Alexander the Great’s unstable rule of Macedon, ultimately seen in his insecure administrative structures and habits and his inheritance of a chaotic kingdom, parallels President Trump’s presidency in the United States. After Alexander’s father Phillip died, Alexander did not immediately inherit the throne; the way that he ultimately came to power was violent, a result of his murdering any possible threats to his aspiring kingship. Even when he did inherit the throne, his rule wasn’t immediately accepted. Although he was Philip’s legitimate child, he was technically only half Macedonian, and, at the time, being “full-blooded Macedonian” was widely viewed as an incontestable trait in the king. Even throughout his reign, Alexander was never completely accepted and supported by the people. His ability to “win over” the people came through a strength that was projected as violence. Consistently, any opposing party was violently murdered, Macedonian or not, as in the case with Darius II and with those who initially threated his inheritance of the throne. Additionally, Alexander inherited a throne that did not yet have stable control of its conquered states. Plutarch studied the story of Alexander, writing, “Alexander was but twenty years old when his father was murdered, and succeeded to a kingdom, beset on all sides with great dangers and rancorous enemies”(Plutarch). Alexander, therefore, as if not facing enough political opposition, inherited no shortage of enemies, and the revolts endured throughout his rule.

America’s current political leadership similar issues today. Although we are not necessarily in a “regime change”, we did have a recent change in presidency after 8 years under the leadership of Obama, who had considerably different tactics than our current president. The parallels lie in the presidential race between President Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. While there was no violent battle for who would ultimately win presidency, the election was about as politically dirty as an election can get. Presidential debates were cluttered with personal digs, to the point where sabotaging the other became embedded in both candidate’s platforms. This mirrors the violence seen in Alexander’s rise to the throne, and Alexander’s continued violence against opponents, considering we still see President Trump taking digs at political opposition, like Kim Jong Un. Furthermore, President Trump was elected by such a small margin that his presidency has remained continuously contested, as was Alexander’s leadership. Although President Trump has not faced any literal revolts, he has been faced with firm opposition by the democratic party, as seen with the current debates on funding to build the wall and the possibility of presidential impeachment. This opposition is hopefully where Alexander the Great’s reign and President Trump’s presidency will diverge. We currently do not know the outcome, as politics are in a deadlock and President Trump is technically in the “winning” position with the national emergency still in place. He has, similarly to Alexander the Great, implored an aggressive tactic that Congress is struggling to overturn as a result of the divide in the Senate. This divide puts the Republicans in the majority, but only by a narrow margin, making it difficult for both parties to achieve their goals.

            However, the similarities in Alexander the Great’s reign and President Trump’s presidency can inform us of possible outcomes to America’s current political situation. Ultimately, Alexander the Great’s violent tactics made him come out on top of every battle. He was unstoppable, killing (or, in the case of Darius, hunting down to kill) all of his enemies, facing continuous opposition and yet still managing to dominate at all times. Hopefully, because of the nature of American politics and our checks and balances systems, President Trump does not have the same type of unyielding power as Alexander did. However, the possibility exists merely by the nature of his rule.

–Katie Mackle

Word Count: 600

Sources:

The Internet Classics Archive | On Airs, Waters, and Places by Hippocrates, classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/alexandr.html.

Editors, History.com. “Alexander the Great.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 9 Nov. 2009, http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/alexander-the-great.

The story of the rise of Alexander the Great is literally the stuff of legend. He was a “divinely” conceived king who was able to achieve unbelievable feats of conquest and control over an incredibly diverse and large landscape. He was the reason Greece was for a time united with land as far as Afghanistan. Very few rulers can rival his rise to power, especially in the last century, but the fall of his empire parallels the fall of many contemporary nations that also lost their strong unifying leader. A prime example of a country that broke apart, like the possessions of Alexander, was the former Yugoslavia. From observations of the more recent and distant past a practical application of lessons learned could add to the longevity of a diverse state beyond one leader’s lifetime.

            When Alexander died he left a massive power vacuum and his empire split up into five different independent kingdoms. When Tito the ruler of Yugoslavia died, Yugoslavia also broke up into five smaller countries[1] The characteristics of the countries and the context in which they lived vary greatly, Alexanders Empire was a world power while Yugoslavia was a relatively small country matched between superpowers. Despite these differences the core similarities in their fall are still evident. These countries were very diverse and were held together by the strength and will of one leader. Tito united several completely different nations with a form of “Brotherhood and Unity” and at time authoritarianism[2]. Alexander held his empire together by assuming some Persian characteristics and force as well. There is a key lessons that must be learned from the death of Alexander and Tito.

