Representative Democracy is Better than Direct Democracy

Congress is frustratingly slow. Today, with all the government shutdowns and division in Congress, it seems that our representatives accomplish nothing. The static nature of our government annoys many Americans, who want their representatives to vote on issues they believe in. However, these past few weeks in my history class have made me appreciative of our slow representative democracy. After learning about the volatile nature of the Athenian direct democracy and participating in an imitation of an Athenian assembly, I have realized that the rash decision making of ordinary people is not the best for a state. For the sake of longevity and well thought-out policy-making decisions, the USA’s representative democracy allows for an educated electorate that dedicates their life to politics.

Direct democracy caused Athens to have a poorly educated electorate that typically voted based on selfish needs. A notable example would be the way the Athenian assembly voted on the lives of 6 generals after the Battle of Arginusae. In the battle, storms prevented the rescue of the survivors of the sunken Athenian triremes. News of this outraged the public, and the direct democracy, out of the selfish desire for revenge, impulsively voted to execute the generals. Xenophon claimed that shortly afterward “repentance seized the Athenians, and they passed a decree authorizing the public prosecution of those who had deceived the people, and the appointment of proper securities for their persons until the trial was over.” (Xenophon 1. 7. 35) Voting on such an important issue should have enough thought into it that it doesn’t cause the electorate “repentance.”

In America’s representative democracy, even if an idea as popular as executing generals were to exist with the public, the legal process would make it extremely tedious and almost impossible to pass such a law. To understand how our government differs from ancient Athens’ government, James Madison in Federalist No. 51 asserts that “ In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” What Madison is speaking about embodies our system of checks and balances. It controls the government to keep it from making overly ambitious or emotionally-driven decisions that may not appear to be good decisions after the fact.

Opponents to my ideas will point out the fact that elected officials will sometimes vote against the desires of the majority of their constituents; while this is true, it’s hardly a good reason to have a direct democracy. A trustee (a representative who votes for what he/she thinks is best) is not a poor representative just because they don’t vote for everything that their constituents want. A clear example of why this is the case is the fact that the majority (61-69% according to YouGov) of Americans support the withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan; what if our elected officials know more than we do about the conflicts we are in? Should we trust the American public’s opinion if only 58% of voters (according to Rasmussen Reports) know that we are, in fact, still at war with Afghanistan? The answer is no, some issues are better left to our elected officials to decide on due to the knowledge they possess that the average American doesn’t have. It’s also important to note that most representatives are a mixture of both a trustee and a delegate (a representative who votes based of his/her constituents’ desires) to effectively represent their constituents opinions and to make the best well-informed decisions for them.

It is tricky comparing the USA and ancient Athens because of the large time gap. However, it’s important to make these comparisons when many Americans feel like their voices aren’t being heard in the government. By analyzing the failures of Athens’ chaotic direct democracy, we gain insight on the fact that while the USA’s system isn’t perfect, it effectively utilizes the system of checks and balances between the branches of government as the framers of the US Constitution intended it to be.

-Kevin Smith

Word count: 602

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/10/08/most-americans-would-support-withdrawal-afghanista

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/afghanistan/do_voters_know_we_re_still_at_war_with_afghanistan

Athenian Democracy and American Democracy

Though the Athenians had a direct democracy and we now have a representative democracy (both being democracies at their core), the major difference between the two is the inclusiveness of government and who exactly was/is able to participate. In Athenian democracy only male Athenian citizens could vote and eventually, in order for poorer Athenians to attend Assembly meetings, the government paid poorer citizens so they could participate more. In American democracy, however, the fourteenth, fifteenth, and nineteenth amendments define what it means to be a citizen and ensure that all U.S. citizens enjoy the right to vote no matter their race or gender.

