Direct democracy was practiced by the Athenians and was implemented on their society because it was believed to be the best form of government for their society. The idea was revolutionary, it allowed male citizens to have a political voice in the Assembly to express their opinions regarding their government. Overtime, humans studied the idea of democracy and changed ideas to make it more applicable to societies. The American forefathers expanded on the idea of Athenian democracy and introduced a more representative democracy. A representative democracy is based on a society appointing people to office who then vote for their constituents. Although direct democracy is the foundation to our modern government, it does not match the strength and the overall coverage of representation of today’s American democracy.

When everyone is given a voice in government, an assembly can become extremely disorganized. What I took away from “Reacting to the Past” was that no one really thought about what was best for the nation, people had secret agendas that prioritized what was best for themselves. Not only that, but the voices of the assembly were limited to male citizens. Athenian democracy did not allow metics, slaves, or women to vote. “It was the free adult male population of Athens that was allowed to take part in government and make decisions on behalf of the women and children living in their household.” Of a population of 385,000, only 30,000 were Athenian citizens. (Haddox) Do the other 355,000 not have a say? Does their political voice not matter? Today’s democracy does not restrict the women’s freedom to vote, nor does it limit people from attaining citizenship. A direct democracy allows the people to vote on elected officials, senators, and congress, who can represent them and their beliefs in the Senate and House of Representation. They are voted into office to share the beliefs of their constituents. In my district, my congresswoman holds monthly town meetings to note what change the residents want to see in office. Emails are sent to inform those signed up on her agenda, and you can call her office if you have any questions regarding her actions. This direct representation allows the people to have a louder voice in government, without being so clustered and disorganized like our version of the Athenian Assembly.

The Athenian direct democracy has good intentions because the people can speak for themselves. However, the modern representative democracy has proven to be the most efficient. I might be biased because of my gender… but at least I know my voice can be heard through our modern democracy.

http://www.ancientfacts.net/was-ancient-greek-democracy-better-than-todays-american-democracy/

Click to access Haddox.pdf

While not perfect, the representative model of democracy has been a much better way to govern than the direct model used by the Athenians. The main reason the representative model is superior is that its system of checks and balances has, for the most part, protected us from the mob-rule that took root in Athens. In the direct model of democracy, all decisions were made via a simple majority. This was problematic because important decisions such as court cases, waging war, and executing people were left to the hands of those who showed up to vote on the issue; thus, a particular group of people could show up in force to the assembly one day and garner over fifty percent of the vote. Suppose that group only makes up ten percent of the population at large: now, you have legislation passed that ninety percent of Athenians are unhappy with.

One example that highlights the downsides of Athenian democracy is the Siege of Melos in 416 BCE. Melos was an island that remained neutral for much of the Peloponnesian War. The Athenians were unhappy with the fact that the Melians were providing crops to the Spartans, so they sent a force there to seize the island. The Athenian generals engaged in a long debate to try to get the Melians to surrender peacefully. Thucydides documented the negotiations in what came to be known as the Melian dialogue. These negotiations were not successful; Thucydides notes, “When the generals saw that the Melians would not submit, they turned immediately to war and surrounded the Melian city with a wall” (Thucydides 5.113). After many days under siege, the Melians finally gave in and surrendered, leaving the Athenians to decide how to deal with them. After a vote, the Athenians “killed all the men of military age and made slaves of the women and children” (Thucydides 5.116). The execution of the Melians is just one of many examples of the Athenian direct democracy model devolving into mob-rule.

The representative model of democracy is not without its downfalls, but it ultimately does a better job of protecting against mob-rule than the Athenian model. Critics of the representative model argue that constituents sometimes do not get everything they want. I submit that sometimes it is best that this is the case. The representative model ensures that a variety of interests are considered and that one group cannot become too powerful. James Madison writes in Federalist 10 that in pure democracies “a common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole […] and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention.” One of the main reasons the representative model of democracy in the United States protects against majority rule is that it ensures geographic diversity. Each elected representative has to represent not only their party’s interests, but also the interests specific to their district or state. With the representative system, all people have an easy way to voice their opinions, whereas in the Athenian democracy, one had to physically attend the assembly and vote in order to have their voice heard. This meant that Athenians who lived far from the assembly would have a smaller impact on legislation compared to those for whom it was convenient to go and vote. Ultimately, the representative model of government protects the people from mob-rule and allows more people’s voices to be heard.

