposals from coming to a vote. All laws had to be consistent with the Athenian constitution. If someone put a law or proposal forward that was counter to the constitution they would be charged with violating the law, and if found guilty, charged a heavy fine.5

Legislation could be framed only by a representative body chosen by lot; this legislative panel was known as the Nomothetai. If the Assembly wished to modify the laws, it would have to refer the matter to this body. If the legislative panel approved a modification to the laws, that would then come to the Assembly for a vote.6

The Athenians did not employ professional judges or prosecutors. The popular courts (dikasteria) met on roughly 200 days in a year. On a court day members of the panel of 6,000 jurors showed up in the morning in the Agora (a sacred meeting area for political purposes) and a number of jurors were selected by lot in order to discourage any jury tampering and bribery. These courts consisted of 201 or 401 judges (the Athenians did not make a strong distinction between jurors and judges) for private actions and 501 or more in public actions.7 (Socrates’ trial contained 501 jurors. Again, the reason for the large juries was to discourage those who wanted to bribe the jury. The 501st vote was given to Athena in the case of a tie and would always vote for acquittal.) Each court was presided over by a magistrate and in a session of some eight hours, the judges had to hear and decide either one public action or a number of private actions.8

Some important positions were filled by election. Athens had about 1,200 magistrates (archai), elected from among citizens over 30 who presented themselves as candidates. About 100 were elected by the Assembly whereas the 1,100 were chosen by lot, often organized in boards of ten with one representative from each tribe. The period of office was restricted to one year and a magistrate selected by lot could only hold the same office once whereas elected magistrates could be re-elected.9 Before entering office magistrates had to undergo an examination before a board and, at the end of their term of office, to render accounts before another board. This was done to provide public accountability of elected officials. The magistrates’ principle tasks were to summon and preside over the decision making bodies, and to see the execution of the decisions made. Of the other boards of magistrates the most important were the ten generals (strategoi) who commanded the army and navy and oversaw the financial obligations of the polis. They also worked with the nine archons to supervise the law courts and major festivals.10

This picture of Athenian democracy is a very different one from contemporary understandings of democracy. In the Assembly and popular courts almost the whole people participated (or at least all present citizens), and as council and magistracies were continually changing their personnel, the people really did become the ruler.11 The Athenians were ruled by assemblies and councils and it is amazing to think that they had no professional judges and prosecutors, relying solely on lot to find individuals to fill important judicial positions. But the Athenians actually believed all educated citizens were equal for such tasks, and formed a much more democratic system than we have today which relies on a professional class of judges, lawyers, and publicity managers. The Athenian system worked as well as it did because it relied on citizen participation, common education, and common traditions, customs, and culture – Pericles himself refers to a common ethical code “which although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace.”12 The Athenians had a profound respect for their community and life together. Furthermore, the ancient Athenians really believed in the institutions of law and consensual rule – institutions they helped discover and form through trial and error. However, democracy was not always popular even among the Athenians. Plato was among the first ancient theorists to express doubts about democracy as the best form of government.

1 The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization. Ed. by Hornblower, Simon and Anthony Spawforth. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998), S. V. democracy, Athenian.

2 Woodruff, Paul. First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 33.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid., 34.

6 Ibid.

7 The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization. S. V. democracy, Athenian.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Ed. Hammond, N.G. L. and H.H. Scullard. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.), S.V. Democracy.

12 Thucydides, 396.

Consensual Government, Intellectual History

On Democracy, Part Two

by Dave Seng

This is part two in a series on the history of consensual government as it developed in the West. We will spend the next couple of posts looking at ancient Athens. Click here for part one.

This ideal, or dream of democracy, was given to us by the ancient Greeks. The thought of sharing power among the many rather than the few never even occurred to the Sumerians, Hittites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, or the great enemy of Greek freedom – the Persians. Consensual government is a product of Western civilization and finds its starting point among the ancient Greeks.

The shape of Athenian democracy, however, was very different from modern liberal democracies. During 507 – 321 B.C., Athens was the closest thing this world has seen to a direct constitutional democracy. For this to be possible, certain social structures, customs, and institutions had to be in place – unique conditions rarely experienced in human history. The entire population of Attica, the surrounding area of Athens, was probably between 200,000 and 300,000.1 Athens itself had about 30,000 enfranchised adult male citizens. Slaves and women were not allowed to vote. (Slaves alone may have been a quarter of the population of Athens.) Nonetheless, because the voting population was so low, they could all assemble in one place, listen to speeches and debates, and make important decisions for the polis. This form of direct democracy is not possible in any contemporary democracy. Athenian democratic success largely owes its achievement to outstanding and talented leaders such as, Solon, Cleisthenes, and Pericles – men who were articulate and could balance the rule of law with pragmatic, political, and economic concerns for both the aristocracy and “mesoi” – the emerging middle class. The strength of democracies rests equally with leaders that work towards the common good and the average citizen.