Athenians practiced a direct democracy in which every citizen was supposed to have a voice, excluding women, metics, and slaves. For the time this made sense. The idea that the men who were the warriors should also be the ones who were deciding whether they should go to war was popular. The Constitution of Athenians states, “the poor and the ordinary people there should have more power than the noble and rich, because it is the ordinary people who man the fleet and bring the city her power”. Currently, this is not the case, yet it certainly does not render their democracy invalid. On the contrary, it demonstrates that in their direct democracy the people who were most impacted by major decisions like going to war or paying taxes were the ones governing themselves. The major difference between American and Athenian democracy is then highlighted because these policies and issues also had effects on metics and women yet they had no say or vote. The Sicilian Expedition is an example of the Assembly making a history-altering decision without the input of metics (who would be affected). Against Nicias advice, the Assembly voted to trust Alcibiades and send troops and ships to conquer Sicily. This was a complete failure and women were ultimately affected as Athens continued to crumble. Also metics were needed to fund (monetarily and manuely) expeditions like this yet, along with women, they had no say in whether the Sicilian Expedition should occur or not.

In American democracy, inclusiveness is a key feature that the nation prides itself on. Although Athenians claimed that their form of government didn’t overlook anyone, only Athenian males played an active role in government. Now, however, there are Amendments in the Constitution that define what a citizen is and ensure that they are guaranteed the right to participate in government. The Fourteenth Amendment defines a citizen as anyone who is born or naturalized in the United States. The Fifteenth Amendment goes on to add that U.S. citizens have the right to vote and this right shall not be denied based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Finally, the Nineteenth Amendment states that citizens can’t be denied the right to vote based on sex either. These very Amendments helped President Obama get elected in 2008 when there was a 65% voter turnout among African Americans (Roberts) and 65.7 % voter turnout for registered female voters (Stark). It was decided that President Obama could best represent the citizenry as a whole. Minority groups played a major role in electing the leader of nation; in Athens this was unheard of.

Limiting who gets to participate in government is such a major difference because it impacts who gets to vote and what kind of legislation gets passed. Although the Athenians had a direct democracy and we now elect representatives, the amount of citizens who were represented was so much less in Athens. Women and metics were not able to attend Assembly meetings or vote, therefore their interests could not be vocalized or brought into account. In American democracy, citizens from all different backgrounds, race, gender, etc. have a say in who will best represent them. This system have have its flaws and not workout perfectly in practice, but for the most part a variety of interests are voiced and taken into consideration.

-Carina Richardson

Word Count: 600

https://www.cnn.com/2012/10/25/politics/btn-women-voters/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/politics/21vote.html

(The Constitution of Athens 38,39)

Gridlock, from Athens to America

When comparing Athenian Democracy with the current American model of Democracy, one major similarity is the gridlock that prevented citizens from proposing legislation. In ancient Athens, the assembly was often overburdened, and delayed by festivals to the point it could take years for certain policies to be debated in the Assembly. Similarly, in modern day American Democracy, gridlock happens for different reasons. Often, the gridlock is a result of different parties controlling the Senate and the House, or when Congress and the presidency controlled by different parties. By looking at the American model of Democracy and its battle with gridlock, the founding fathers use of Athenian democracy as a framework is seen. This is important because the both Athens and the founding fathers used gridlock in order to force compromise.

The reasons for gridlock in ancient Athens are outlined in The Old Oligarch. The overarching theme of why the assembly can become gridlock is “the quantity of business [the assembly is] not able to deal with all persons” (Xenophon 3.1). The quantity comes from the many dealings of the assembly. The assembly oversaw trials, had more immediate issues such as preparing for and monitoring current wars and ensuring revenue is collected and allocated. In addition to the many issues Athens dealt with on a regular basis, the assembly could not meet when Athens was holding a festival. These many delays led to individual citizens feeling dismissed by the assembly; however, if a group of citizens brought up an issue to the assembly, they were more likely to be heard. In order to make a group, citizens must reach a compromise on what the most important parts of their issues are. While this could lead to a rule of the majority, in practice, the compromises led to a more moderate solution to Athens’s issues.