Works Cited

Madison, James. Federalist No. 10: “The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection.” New York Daily Advertiser, November 22, 1787.

Thucydides. “History of the Peloponnesian War/Book 3.” Wikisource. Accessed October 3, 2018. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_the_Peloponnesian_War/Book_5

Word Count: 592

The Athenian democracy was a good idea because it allowed everyone to have voice when decisions, which would have an effect on everyone in the city, were being made. The flaw in this form of governance is that the likelihood of the majority of agreeing on a single decision is quite low. When the whole city is involved in decision making, things can get very chaotic. Multiple ideas are being thrown around, people are arguing about nonsense, and frustrations begin to build up among the people. In a setting like this, decisions are nearly impossible to make and tasks don’t get done. People are selfish and quarrelsome. A person will propose an idea that is in their best interest, which will then be rebutted by someone else who has another idea with their best interest in mind.

The American democratic republic is similar to the Athenian democracy in the fact that it also utilizes many people from each area of the nation. But, it differs because these representatives are few in number. In Athens, anyone and everyone could be a part of the decision making process. In the American form of government, the many vote on the few. These few represent the many and make decisions based on what the many want. The issue with this form of government is that there is a great chance for corruption due to the selfish motives of those in power. When someone is given the power to make decisions, they are not only affecting the lives of those they represent, but also their lives. An example of this could be that an elected official is supposed to vote on a certain policy. The majority of those he represents want him to vote against the policy, but he, the individual, has concluded that it is in his best interest to vote in support of the policy. He has the power to vote for it, even though he knows that he shouldn’t. If he votes against it, he has done his job. If he votes for it, he has allowed corruption to seep into his career. Ethical dilemmas like this are what can cause corruption to run rampant in the modern American governmental system.

While both of these forms of government have their flaws, I believe that the American form of government is more effective than the Athenian democracy. While the American way is more susceptible to corruption, decisions are still being made and the nation is able to move forward and continue to better itself. The Athenian democracy would just take way too long to come to a conclusion, then they’d move on to another matter that would take just as long as the previous issue. So, in terms of effectiveness, the American democratic republic is superior because it takes less time and is more organized.

Representation in the government has been an issue from the primitive days of democracy all the way through to today. The United States uses a representative form of government where based on a popular vote, leaders are elected to office with the intent that they will carry out the policies favored by their constituents. The Athenians had a direct democracy which more mob-rule type style where there were no elected rulers rather everyone who was eligible could participate. The founding fathers were careful to consider all aspects and issues that past democracies had when forming the base of the government which still stands today.

I believe that the founding fathers made the correct decision when choosing to form a representative democracy. As I experienced in the reacting to the past classes and in large group projects, there is such a thing as too many inputs. There were people talking over each other and usually the loudest and most charismatic candidate won, which may not always be the best choice. While everyone deserves to have their opinion heard, a representative democracy uses an elected official to do that job. In American democracy at every level of government from town to state to federal, there are officials who speak on behalf of there people and carry out the policies that are most favored by them. These elected officials have more experience, a better understanding of inner government workings, and can be focused on providing their constituents with the policies that benefit them.  

From excerpts from the Old Oligarch, we learn that not everyone in Athens was satisfied with their direct democracy. Only male citizens over the age of eighteen were eligible to participate in assembly and council, which excluded hundreds of thousands of medics, permanent foreign residents and slaves. And even among the citizens who could participate many of those were poor and uneducated and the educated, well-spoken leaders took advantage of them all the time. These leaders used the assembly to fund themselves and pass policies that befit them the most while neglecting the rest of Athens. Now the American representative system has its own flaws, it solves the representation issue quite well. While my direct opinion will not be heard, I have the freedom to vote and elect people who support the same ideas that I do. These elected people then handle all the legislation and process to get favorable policies passed. No government will ever be perfect because everyone is never going to totally agree on the same things, but America has a fair and productive process in place right now. 