In addition, Greece was culturally unified. Herodotus speaks of the unity during the Persian wars between Sparta, Athens and the rest of Greece of their unity against the hated “barbarian” Xerxes,

Again, there is our common brotherhood with the Greeks: our common language, the altars and the sacrifices of which we all partake, the common character which we all bear – did the Athenians betray all these, of a truth it would not be well. Know then now, if ye have not known it before, that while one Athenian remains alive, we will never join alliance with Xerxes.2

The ancient Greeks would find cohesion in the same language, customs, and traditions. They shared a common belief and reverence in the gods of Homer. Family piety was common as they sought to honor their ancestors who were born from the land that they worked and died for. Sports played an important role in every polis and even wars were stopped so the soldiers could participate in the games that would involve all of Greece. They also shared a common interest in art, philosophy, literature, and history – human pursuits that sparked a love for beauty, discussion, rationality, and free inquiry. Though there were ethnic differences between Dorians, Ionians, and Phrygians there was much more to unite them as well. Common institutions held the Greek spirit together.

Athenian direct democracy simply would not be feasible in today’s contemporary political situation. The ancient Athenians were particular to their own time and place and to try to recreate what they achieved 2,500 years ago in today’s world would not be wise. Since the rise of the nation-state during the nineteenth century modern democracies have become too large for direct participation. An examination of Athenian democracy is still valuable, however, as an aid in discovering ideas and clues that would help us understand our own time, how democracies work, and how to improve them. No democracy is perfect but a study of the past can give us ideas that we can apply today. Western civilization should not be seen as static, either. It is evolving, changing, adapting, and growing. The Greeks were fascinated with other cultures and implemented what was useful and seemed good to them. Herodotus admired elements of Egyptian and Persian culture. Thucydides had an affinity to Spartan society. Democracy itself is an evolving concept and the twenty first century brings a whole set of different challenges and opportunities to consensual rule that the Greeks never faced. By carefully studying the past we can learn how to adapt and incorporate ideas that may be helpful today. On the other hand, the Athenians did make mistakes. But they made different mistakes than we are making today. The important thing about the past is that it can serve to correct our own mistakes, if we are willing to listen responsibly and learn from those who have gone before us.

Athenian democracy was different from any democracies in existence today. Even so, they were guided by ideas that still resonate with contemporary democracies – ideas of freedom, equality, rule of law, legal checks on majority rule, citizen participation, public audit of elected officials, and citizen control of the military. The basic structure of Athenian government consisted of the assembly, council, and elected officials (generals that held military posts and sometime served as political leaders or archons). The Athenians believed all these posts were to function under the rule of law.

The rule of law was essential to Athenian democracy. Pericles in his funeral oration explains that it is the laws which provide equal opportunity for everyone to participate in the governing bodies of Athens,

Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his position.3

The idea that law should provide equal justice to all was a revolutionary concept in the ancient world and Pericles believed it was among the most important institutions of Athenian democracy. It created equality, freedom, and a citizenry that respected both the magistrates and the laws. Nonetheless, slaves and women were disenfranchised and the idea of equality was more of a political idea and did not seem to spread to economic or social spheres of society. Perhaps the Athenians did not fully understand this contradiction or realize what to do with the powerful idea of democracy.

1 Woodruff, First Democracy: The Challenge of An Ancient Idea. (New York: Oxford University Press), 2005, 32.

2 Herodotus, The History of Herodotus, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 6, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 287.

3 Thucydides, The Peloponnesian Wars, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 6, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 396.

Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Uncategorized

On Democracy, Part One

by Dave Seng
Photo courtesy of Nathan Perkins

Note: This is the first part of several essays that will explore the development of constitutional consensual government as it has developed in the West. This post is one of many and primarily focuses on definitions.