            For a country to exist the people must have something to unite them. In the two cases presented the unifying factor was one leader. If a powerful leader maintains not only the charisma, but the tangible power to contradict forces that might compel different groups to separate they can hold a nation together. In order for this to last beyond one lifetime, with the same system of a king or dictator, there must be a clear and established line a succession to a leader who is equally charismatic and powerful as his or her predecessor. If a country is to stay united and not have a powerful government compelling unity there must be something else that unites the people whether that be a language or rule of law stronger than an individual leader the need is real and tangible.

            Looking at these two government collapses, nation-states today and observers of similar crisis have full right to be cautious. Holding any nation let alone an incredible diverse one together requires extensive work done before a unification crisis to keep a country from splitting, unless another absolute leader comes in to maintain order as soon as the previous one dies. Even that requires some thought ahead of time to accomplish without violence. For modern observes looking a similar unprepared nation-state they should be prepared for instability and even armed conflict to break out in the power vacuum as it did in the times of both Alexander and Tito’s death.

• Robert Hatfield

Word Count: 541

[1] State Department. “The Breakup of Yugoslavia, 1990–1992.” U.S. Department of State. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1989-1992/breakup-yugoslavia. 58

---

[2] UNC.”Background: Tito’s Yugoslavia.” CES at UNC. https://europe.unc.edu/background-titos-yugoslavia/. le

Representative vs. Popular Democracy

I believe that a representative modeled government is a more productive and efficient model than a popular democracy. In an ideal world, everyone would be educated and informed enough to vote for who they believe truly has the country’s best interests in mind, but sadly this is unrealistic. A representative democracy protects against the threat of mob rule which the Athenians often experienced to their detriment, and ensures a certain level of qualification -or at least popularity which can be indicative of the latter- of elected delegates who are to be deciding on rules and proposing laws. As Socrates once said, “Who would you ideally want deciding who was in charge of the vessel, just anyone, or people educated in the rules and demands of seafaring?” (Socrates, VI).  Representative democracy guarantees that those in charge of legislation are proficient and informed, or they would not have been voted into office. While this is not a perfect solution to the troubles of popular democracy such as ill-informed voting, it ensures that the main parts of democracy, such as rule by the people, are upheld. In today’s society, it is far more effective to have a representative democracy because debating laws and legislation with the sheer amount of people in America today is not a feasible idea. The gridlock that would occur if we tried to reconcile a popular democracy would not allow for the creation of new laws, which is why the delegate democracy model is so much more realistic, and well as productive. While there are dangers to leaving voting to a select few, there are safe-guards to protect against the formation of an oligarchy: delegates are not likely to alienate their constituency because it is they who vote them into office just as easily as voting them out.

            One potential downfall to this form of government is that this may form an increasingly polarized government. Voters may be forced to compromise on their ideals to vote for someone that best fits the ideals they deem the most important, but this also may be paired with less favorable traits or beliefs. This is similar to how both the Democratic and Republican Party end up with far left and far right presidential candidates running against each other. The same can be applied on a smaller scale to state representatives and to Congress as a whole. This difference in ideals however, leaves the two parties at the end of the day with no other choice than to compromise or not cooperate, which is why this polarization in effect is rather unimportant unless one party has complete control over another. “A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to Farce or Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives” (James Madison). As long as both parties are informed, ideally any compromise that is made is to the betterment of America.

            All things considered, I believe that a representative democracy is a more effective and productive form of government than the Ancient Athenian popular democracy. Popular democracy for one allows for the rule of those who may not be educated and voting for selfish interests instead, and is simply not a reasonable idea for how large a country as America is. Representative democracy prevents mob rule, and was created as to have built in safe guards to ensure that delegates vote to better their constituency, and in turn the United States of America.

-Molly Gillcrist

Word Count: 513

The Athenian democracy was much different than American democracy. The difference is the form of government. America has a representative government whereas Athens was an attempt at a true democracy. The representative or American model of democracy is a better way to govern a large country such as Athens or America. The reason that America was able to produce a better democracy is because they were able to learn from the mistakes that the people of Athens made. The ideas of democracy during the respective times were very different and can be seen in sources coming from the makers of the democracy themselfs.

