The Parallel between the Fall of Alexander the Great’s Empire and Tito’s Yugoslavia

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

Alex and Kim Take Charge!

Alexander the Great of Macedonia and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea share similarities in the attested legitimacy of their rule. Alexander the Great faced push back from his people while Kim Jong Un faced push back from the democratic nations across the world. Despite the issues with their regimes, both share the major attribute of inheriting a large military with ambitious plans to use them. Alexander was incredibly successful while Kim Jong Un has not been successful with his ambition to unify Korea through force, but has succeeded in remaining in power of his impoverish nation using of the threat of his nuclear weapons against his enemies.

Alexander the Great was chosen by his father King Philip II of Macedonia and Olympias to be his successor. King Philip had many wives and children but favored Alexander. However, powerful Macedonians did not believe he had a right to the throne as he was only was only half-Macedonian because his mother was a Greek. An example of the resistance Alexander was up against is recounted by Plutarch and took place at Philip II’s wedding to Cleopatra where Attalus called for a real heir to be made. Plutarch wrote, “At this Alexander was exasperated, and with the words, “But what of me, base wretch? Dost thou take me for a bastard?” threw a cup at him. (Plutarch 9.1)” It is evident that from the beginning of his rule, that there were factions of Macedonians that questioned his legitimacy to be the king. Yet he triumphed by eliminating his enemies and expanding his empire through his extraordinary military leadership.

Kim Jong Un had similar path to power. He was the legitimate son of Kim Jong Il, but Kim Jong Il like King Philip also had other children, but he favored Kim Jong Un. Given the highly secretive nature of North Korea it is hard to know what challenges to his leadership Kim Jong Un faced upon assuming control of North Korea. However, based on news reports that Kim Jong Un like Alexander eliminates people who threaten his power. Two examples are the murder of his half-brother in Malaysia¹ and execution of an uncle². In another parallel, Kim Jong Un like Alexander inherited a large army. With this army he intimidates his neighbor South Korea with a constant threat of invasion. His ambitions of unified Korea under his rule are held in check by the international community and large US military presence on the peninsula. However, Kim Jong Un real power comes from North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and its ballistic missile capability. Unlike Alexander who used his army to project his power, Kim Jong Un projects his power through threat of using his nuclear weapons against countries who threaten his power. Kim Jong Un’s nuclear ballistic missile capability has given him the ability to project power in Asia and across the Pacific. It is startling how he is able to manipulate the world powers to not only acknowledge his power but treat him as a world leader.

Alexander the Great’s military success brought him much acclaim, however, he failed to name a successor and after his death his empire fell apart. It is unclear whether Kim Jong Un has succession plan. His main focus seems to be his own survival which tied to having nuclear weapons capabilities. I think lesson to be learned is that in order for succession plan to work it comes down to having the consent of the people that are to be governed.

-Danny Vela

Word count (590)

1 CNN, “Kim Jong Un ‘ordered’ half brother’s killing, South Korean intelligence says”, Feb 28, 2017

2 Washington Post, “Kim Jong Un just had his own uncle killed. Why?” December 12, 2013

Representative vs. Popular Democracy

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

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

America, the Better Democracy

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

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

Representative Democracy vs. Athenian Democracy

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

The Role of the Representative

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