Similar to the gridlock experienced in ancient Athens, American Democracy is often unable to address important issues due to gridlock quickly. The 1992 Congress experienced intense gridlock. Legislation proposed to reform lobbying and to reform voter registration laws were both unable to pass Congress due to gridlock (Binder, 2000). While the gridlock seen in the 1992 Congress prevented important laws from being passed, gridlock prevents political parties from becoming too polarized. The American system is designed so that policies too far to one side do not pass. Gridlock forces political parties to reach compromise, and often the resulting compromise makes the bill more moderate.

Gridlock ultimately forces compromise among groups. The concept of gridlock leading to policy that is more moderate is seen in both Athenian politics and modern day American policies. In both legislatures, often to reach a majority vote, compromises must be made in order to gain enough supporters. In American politics, gridlock has forced compromise on bills, while in ancient Greece, gridlock forced groups to compromise in order to work together.

Sarah A. Binder (2000). Going Nowhere: A Gridlocked Congress. Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/going-nowhere-a-gridlocked-congress/

Mark Rogerson 479

From the Pnyx to Capitol Hill, Democracy Has Come a Long Way

American society emphasizes democracy and the Constitution, and we often forget that although our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, democracy has existed for millenia. Back in the Fifth Century, BCE, Athens was governed by a direct democracy in which any citizen could attend the Assembly and debate and vote on legislation. American “democracy” is actually a republic, in which elected officials represent, or at least are supposed to represent the people’s best interests when debating and voting on legislation. Direct democracies often result in mob rule or tyranny of the majority, while representative democracies can bring misrepresentation and institutional oppression. Although both systems have their flaws, the United States’ Constitutional Democracy is a much better form of government than that used in Fifth-Century Athens.

Pericles boasted in his Funeral Oration that nobody “is held back” from democratic participation “because his reputation is not well known, as long as he can do good service to the city”(Thucydides ii.37). This appears to be a great feature of direct democracy, because anybody has an equal opportunity to have a say and make a difference. However, what if that person has no firm grasp on foreign policy, the economy, or voting rights? Although equal opportunity is beneficial to any democracy, there are less radical ways to go about accomplishing it. Allowing people with zero experience with government and politics to have a direct say in decisions made at the highest level is not responsible, as they can be easily swayed and unite with a mob mentality. When a higher proportion of the assembly is more easily swayed, leaders such as Alcibiades can gain influence, causing the failed Sicilian Expedition and the downfall of Athens in the Peloponnesian War.

There is no doubt that a representative democracy poses its own challenges. Rather than the fear of too many people having a direct say in decisions, only an elected few get to author and vote on key legislation. In the U.S. government, for example, the over three hundred million citizens are represented in congress by just five hundred thirty-five Senators and Representatives. Because so few people have a direct say in Congress, it is a big deal when somebody votes against the will of those they represent. Although false representation like this is possible, the people still hold checking power against elected officials. Constituents directly elect their representatives, so if a representative acts unfavorably to those they represent, they will likely not be re-elected, or have potential to further their career in politics. Politicians often start at the local level and work their way up. This enables them to gain experience and expertise by the time they make decisions for the nation as a whole. This prevents against whimsical mob rule decisions, and allows for legislation to be thoroughly debated and audited before it becomes law.

The people deserve to have some say in government, but a direct democracy gives the public a responsibility it cannot sustain. A representative democracy, meanwhile, uses the will of the people to keep its leaders in check, while fostering a setting in which leaders are well educated, and properly informed to make the right decisions on behalf of the nation.

-Ben Stanish

Word Count: 509

A Representative Democracy is an Equal Democracy

The current system of the representative democracy is the far better than direct democracy. With representative democracy, everyone has the ability to be heard equally and decisions are made by politicians who have a better understanding of political issues than many typical citizens.

