Democracy in Periclean Athens

Athens rose to prominence as the de facto ruler of the Greek city states during the Periclean era. Athens also experienced its Golden Age during this period, which came just before the Peloponnesian War started. The Periclean democracy was significantly inspired by Pericles and Ephialtes. In the renowned wars of Salamis and Marathon, the poorest Athenians took part. Themistocles, who built the navy for the Athenians, depended on the least fortunate to fight in it, according to Herodotus (1998). It was after this battles that the poor in Athens desired to have more control over the affairs of their city. It was after these wars that Ephilates and Pericles presided over the radicalization of power (Azoulay 2014, p. 17). The two orchestrated the power to move from the aristocracy to all Athenian citizens. The Democratic Athens that ensued formed the foundations of modern democracy and encouraged the growth of Athenian arts.

Structure

The democracy was a reference to the rule of the citizen body. In Athens, the Assembly was the main body through which the male citizens could participate in the governance of the Athenian State. This assembly had meetings ones or three times a month. The meetings were held at Pnyx hill that had a capacity of 6000 citizens (Aristotle, 1961, p.4). The meetings were thus only attended by the male citizens of Athens. The manner in which the meetings were conducted can be linked to the present day democracies in which the majority wins the day. In Periclean Athens, any citizen was allowed to propose a motion at the meetings. At a time in which the birth and social status of an individual was revered, this was considerable progress. All the citizens had a voice in the assembly, and the voting was conducted by raising hands. The meetings were conducted by nine presidents who were elected at the time of meetings. The presidents were determined using lots and were only in office for the duration of the meeting. The presidents had the work of organizing the meetings. They selected the individuals to participate in the debate and were the ones to assess the voting results.

The democracy was deemed to be an essential duty for the citizens. The assembly required that at least 6000 people were in attendance (Campa 2016, p.58). This was a direct display of the direct democracy. The citizens had to participate in the affairs of the state directly. The assembly determined the use of public funds, determined the time to go to war and other public affairs. It was deemed to be a compulsory gathering, and those that failed to attend the meetings could risk being fined.

Public Offices

Lots mainly determined the public offices at this age. Pericles desired that most of the citizens participate in the governance of the state. To do that, the lottery system was the most favored. Nearly all the public office appointment was determined through a lottery. This approach was preferred since Athens had started paying its citizens for participating in public offices (Siclus 1935, p.12). Another characteristic of the democracy is that the positions in the offices were rather short. For instance, the position of general was held for a year and left open for re-election. The other appointments were even shorter such as those of presiding over the assembly which only lasted for the duration of the meeting. The lottery system and the limited time had a great advantage to the Athenian masses. At first, the lottery system ensured that any citizen had the chance to participate in government. The limited time ensured that more people had the chance to participate in the public offices. The limited time also safeguarded democracy by denying a single person that opportunity to amass power over time.

Payment of Public officers

Pericles did introduce the payment of those who served in public offices. Pericles introduced payment to the jury and magistrates. Before that introduction, those serving in the public office rarely got any form of compensation. The jury was awarded for its services to the state. The time also saw that the state paid for the poor in the country to attend theatrical plays. In this sense, the government had embarked on the earliest forms of social projects. To create work for the poor, Pericles embarked on building projects. Before that, the state rarely funded such projects. Mostly, such projects were funded by the wealthy individuals who volunteered their funds (Mitchell 2016, p.65). The projects such as war were financed by wealthy individuals who had vested interests. It was through this format that some famous building projects were introduced in Athens. Mostly, the intent of such projects was the creation of employment to the citizens. The Delian alliance treasury is said to have funded most of the projects that were commissioned by Pericles. The Parthenon, the Acropolis, and the Propylaea were some of the major projects developed in this golden era. The era introduced funds in public offices. It was clear that being an Athenian citizen was something profitable. To limit the entry of citizens who could access these privileges, certain limitations were placed. The Athenian citizen had to be over thirty years, both parents were to be Athenian, and only men could participate in the democracy. The financial privileges were therefore restricted to a smaller Athenian populous (McGregor 2011, p.127).

Participants

The Athenian democracy was not similar to the present day democracy. In the time of Pericles, the democracy was only centered on the male Athenians. The women and children were not allowed to participate in democratic affairs. More so, it was only the citizens of Athens that were allowed to participate in the Democracy. At the time, Pericles had instituted a law that barred the citizenship of Athens to those individuals that had dual Athenian parentage. Those individuals that did not have all their parents as Athenians were excluded from citizenship and therefore they were not permitted to participate in democratic affairs. Pericles was the one that encouraged the establishment of the law that required dual parentage in Athenian citizenship. It was ironical when he later came to marry Aspasia of Miletus, and their son was denied citizenship on this grounds. Under the special intervention of the assembly, this law was bypassed, and his son became a citizen. Despite the discrimination against the participation of immigrants and women, the Athenian form of governance was superior to other democracies of their time. The other forms of governance were based on class, and most decisions were made by the aristocrats. The Athenian democracy was open to all classes even though it was limited to the Athenian men. At that time it can be considered to be progressive even though women and outsiders were not allowed to participate.

