Magazine | Does our democracy today still resemble that of the ancient Greeks?
Over the coming weeks, Folia will be devoting a special print magazine to the theme of ‘democracy’. Anyone seeking the roots of modern democracy will inevitably end up in ancient Greece. But how does today’s democracy compare to its Athenian origins?
To answer that question a brief history lesson is necessary: it’s the late sixth century BC when the tyrant ruling Athens is overthrown, and the inhabitants of the Greek city seize the opportunity to radically reform their state. “At that moment, a prominent aristocratic family decides that it would be a good idea to place power in the hands of the people,” says Mathieu de Bakker, Assistant Professor of Classical Greek at the UvA.
Noble though this may sound, in practice it is above all a pragmatic decision. During this period, the city is flooded with conflicts, caused by the many rival clans making each other’s lives miserable. “That is why the new state is organised in such a way that members of those different groups are forced to cooperate within a single system of government. That turns out to work well; many conflicts are resolved in this way,” the classicist explains. But whereas the Athenians successfully used democracy to dispel feelings of hostility, today’s democracies seem less capable of doing so.
Polarisation
“A democracy can reduce polarisation or, conversely, amplify it,” says Professor of Political Science Tom van der Meer about this. “Conflict is necessary in a democracy, because without conflict there is nothing to choose between. The question is then how that conflict manifests itself. If polarisation in society is stirred up and magnified by politicians, there is a risk that people will start to see one another as enemies.”
Nevertheless, the political scientist emphasises that the Netherlands has a number of dampening mechanisms that limit polarisation. “In the Dutch system, parties form coalitions in varying combinations, and voters regularly switch parties. They usually consider three or four when they go voting. That means people are less likely to have a strong party-bound identity, as you do see in the United States.”
Senate
Back to Athens, where power was transferred to the people to counter polarisation. Although, the people? A significant caveat is required here, De Bakker nuances. “That power applied only to men with citizenship, at most ten per cent of the entire population of Athens.”
From that highly privileged group of men, a senate of five hundred members was appointed each year. Think of prestigious gentlemen, whose slaves ran their households and tended their fields, and who therefore had ample time to take on the daily administration of the city. “That senate submitted proposals to the popular assembly, which were then adopted or rejected. The popular assembly could also submit proposals itself. In that sense, the two related to one another much like today’s government and parliament.”
Nevertheless, there are fundamental differences, De Bakker continues. For example, almost all holders of executive offices were not elected or appointed but selected by draw. “Such a post, for example that of harbour master, would then be held for a year.”
Sortition
It is a provocative idea, Members of Parliament or ministers selected by draw, but political scientist Van der Meer is sceptical. “Sortition only guarantees a proper cross-section of the population with a sample of many hundreds of people; with smaller numbers it does not work well.”
Even so, experiments with sortition do take place today; in citizens’ assemblies, for example, a randomly selected group of citizens meets to advise politicians on specific issues through extensive dialogue. But this, too, has its drawbacks, Van der Meer stresses. “For instance, do you allow citizens who are invited to decline? That affects the degree of representativeness and therefore also policy. And are those recommendations binding, or can elected representatives choose to set the outcome aside?”
Similarities
Although there are similarities, it is clear that modern democracy differs considerably from its original Athenian form. Is it still justified, then, to look to Athens as the birthplace of democracy? “When establishing the modern nation state, people very deliberately looked to ancient Greece,” says De Bakker. “There are similarities, but you should not draw those connections too easily. The Athenian democracy also had characteristics – such as a strong focus on war and sacrifice for the nation – that we would sooner associate with fascism. Moreover, there were, of course, no political parties. Clan ties were decisive in voting behaviour; political ideology was not yet reflected in that at all.”
And yet there are lessons to be drawn from that period, if only the realisation that democracy is not self-evident. However successful Athenian democracy may have been, it ultimately fell at the end of the fourth century BC. De Bakker: “People started to lose interest and were less motivated to commit themselves to governance. When the Macedonians arrived, they initially left democracy intact, but after an uprising it was eventually abolished.”
Van der Meer draws a parallel with the present: “Democracies can come to an end, which is why I always stress the importance of democratic norms among politicians. Consider, for example, invoking emergency legislation under questionable circumstances. In doing so, parliament and the judiciary are sidelined, and that is truly a breach of norms. The end of a democracy often comes about because political elites have tried to subjugate it.”
From 28 April, a new edition of Folia will once again be available in purple distribution racks. The free print magazine will be disposable on all campuses from that date onwards, featuring democracy as its central theme.