To contrast the point of others, a direct democracy seems ideal in nature; however, there are many implications with this concept, some of which we have seen in class. Real political issues were masked by discussing who should be able to vote, who should be educated, and how the opposing political groups are not fit to run Athens. One could argue that this happens today in our representative democracy; however, I argue that it happens externally, whereas in Athens, these issues were focused on assembly participation rather than legitimate issues in the Athenian society. Moreover, those who did vote in the Athenian assembly were typically wealthy male citizens. Those who wanted to participate in government had to travel from days away to have their voices heard. This demonstrates some of the inconsistency in the ideals of a direct democracy: representation of the people by the people. There is no doubt that inconsistency in representation affected the Athenian society as whole; therefore, unfairly forcing legislation (possibly of a minority) on all citizens.

Consequently, a representative democracy equally represents all of its citizens, at least in the U.S. system. Americans that qualify to vote are equally heard against all other voters regardless of their background (as opposed to the Athenian system). In the end, those that win elections do so because the citizens support their agenda and agree with their views. Therefore, a politician is put into power who has been given representation by his or her constituents who are possess the same political viewes. Without a doubt he or she is educated on modern political issues, persuasive enough to gain supporters, confident that changes can be made, and will carry out the views that his or her constituents wish. This means that a mix of all political ideologies, of course distributed as equally as the citizens political ideologies, are in charge of creating, discussing, and carrying out politics.

Alexis de Tocqueville states that “the health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of function performed by private citizens” (Democracy in America). This means that the strength of a democratic society is directly related to that quality of its citizens. It is no doubt that having uneducated citizens speak in the assembly created a mob mentality, wasted valuable time, and prompted secondary discussions on issues that were not important (who should be educated, who should be able to speak, ect). Furthermore, the lack of professional politicians in the Athenian democracy led to rash decisions. The Melian dialogue highlights many of the greedy and uneducated statements born from the effects of a direct democracy.

The Athenian system of direct democracy had many issues: masking real political issues, and biased voting of wealthy citizens to name a few. A representative democracy remains the best way to equally allow all citizens to voice their opinion (regardless of background) by voting for political leaders who have a greater capacity in politics and will carry out the agenda their constituents want.

-Brandon Gore

Word count: 541

Why Direct Democracy is a Better Way to Govern

I believe that the direct Athenian model of democracy is better than the representative American model of democracy. While representative democracy is better in theory, direct democracy is the best way to ensure full participation in democracy.

In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison argued in favor of a representative democracy: a republic. He felt that the republican model that the framers of the Constitution drafted made “valuable improvements…on the popular models, both ancient and modern” (Federalist 10). He argued that the main problems in government are due to “factions,” and that the “advantage which the republic has over a democracy” is “controlling the effects of faction” (Federalist 10). He argued that this way to control factions would result in a government that allows results in the most democratic and inclusive government as opposed to the Athenian mob-rule coming from “the people in their collective capacity” (Federalist 63). In theory, this republic is effective and democratic.

While American democracy is great it theory, the actual execution of American representative democracy is not as James Madison intended. The democratic aspect of representative democracy lies in the fact that the elected representatives vote to protect their constituents’ interests. As we have seen throughout American politics, that is not always the case. Madison assumes that the elected representatives will have “enlightened views” and “virtuous sentiments,” which will make them “superior to…schemes of injustice” (Federalist 10). Yet, our representatives are not always immune to outside influences. Politicians are often encouraged to vote in a way that may not be best for their constituents because lobbying and special interest groups exercise a disproportionate influence over them through their ability to petition them to support certain ideas and to offer them campaign donations. The average American cannot compete with this, so our representatives are not always unbiased and are influenced by outside groups.