According to Thucydides, Athens was considered as a democracy because it considered the interests of the whole people and not those of the minority (Will 2016, p.55). There was a mass involvement of the male citizens in the running of the state. This essentially eliminated the need for representatives. Despite the existence of prominent figures, everyone had a right to participate in public affairs without the aid of a representative. Even the masses were the ones that were set to determine the exclusion of individuals from public matters. This was mainly done through the ostracizing of individuals that were seen to have an interest that was threatening to the state. Periclean democracy was highly reveled by the Athenians to the extent that it had a divine personification. The Athenians embraced the goddess Demokratia as the patron of the democratic ideals. This high regard for democracy was an indication of the pride the Athenians had on their governance system.

Identity

The Periclean Democracy was a sense of pride and identity to the Athenians. Pritchard (2015) argues that the famous funeral speech by Pericles at the onset of the Peloponnesian war was a vibrant display of their democratic pride. In his speech, Pericles indicates that the existence of the democratic system removed the obscurity of one’s condition as they served their state. It is the freedoms that the individuals enjoyed in their government that allowed them to enjoy their daily lives. The Athenians were prideful of their governance since their constitution was not copied from another state. They were the source of their laws and hence their constitution. Their democracy was what was to be emulated by other states. It is clear that at the funeral oration, Pericles was trying to show that the fallen were justified since they died for a superior course. It was as though he was rallying Athenians to the defense of their country. They were not followers since their governance system was to be imitated by others. Pericles tried to use democracy as a justification for the deaths of the soldiers (Samons 2016, p.86). He appealed to the Athenian pride of democracy as a consolation of death. This is similar to the modern day wars in which the western countries are seen as defenders of democracy.

Equity

Equity was an essential element in the Periclean Democracy. Before the democratic rule, most of the political affairs were governed by the Athenian aristocracy. It was the Athenian aristocracy that was permitted to serve in political offices and establish the rules of the nation. In that form of leadership, the aristocracy mostly passed legislation that favored them. Those people of lower social standings were largely misrepresented in the political sphere. It was during the Periclean era that democracy was reformed to favor those of lower social standing. The power was shifted from the aristocracy and given to all legible Athenian citizens. The Athenians overlooked birth and considered merit when assigning political office. Wealth and privilege could no longer trump poverty in political affairs. Every citizen had a right to participate in political matters as well as serve in political office without the hindrance of birth or wealth. Pericles declared that a man should not be hindered by their obscure condition if they were able to serve their state (Templar 2015, p.171).

Justice

The system was designed to ensure that all Athenian citizens were afforded justice. The aristocratic rules, the democratic rule, and the oligarchies did not afford equal justice to their citizens. In most cases, the ancient governance systems were tyrannical and unfair to the citizens of lower social standing. Justice was often determined by once social standing and wealth (Sitosk 2000, p.43). The democracy in Athens overlooked the aspect of wealth and privilege in the provision of justice. The private matters for individuals were to be settled equitably. At that time those that lacked wealth had the chance to prevail in private matters against those individuals with privilege. The citizens had an equal right to justice despite their social standing. The democracy was strictly focused on equality concerning justice and not concerning economics. According to Kagan (1998), As Kagan notes, “economic equality had no place in the Athens of Pericles.” The class structures persisted, and so the economic inequality persisted in that era.

Another aspect of Periclean democracy was the freedom to do as one pleased. The Athenians considered that democracy gave them the right to see to their private lives as they pleased. The citizen was to do what they pleased with no hesitance due to prying eyes. There was no need for people to interfere with the privacy of others. These freedoms were however limited to the laws of the state. The individuals were to perform their private deeds as long as they were not contrary to the laws of the state. The upside of this law was that individuals did not have to seek the consent of their superiors to perform private tasks. In the aristocratic system, the social class dictated the activities of individuals. In the democratic system, anyone performs any task as long as it was not contrary to the law. These are freedoms that were rarely experienced in the ancient world. In a small society, the right to privacy was essential to the Athenians. The neighbors were to let their neighbors do as they pleased so long as it did not harm them nor contradict established laws.