Some would say that Athens was more successful democracy because they allowed anyone who wanted to come and participate in assemblies to do so. Although they did this they also made it very difficult to go to sessions. The sessions were always held in the same place and a lot of times it was hard to take up to a week of travel to and from the assembly just to participate in one session. This meant that there were a whole groups of people who were never represented when large decisions that could affect them were made. This is why the representative form of government that America has is so much better. America was able to look at how Athens had failed and adjust their own government to not fail in the same way Athens did.

In Federalist paper 10 Madison define a pure democracy as “a society consisting of a small number of citizens who asimble and administer the government in person“ and a republic as “a government in which the scheme of representation takes place.“ this proposition of how to define the two governments would have a lasting influence in America. Madison also gave examples of when the certain forms of government should be employed. According to him “the two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic, are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elect by the rest; secondly, the greater the number of citizens, and the greater the sphere or country, over which the latter may be extended.“ Madison was saying that a pure democracy could only happen within a small community where everyone that is a part of the community can attend of the decision-making process. Where as a republic is needed when representing a large numbers of people, because not all people in that country may be able to attend. Although your specific opinion may not be explicitly stated by your representative at least you will always have your opinion in the decision making process unlike in Athens where you would have to be at every assembly to have your opinion voiced.

Because America adopted a representative form of government instead of a pure democracy they were able to better serve their country. This adaptation by America can be seen in early documents such as Federalist papers. If it were not for Athens, who tried a pure democracy, then America may never have had a chance to fix the system of democracy and make it better.

Andrew Beck

Word count: 522

Peter Lohrbach

American representative democracy and Athenian democracy undoubtedly had their similarities. However, their differences are prominent. The main difference was how the voting worked. In ancient Athens, people physically came together at an assembly and each person’s vote counted towards the verdict. Regular citizens were invited to participate in these events. As shown in the Reacting to the Past exercise we did in class last week, there was an argument over whether to pay citizens to attend these assemblies. However, in America’s representative democracy system, citizens vote for someone to represent them in their rightful “assembly”, and those respective people then vote to make decisions on their behalf.

One advantage of the Athenian more “direct” model of democracy was that the result was truly what the majority of people taking part in the assembly wanted. This would seemingly be the better way to make decisions, but it was shown in ancient Athens that this method had some major pitfalls that caused a lot of problems for Athens. For example, they had to pay people to attend these assemblies, which used up a large amount of funding that could have been spent on other things like building new structures or renovating the existing ones. The money could have been used for much more productive and effective purposes. Another issue with this method of democracy is the personal motivations that people in the assembly could potentially have. In our RTTP, there were several people that had secret motives and goals which did not really benefit Athens at all. It was even stated that they didn’t care what happened to Athens, they just wanted their personal goal reached.

American representative democracy is beneficial to this country because the people elected usually dedicate their whole life to being a politician, which means they are very well trained in the matter and can invest a lot of time and money into their effort.

However, American representative democracy has its flaws too. For example, when the citizens vote for someone to represent them, they believe that that person will vote for what the citizens want. As shown by history, this doesn’t always happen and this causes outrage in the citizens that voted for this person in the first place. Like Athenian assembly, they may also defect from the policy or law that they were elected to vote for personal gain. This sort of political corruption is prominent in cases throughout American history. For example, in the case of Vice President Spiro Agnew, who took bribes from construction companies to push through a large project that needed presidential backing. He took almost $30,000 in cash to do this.

American representative democracy and Athenian democracy are definitely similar in some ways. However, it is clear that the representative American system works better logistically and represents the people of America more effectively.

Word Count: 473

Sources: Examples of political corruption

http://mentalfloss.com/article/20340/4-more-examples-american-political-corruption

TThe Athenian democracy and the American democracy vary greatly, with a major point being the Athenian pure representation, with each citizen being allowed to participate in a council and to vote as they please on issues, against the American representative model, where people are elected to represent a group of people and vote on their behalf. The American representative model is a direct improvement of the Athenian democracy and can be seen as a superior, upgraded way to govern.

The American representative model allows for people to continue their normal lives without having to take extreme amounts of time out of their days in order to participate in government. In the Athenian democracy, people who were unable to take the time out of their days to come to senate meetings were unrepresented due to the fact that they could not survive and make money or food if they came to participate. On the other hand, in America, people do not have to make the sacrifice and journey to the capital in order to participate in a vote, as their representative will vote on their behalf.