Work Cited

Old Oligarch, Xenophon

https://www.ancient.eu/Athenian_Democracy/

Even in the modern age, democracy is often referred to as an “experiment”. Though this relatively young form of government has undergone a great deal of change over the years, there is not a more suitable word to describe the direct democracy that was first implemented in Athens. The concept of a democracy was revolutionary—an idea that had never before been attempted on such a large scale. Even the word democracy comes from Greek roots: demos, meaning “common people”, and kratos, meaning “strength”[1]. In the Athenian direct democracy, all male citizens had equal political rights and all were invited to participate in the Athenian assembly so they could all express their thoughts regarding the governance of Athens[2]. Some may argue that a direct democracy is the only true form of democracy—after all, it is only here that the people are in complete control of the governing body. However, this particular democratic system certainly has its flaws, and cannot match the strength of the American representative democracy.

Unlike the system in place in Athens, a representative democracy allows the people to vote on elected officials, senators and congressmen, who represent their people in the Senate and House of Representatives. Though the Athenian assembly permits anyone to speak and propose legislation, an immediate flaw in this system is that any uneducated person could make a claim or proposition that had a chance to become law. For example, during the Peloponnesian war, the Athenians, though they defeated Sparta, suffered a great loss at the Battle of Arginusae, in which 25 of their triremes were destroyed and many men were lost. After the battle, eight of their expert generals were tried in the assembly and executed. Athenians were then faced with the challenge of finding new generals with equivalent expertise… Likely a decision made out of fear, this particular event shows the weakness in allowing any person off the street to vote, one the major flaws in a direct democracy[3].  In the American representative democracy, this scenario is mostly eliminated, as only professional politicians that are decided on by a majority vote within a district have the chance to speak before their respective group. Another flaw in the Athenian democracy is that the assembly could essentially vote to ostracize whoever they wanted. This entailed having any individual forced out of Athens for up to ten years simply because a person was becoming too powerful or was disliked[4]. Giving this kind of power to the people was a dangerous move and could have resulted in serious political unrest. Though the American democracy had a humble beginning in Athens, the representative democracy is certainly a more effective governing structure than the Greek direct democracy.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Ancient_origins

[2] https://www.ancient.eu/Athenian_Democracy/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arginusae

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism

This experiment of the “American Democracy” did not come out of thin air. The Founding Fathers made sure to take a look at the past before finalizing the democracy we still have in America today. The Founding Fathers reviewed how the Athenians ran their democracy way back in their day and decided they wanted to run things a little differently. America contrasts the Athenians by avoiding the “mob rule,” through having elected officials represent the voices of the people.  I agree with the founding fathers and I think this decision is what makes the representative, or American Democracy, better than the direct, Athenian democracy.

One reason why I believe a representative democracy is better than a direct democracy was shown perfectly in our “Reacting to the Past” activity in class. We saw first-hand that when anyone and everyone is allowed into a place like the assembly to help make government decisions, it turns into a screaming match and usually the loudest person wins. That person may not be the best person to make decisions for a nation, but like every other citizen, they deserve to have their voice heard and that’s where a voted official steps in.  On the other hand, in the American democracy, the voted official is elected by the people, who can voice their opinions for them. The elected official would be better because he/she would have more experience, more education, and a better understanding of decision making for helping a nation.

The direct democracy is not a reliable form of democracy because anybody can come in and make irrational and unnecessary decisions. However, if it sounds good and the people like it, it will pass. A good example of how this can hurt a nation would be when Alcibiades convinced the assembly in Athens that an invasion of Sicily would be a good idea. Alcibiades was a very aggressive military leader and would change his political views multiple times throughout the Peloponnesian War (wiki). He would eventually flee from Athens to Sparta when charges of sacrilege were brought up against and then, would flee from Sparta after being run out of town for maybe sleeping with the King’s wife (wiki). As you may be able to tell from his history, Alcibiades was a convincing man who was able to get what he wanted. He was able to walk into the assembly and talk his way into getting people to vote for the Sicilian Expedition. This expedition would end up taking a tremendous toll on Athens during the height of the war. At first, twenty ships were sent to Sicily, but by the end, Athens would up sending and losing close to 200 hundred ships and thousands of men. This huge loss left Athens almost defenseless at a crucial point of the war (wiki). This is just one example of a situation that hurt a nation that could have possibly been avoided with a representative democracy.

Work Cited

“Alcibiades.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 13 Sept. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcibiades.

“Sicilian Expedition.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Aug. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Expedition.