Representative democracy also fails in giving everyone representation. While a representative democracy, in theory, allows everyone to be represented through voting for their representative, this has not actually worked out in reality. For example, women could not vote until the 19^th Amendment was passed in 1920. While Athenian women could not vote in the Assembly, they at least enjoyed the benefits of citizenship and were allowed to attend and voice their opinions. As well, African Americans were no allowed to vote until 1898, but even then their voting was restricted by grandfather clauses. Even now, in 2018, our election system fails to give everyone a voice. Voting location hours and waits make it difficult for people who work multiple jobs to vote, as Election Day is not a national holiday in the United States like it is in other countries. As well, in gerrymandered districts, one party may win higher percentage of the popular vote in a state, yet still win less seats in Congress. For these reasons, representative democracy does not actually give everyone fair representation in government.

While there are numerous examples of representative democracy failing to reflect the will of the people, the Athenian democracy actually did reflect the will of the people. When the Athenians reformed their democracy Aristotle declared “For the people has made itself master of everything…the people is the ruling power” (Athenian Constitution 41.2). Importantly, he also explained how the new Athenian system led to the Council members acting justly and being less susceptible to corruption and outside influence (Athenian Constitution 41.2). In this, the Athenian direct democracy accurately and fairly reflected the will of the people.

Therefore, while the representative democracy is, in theory, attractive, in reality it has flaws that can lead to representatives being elected who do not reflect the popular vote, restrictions on who can feasibly vote, and certain groups exercising disproportionate influence over representatives. On the other hand, direct democracy lets everyone’s voice be heard and is actually run by the people. Therefore, Athenian direct democracy is more democratic than American representative democracy.

-Hanna Prince

Word Count: 598

Aristotle. Athenian Constitution 41.2.

Astor, Maggie, Lai, K. K. Rebecca. “What’s stronger than a Blue Wave? Gerrymandered Districts.” The New York Times. 11/29/2018.

Madison, James. Federalist Papers 12, 63.

Why Representative Democracy Is Better

Pablo Loza

Despite being credited as the founders of democracy, the Athenian version of democracy varies much differently compared to the representative model of democracy. One of the primary differences is the fact that in ancient Athens all citizens, with the right to vote, would come together to vote on a certain topic, whereas in the American representative democracy, citizens vote for people to represent them and vote on their behalf. In doing this, only certain elected individuals have a vote in major laws. When officials are elected on behalf of the people, they are expected to carry out what the people want, as this is why they voted for them. Unfortunately, these officials do not always do this and may go against their constituents. Although these officials may go against the people who elected them, the representative model of democracy is a better way to govern than the direct, Athenian model of democracy.

Direct democracy relies on all citizens to come and vote on certain issues. In theory, direct democracy seems like the best way to get people involved as everyone will be able to voice their opinions. Unfortunately, as ancient Athens has proven, a direct democracy leads to major inconsistencies which can be detrimental to a country. The inconsistency in a direct democracy can be seen in the Melian Dialogue and the greed possessed by the Assembly. Athenians were known to look to the gods for help such as before battles and in times of droughts. Despite always looking to the gods, the Athenians said, “Nature always compels gods and men tor rule over anyone they can control. We did not make this law… but we will take it as we found it and leave our posterity forever” (Thucydides 3.105). When speaking in the Melian Dialogue, they directly compare themselves to gods which is a rather bold claim to make. This claim is allowed to be made because the people of the Assembly wanted to gain more power, rather than follow their beliefs that were preached.

Although one may claim that people in a representative democracy also do this, the people of the Athenian Assembly were the ones acting on their actions. For instance, if they Assembly voted to go to war, then the people who voted would go and prepare for war themselves. People who voted in the direct democracy, as a result, may also not have been educated on all topics, whereas a representative democracy allows for further education. The people who elect the representatives are smart individuals, but are not typically versed in all aspects of politics. The direct democracy model forces one to try and be well-educated in all areas, which is extremely difficult and may cause a lack of knowledge in many areas. But, through the representative model, the elected officials are devoted only to these matters and do not worry about other jobs they have, such as being a farmer like Athenians. This leads to more educated officials voting on major matters in government.