The American representative model is also more realistic with a democracy fit for a large nation and population. It is simply not possible to have such a large population of people gather to discuss about a topic and keep it civil and able to be voted upon. The discussions would take too long and there would be too many people focused on advancing their own personal agenda rather than focusing on the good of the whole. An example in the Athenian assembly was shown during Lysias’ Speech Against Eratosthenes, where he felt “compelled by what has occurred to accuse [Eratosthenes]: hence I have been often overcome with a great feeling of despondency” (Lysias 12.3). He clearly wishes to get revenge against the Thirty Tyrants for the death of his brother.

A counter argument for the American representative democracy may be stated in how there are elected representatives who fail to carry out the policies that their constituents may want. However, that is often due to the fact that a certain issue aligns with the party that the representative is from or that the representative may believe that voting another way may legitimately benefit the nation and the people that they serve. Although there may be times where representatives seek to advance their own personal agendas, the benefits of the American representative democracy outweigh the negatives, and the volume to which there are people that seek to advance their own motives is greatly less in the American democracy when compared to the Athenian democracy.

As a result, the American representative democracy, which was formed as an upgrade to the Athenian mob-rule pure representation, is absolutely superior to the Athenian democracy in every way.

-Eugene Om

Word Count-448

Though there is merit to the idea of a direct democracy, such as that of the ancient Athenians, a representative democracy gives a greater benefit to the individual citizen. Democracy, as characterized by its Athenian founders, may be summarized by their most beloved ruler, Pericles, when he said “Our plan of government favors the many instead of the few…nor do we discriminate against the poor. A man may serve his country no matter how low his position on the social scale” (Thucydides 3.37). Their definition of a democracy consisted of an equity of accessibility within government despite social status or merit. In theory this type of government, also known as a direct democracy, allows for the government to be most representative of the people, for it hinders upon a holistic representation of the people. Thus, every corner of the society has their voice made heard within the voting body. However, this theory of direct democracy lacks the changing power of an individual, and instead focuses on the power of the majority.

The major problem with democracies as whole, no matter how they are implemented, is that they require individuals to give up their ability to create change in favor of contributing to the majority or minority. Instead of having the freedom to do as one pleases, individuals in a democracy are subjected to the whims of the majority. The annoyance of this phenomenon is compounded by situations caused by simple majority rules, the type of majority the Athenians used. A faction could win a vote with only twenty percent of the votes because the vote was so divisive between the other factions. As such, the “majority” is determined to by the twenty percent of the population, so the numerical majority of the eighty percent loses their right to act via legislation as they believe is correct.

Direct democracy maximizes the effects of this phenomenon while representative democracy seeks to minimize it. Direct democracy maximizes the inequality by what Pericles believed to be Athenian democracy’s greatest quality: the equity of all. By establishing every citizen as equal in the voting assembly, the power of the vote is diminished. Pericles established his new citizenship law as a means to make being a citizen more exclusive, and thus establishing power and the ability to enact change for the Athenian citizen. However, the mass influx of equity in the voting realm reduces the power of a single vote. Representative democracy, on the other hand, diminishes the effects by creating a system that relies on individuals to create legislation. Representative democracy gives the illusion of equity via the direct election of the representatives, but creates a hierarchical system of voting accessibility. In doing this, American government has successfully created the illusion equality while giving individuals the ability to create change. Furthermore, the power of the vote increases for all of those who voted for the individual, as the representative holds a mandate for the people’s will as a result of the social contract between the incumbent and constituent.

The minority faction within a democracy is always subjected to the whims of the majority, however representative democracy mitigates the amount of people subjected to arbitrary powers.

-Jackson Garber

Words: 532
Excerpt from Pericles’ Funeral Oration written by Thucydides.

Although today the United States uses a system of democracy to govern its nation, it can be viewed as dramatically different than the 5th-century Athenian democracy, despite having the same ground ideas. The first democracy born in Ancient Greece, in Athens, was built off the founding idea of promoting “eleuthia” or otherwise known as “liberty”. The United States today, also recognizes the idea that protecting liberty is essential to the nation and should be the foundation from which the country is governed. However, due to the contrasting systematic approach of advocating democracy, the two can be viewed as unrelatable in many aspects.