The idea of democracy is among the oldest and most inspiring ideals of the human spirit. In fact, it is impossible to get past the earliest writings of Western literature without encountering the idea of democracy and there is probably a no more controversial form of government. This ancient idea of government by the consent of citizens has been scorned, cheered, ridiculed, debated, argued for, and against by most of the greatest thinkers in history. Within the idea of democracy, we see many of the virtues and vices of Western civilization itself. For its very existence, democracy requires the free exchange of ideas, rule of law, public audit and accountability, discussion, debate, economic and individual freedom, dissent, and a constructive consensus among people for the purpose of building a government for the people. These ideals are inherent to the classical and Western ideas of democracy. On the other hand, democracy can easily devolve into mob rule, partisan politics, and a mere clash of wills – also elements found in Western liberal democracies. Democracy is an ideal and as such, it points to the greatness of what human beings should be able to accomplish. The greatest ancient proponents of democracy have been poets, playwrights, generals, and philosophers. Democracy, however, will always be an ideal. An examination of how this idea has developed and has come down through the ages will help shed understanding on the contemporary conception of democracy and modern republics. By examining this ancient ideal and exploring its evolution we will not only have a better conception of where we have been but the opportunities, possibilities, and challenges that face modern democracies.

When one investigates such a great idea as democracy it is helpful to start by clarifying and defining its meaning. When clarity is attained it becomes easier to understand its development in the course of Western intellectual history. In the case of democracy, however, a clear definition is difficult to attain but not impossible. The term “democracy” is often misunderstood and used without any deeper critical reflection. Many times, it automatically evokes conceptions such as the right to vote, majority rule, or a form of partisan representational government, without any kind of thought to what these terms are or should mean. None of these ideas alone, however, will be sufficient to express the ancient and classical ideal of democracy. Democracy can not simply refer to the right to vote, because many countries offer the right to vote without allowing any real power to its citizens. Also, majority rule alone is not itself democratic if it does not allow a voice for the minority or function under the rule of law. A simple “rule of the majority” can easily turn into a tyranny.

Furthermore, a strictly representative government is equally undemocratic if the political parties are served rather than citizens. Representatives that are devoted to their parties rather than seeking the will of their constituents are positively undemocratic. True democracies are not based solely on the right to vote, majority rule, or representation. Historically, most democracies have been a mixture of these elements – or in classical terms most democracies are a mixture of oligarchy, aristocracy and popular sovereignty (what eighteenth and nineteenth century thinkers, following Aristotle, called “mixed government”). Nonetheless, the idea of government by the people, under the equality of law, for the common good is an idea that is returned to again and again throughout history, and is an ideal that should be attempted even when we find instances in history when it is imperfectly conceived or executed. The ancient Athenians would always return to a democratic form of government whenever they were ruled by an oligarchy or tyranny.

One can get a better idea of democracy when it is contrasted with the idea of republic or republican form of government. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines a republic “as a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.”1 Similarly, Merriam-Webster’s defines democracy as “Government by the people; esp: rule of the majority, or a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.”2 There are several ideas that an investigation of these definitions will highlight. Both definitions take popular sovereignty as the starting point and seem to indicate that consent of the governed is a necessary requisite for each form of rule. Democracy seems to emphasize the rule of the many or majority as the supreme power regardless if it is a direct democracy or representation (indirect). The rule of law is never mentioned in the definition of democracy while law and representation seem essential to a republican form of government. It seems then, that democracy emphasizes the rule of the majority while a republic emphasizes representative government according to the rule of law. Also, since a republic is still based on the consent of a body of citizens, it should be considered a type or form of democracy although it should be distinguished from a pure or direct democracy. Perhaps this is why democracy is usually the term used to describe the American system although in actuality it is a republic.

Through the ages many authors and political philosophers have offered different definitions of democracy. Philosopher Ed Miller defines democracy as “government in which the power is vested in the body of citizens, either directly or through elected representatives.”3 Paul Woodruff simply states “democracy is government by the people for the people.”4 More philosophically, Mortimer Adler explains that the necessary elements of any democracy ought to allow individuals “to be governed by their consent, with a voice in their own government, and with their natural rights secured.”5 For these posts, a broad definition of democracy will be used to include all legitimate governments that seek to rule by the consensus of its citizens for the common good. This includes parliamentary forms of government, constitutional monarchies, as well as republics or the three part American system of President, Congress, and Judiciary. Ideally, a democracy exists when political power is based on a consensus of citizens for the purpose of the common good (if the common good is ignored a democracy would become a tyranny). For this reason, the term consensual government will be used to designate those legitimate governments that rest the ultimate political power in the many for the common good.

1 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 11th ed. S.V. Republic.

2 Ibid. S.V. Democracy.

3 Miller, Ed. Questions That Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy. 4th ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1996), 573.

4 Woodruff, Paul. First Democracy: The Challenge of An Ancient Idea. (New York: Oxford University Press), 2005, 15.

5 Adler, Mortimer. Adler’s Philosophical Dictionary. (New York: Scribner, 1995), 79.