Lastly, the major flaw of the representative democracy is that officials may abandon their ideas, which got them elected, to push their personal agenda. Unfortunately, this is seen in both forms of democracy. In a representative democracy, officials can be given more money by companies/people to vote on their behalf, rather than their originally stated beliefs. The officials do this to gain more wealth for their campaign, a way to keep representing their constituents. In a direct democracy, people can easily be bribed as it is all based off of personal agendas. As seen in the Reacting to the Past exercise done in class, when the poor members of the Assembly were offered compensation or potential help from the rich, then they would switch sides to keep themselves afloat. Regardless of the democracy being used, this is inevitable.

Both the representative and direct form of democracy come with their benefits and detriments. However, the representative form of democracy is a better way to govern as it is more consistent and has only people educated on the matter speak. Thus, the representative form of democracy allows for a more controlled chaos than a direct democracy.

Word Count: 663

The U.S. Remains Superior

When comparing Athenian direct democracy to American representative democracy there is no question that American representative democracy is superior. Democracy in its most basic sense is government by the people and the rule of the majority. It is in the implementation of democracy where the American representative form succeeds in providing the best representation for all.

In a direct democracy the whole population must actively participate to ensure equitable representation. In Athenian democracy, the laws and the leaders were chosen based on a majority rule. While this seems like a practical way to govern, risks exist for under representation of minority positions. The majority of the population was satisfied because their ideas were being heard and their representatives were being elected. However, there was still the minority that needed its voice to be recognized. Aristotle explained the lesser minority status in The Athenian Constitution,“Not only was the constitution at this time oligarchical in every respect, but the poorer classes, men, women, and children, were the serfs of the rich (Aristotle 1.2).” When a majority continually places their candidates in power the minority will never have direct representation. Eventually this results in the minority losing faith in their government because of concerns that they are not being included and this will ultimately lead to failure of this democracy.

While the ideals that an Athenian direct democracy represents are good ones – a government of and by the people – it does have practical flaws that must be addressed to ensure fairness and sustainability. The United States employs a representative democracy to govern. The difference is that in a representative democracy individuals are elected to represent the people and exercise power according to the rule of law. Having a representative based government is critical given size of the country and population. In addition in order to ensure equal representation at the national level, the United States has set rules on how leaders are elected. Congress has two bodies with equal power, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Each state is allocated spots in the House of Representatives based population size. To ensure representation of those living in states with lower populations, two senators per state are also elected to the Senate. In total, 535 elected representatives make legislation on behalf of the country.

In electing a President, the founding fathers again had the foresight to understand that the needs of the many in a highly populated city are different than those of rural area less populated areas. However, their views are equally important and should not be diluted by larger populations of the cities. To ensure fairness they created the Electoral College, which follows the same representative allocation formula as Congress. Rather than voting directly for a candidate, voters actually choose electors who then elect the President. The electors associated with the winning candidate in each state (except Maine and Nebraska which proportionally allocate electors) then vote to select the President. While the use of the Electoral College to elect the President could be considered anti-democratic because it is possible to be elected President without a majority vote (it has happened five times, most recently in 2016), it is in line with the principals of a representative democracy because elected representatives of the population vote for the President.

It is easy to conclude that American representative form of democracy is better than the Athenian direct model, especially for a country with a large population. However, it is important to note that America’s representative version is based on lessons learned from the Athenian experience. The system in United States is not perfect, but its representative form allows for majority rule while ensuring minority rights.

-Danny Vela

Word Count: 600

Source:
The Internet Classics Archive | On Airs, Waters, and Places by Hippocrates. Accessed February 20, 2019. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/athenian_const.1.1.html.

Representative vs. Direct: Which do you choose?

When matching a representative democracy against a direct democracy, the collective goal must be a stable government. The overall the purpose of any government is to maintain order doing so by establishing laws and enforcing laws. With these parameters let us apply a representative democracy to Athens 500 B.C.