The main factor that separates the two democracies is that Ancient Greece used a direct model of democracy which the individuals themselves voted different issues as they appeared whereas the American uses a modern model of democracy which advocates democracy through the representation of the people. More specifically, political parties are used to represent the ideas of the people, from which the representatives vote on issues with the best interests of the people of the party. Individuals may vote on a representative to enter a political party, but it is the representative’s vote that ultimately counts. As opposed to the Athenian democracy, in modern-day democracy, individuals do not directly vote on every issue that arises. Representation of the majority is achieved in this model of modern-day democracy because the people elect others in the office to represent their ideas with common stances. Current day proponents of the system believe that this the most effective form of governance of democracy in order to truly gauge the stance of the majority. The people are indirectly voting on issues.

In contrast in the Athenian democracy, individuals were able to vote on each issue through an assembly. This meant that individuals were very involved and had a first hand say on the issues themselves. Their thoughts could be directly represented in the outcome of the decision. The voting took place in the Pnyx which required individuals to travel to a central location in Athens, where they would debate in front of the assembly before a decision would be made. In the Funeral Oration, the Athenian pride of their democracy is shown through the words, “In the name, it is called democracy, because we managed not for a few people, but the majority (Thucydides 3.37)”.This demonstrates their commitment as an empire to represent the people through their governance which allowed individuals to hold the power and directly impact the decision.

Both democracies had the intention to represent the majority, however, took very different approaches. Both democracies, the 5th-century Athenian model and the 21st century United States model would argue that their own approach to governance best accomplishes “democracy” as in that it represents the people the best.

-Caroline Foley

The Funeral Oration

Word Count: 442

-Katie Mackle

The representative model of democracy is a more efficient way to govern than the direct model of democracy because it maximizes the amount of voices being heard. In a representative democracy, the people elect officials to represent them in political decisions. This system prevents what is popularly known as a “mob rule”. In “The Republic” by Aristotle, he discusses the Athenian democracy, saying, “the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction”(Aristotle VIII). Aristotle argues that democracy leads to tyranny, forming the foundation for the popular argument that too much representation ultimately leads to decreased representation. This argument has formed the foundation of what is now known as “tyranny of the majority”. A representative democracy decreases the chances of a tyranny of the majority developing; it decreases the chance that a policy will be implemented that acts only in the interest of one majority group and works against the minority. In a situation like this, the majority votes in favor of a policy that puts its own interests above the interests of the minority. The minority is, therefore, silenced, and its voice is not heard. In a representative democracy, however, different regions vote for one person that has their collective interests in mind. This representative then makes decisions based off of these interests, keeping the interests of the people they are representing in mind while also hearing the interests of other groups of people and voting in accordance of not only their interests but the interests of the country as a whole.

Along with mob rule comes this concept of emotions dictating the polls. Sometimes in politics it is easy to act in the heat of the moment. A representative democracy prevents this from occurring, because people can’t just vote on something in the spur of the moment, overwhelmed by their emotions at that given time. A representative maintains a consistency of emotions in decision-making.  

Additionally, a direct democracy causes too many people’s voices to be drowned out. Direct democracy definitely has its merits in smaller communities, where voices can be easily distinguished, like in a New England town hall. However, in a country with so much diversity because of its massive population, if there are too many voices at once, it would be impossible to hear everybody. In the end, either the majority will come out victorious, leaving the minority with no voice, or no decision is going to be made because there will be no consensus as a result of too many clashing voices. With a representative democracy, however, because there is one person representing a relatively (in comparison to the size of America) small area, the representative is able to get an accurate gauge of the various things that people in the area want and build their political motives based off of these things. These representatives can then come together and collaborate in a way that would be logistically impossible if everybody in the entire country were voicing their own individual opinions.

Some argue that a representative democracy can be easily corrupted by voting policies and political bribes, however these hesitations should not be the foundation of an argument against representative democracy. There are downsides to all forms of government. However, if you consider the birth of American democracy as coinciding with the ratification of the US Constitution (which, as the establishing foundation of the US government, I consider the birth of American democracy), American democracy has kept our nation alive and thriving longer than the Athenian democracy. American democracy is going on 231 successful years, whereas the Athenian democracy logged around 190 years of solid rule. Therefore, I believe American democracy to be more reliable.

-Katie Mackle

Word Count: 598

Sources:

Diotima. Accessed February 20, 2019. http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_democracy_overview?page=all.

The Internet Classics Archive | On Airs, Waters, and Places by Hippocrates. Accessed February 22, 2019. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.9.viii.html.