Rule of Law

The other facet that was deemed highly in the Periclean Democracy is the rule of law. The masses were involved in all political activities, and therefore they were the creators of laws. Obedience to the laws was a pinnacle of the existence of democracy at the time. Pericles encouraged people to observe the rule of law. As noted by Plutarch (1910), Pericles observed that the freedom that was offered to private citizens was not a ticket for the citizens to become lawless. The only way that the citizens could maintain their freedoms as offered by democracy was through their obedience to the law. The citizens were required to adhere to the laws of the magistrates and other codified laws. The Athenians understood that disobedience to the laws was a way of undermining their democracy. They had a book of statutes which guided them in certain affairs. The statutes stated by the books were agreed upon by the masses. The masses were the ones that were permitted to write and remove the statutes. For instance, Pericles used the power of the masses to establish a statute that only approved citizenship for children born purely of Athenian parents (Xenophon 1967, p.45). It is the same masses in the assembly the revoked this law to allow Pericles child born by a non-Athenian parent to become a citizen. The Athenians did not limit their laws to those written in the statute books but also acknowledged the unwritten laws. The Athenians considered that the unwritten laws were not to be broken since their breaking resulted to disgrace. Thus, The Athenian democracy demanded that they obey both the laws in the book of statutes and those that were unwritten. The Athenian democratically formulated the law and those going against the law were contradicting themselves.

Conclusion

The Democracy in Periclean Athens was not an optimal democracy. It can be largely criticized for its exclusion of Athens and those Athenians that were not of pure Athenian origins. It was also discriminative of women participation in the political matters. The limitations of citizenship were in itself discriminative and thus limiting a true democratic spirit in Athens. As King notes (2005), Pericles, was during his time a superior leader to his peers. It was as though he guided the masses through influencing them and allowing them to influence his decision. The democratic structure was thus not as free as it was expected since it highly relied on the influence of Pericles. He was a general for over a decade a position which guaranteed him to influence in Athenian affairs. Upon his death, the democratic structures collapsed since it did not find a suitable replacement for Pericles (Layda 2015, p.35). As a true democracy, no single leaders should have influenced the proceedings. This democracy was a disguise of an autocracy that was under the influence of a single leader, Pericles.

As noted by Stadter (1989), the democratic ideals proposed by Pericles were revolutionary and formed the basis of modern-day democracy. The pursuit of equity and the power of the masses in political affairs are still prevalent in the modern day democracy. The ideals were also revolutionary at their time. Despite showing elements of seclusion of other people, The Athenian democracy was the most equitable form of governance of its time. It had great ideas, but its execution was the week. Pericles did not mentor other leaders to succeed his role nor did he shape the system to be self-sufficient. The radical reforms of the period led to the fall of democracy in Athens and the fall of Athens. This fall is to be blamed on Pericles for trying to stick to power at the time that he was instilling democratic ideals.

References

Aristotle, 1961. The Athenian Constitution., trans. H. Rackham. London: William Heinemann, 21, p.4.

Azoulay, V., 2014. Pericles of Athens. Princeton University Press.

Brun, P. and Lafargue, P., 2016. Is it Possible to Talk about Radical Democracy in Athens?. Dialogues d’histoire ancienne, 42(1), pp.27-52.

Campa, N.T., 2016. Courage in the Democratic Polis: Ideology and Critique in Classical Athens.

Herodotus 1998. Herodotus: The Histories. Waterfield, R., trans.

King, J.D., 2005. Athenian Democracy & Empire.

Lavdas, K.A., 2015. Pericles and the challenge of democratic leadership (book review). European Quarterly of Political Attitudes and Mentalities, 4(4), pp.33-37.

McGregor, M., 2011. The Athenians and their empire. UBC Press.

Mitchell, L., 2016. Greek Political Thought in Ancient History. Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought, 33(1), pp.52-70.

Orwin, C., 1993. Periclean Democracy: Merit and Relevance?.

Plutarch.. 1910Plutarch’s Cimon and Pericles. Vol. 2. C. Scribner’s Sons

Pritchard, D.M., 2015. The cost of Athenian democracy.

Samons, L.J., 2016. Pericles and the conquest of history: a political biography. Cambridge University Press.

Sitoski, R., 2000. Thucydides: The Peloponnesian War.

Siculus, D., 1935. Historical library. Trans. CH Oldfather. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Stadter, P.A., 1989. A commentary on Plutarch’s Pericles. University of North Carolina Press.

Kagan, D., 1998. Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy. Simon and Schuster.

Templer, R., 2015. From Democracy to Empire: Transgression and Substitution in Thucydides’ Periclean Narrative. Polity, 47(2), pp.147-174.

Will, W., 2016. Democracy without an Alternative: Thucydides, Sparta, and Athens. Thucydides and Political Order: Lessons of Governance and the History of the Peloponnesian War, p.55.

Xenophon. 1967. Pseudo-Xenophon. Harvard studies in classical philology, trans. Bowersock, G.W.,. 71, pp.33-55.