Based on the times, only wealthy male citizens of Athens would be able to vote for a representative to voice their city state’s opinion within the assembly. For those who lived out in the farmlands, in order for their troubles to be addressed without a representative would be forced to travel several days away to get to the center of Athens. A representative would be able to actively support their constituents while they maintained their jobs. This would be the perfect situation where a representative from each subdivision of Athens would actually represent the common ideas of their people. However, the risk that comes with a representative democracy, of course, is being represented. In 500 B.C. there were not many checks and balances to keep a usurper from taking total control. Suppose a representative lies to their constituents and then passes legislation that keeps their constituents from voting them out of the assembly. The risk of voting away one’s actual representation is a valid problem with a representative democracy.

Within a direct democracy, the people would be gaining much more representation in the assembly as a whole. Though how efficient can a government be where everyone is able to vote and voice their opinion? When we look at the effects of Athens’ direct democracy, we can see how many decisions seemed rash and emotional. At times with a direct democracy, the government can fall into a mob mentality and act abruptly to situations that need more thought. During the Mytilenean Revolt, a city-state of Athens, the direct democracy had gone through several votes on how to handle the Mytileneans’ surrender. The assembly went back and forth on the decision until it chose to kill most of the rebels. Generally in a direct democracy representing everyone is not efficient.

Side by side I believe a representative democracy would be much more efficient for the times. Saving the general people the time of traveling to an assembly would allow them to maintain their work without risk of losing all of their livelihood. Of course, both sides are subject to being overtaken by factions or single rulers without any means to check a single person’s power. Given this imminent risk for both, I still believe that a representative democracy would fare better for the Athenians.

Democracy, Ancient and Modern

The ‘American’ democracy we have today came from the juvenile form of democracy Athens ran with over 2500 years ago. This early democracy was experimental at best and was revolutionary at the time. While we have virtually rewritten the standard for how a democracy should be operated, we are not very far from our roots.

At first glance, the democracies of today and the ancient democracy of Athens look different. Ancient Athens only allowed a very small group of men resident in Athens the vote; women and foreigners were excluded. Athens’ democracy also demanded a lot of time from its citizens. Adult male citizens who had to vote put a halt to their work to travel to the Athenian assembly (the Pnyx) on a regular basis. These commonwealth citizens also had to debate and vote on important issues like going to war. This dedication of so much time to the democratic system was made easier when the Assembly eventually decided to encourage citizens further by paying them to come to the assembly and to undertake other democratic duties like acting as jurors in the law courts.

It is clear that Athenian democracy was not our modern idea of equal freedom and rights, but more like a select club, facilitated to some extent by a slave population. However, we should not be too complacent as to think that we are more ‘democratic’ now, just because of our progress in equal rights. Just as we may not want to recognize Athens’ democracy as properly democratic, so too an ancient Athenian would not recognize the ‘American’ democracy as a true democracy.

Ancient Athenians participated in a direct democracy, meaning every citizen went to the assembly and voted on the issues. Moreover, if they were voting on whether or not to go to war, the voters did not go home afterwards to put their feet up while the army went off to fight, they went home to pick up their armor too. To a democrat of ancient Athens, today’s democracies, where the majority of voters elect representatives to make most of the decisions for them (and who then rely on professionals to carry out those decisions), would seem to achieve the effect that the Old Oligarch spoke of in his letter. “For if the good men were to speak and make policy, it would be splendid for the likes of themselves but not so for the men of the people” (Oligarch). The American democracy operates just so, however, and only because the power still comes from the people.

With these further considerations, the ancient democracy more closely resembles the democracies of today, yet with all the improvements we have made to the ancient system, our modern efficiency trumps all.

Works Cited:

https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-greece/ancient-greece-democracy

https://www.historyextra.com/period/ancient-greece/ancient-greek-democracy-as-similar-to-ours-as-we-think/

Old Oligarch, Xenophon