What is the difference between representative government and the government in ancient Athens?
In a representative government, there is no institutional role for the assembled people.
However: Athenian city-states were known for their ‘direct democracy’.
It is commonly thought Direct Democracy means that all important political powers were exercised
by the assembled peoples… but were they?
Which tasks were performed by whom? Tasks not performed by the Assembly were entrusted
to citizens selected by a drawing of lots.
In the past 200 years, representative democracy has been associated with the election... but
never with lot.
Lot has advantages, it is the form of selection harbouring the most equality.
But there are obvious disadvantages…
Unqualified people can get into a position of power
There is a disclaimer to this video: I delve into the institutional system of Ancient Athens.
Let it be known that this “direct democracy” only allowed ‘free men’ to vote.
Women, slaves and foreigners were NOT allowed to vote.
Regardless, Ancient Athens is considered the first Direct Democracy, so what exactly does
this mean?
-intro-
Our case study is Ancient Athens.
In Athens, most functions that were not performed by the Assembly were filled by lot.
In order to fill these functions, one had to put himself forward as a candidate.
The lot process consisted of drawing white or brown beans.
In essence, men were selected for functions by sheer luck.
Socrates probably has voiced your exact thoughts: “No one chose ships’ pilots, architects,
or flute players by this method”.
An example of functions that were filled by lot, were Magistrates.
They had no political (legislative) power, merely administrative and executive.
Once a magistrate was selected he filled his role for one year.
A person cannot be a magistrate in the same function more than once a lifetime and he
cannot be a magistrate twice in succession.
The people of Athen’s weren’t as naïve as to think that electing by lot was fool-proof.
Before magistrates got ‘into office’ there was an inquiry (dokimasia) checking whether
they had paid taxes.
This was not an inquiry to establish competence, however.
Checks were built in to prevent incompetence.
Magistrates were monitored constantly by the Assembly and the courts.
After their tenure, they had to give accountability to the Assembly (euthynai).
Every citizen could sue a magistrate and demand his firing.
These checks resulted in self-selection among the citizens of Athens - lots were drawn not
among all citizens but only among those that had offered themselves as candidates.
Elected offices were also constantly monitored.
There were fundamental differences between elected and lot offices.
Elected offices were annual but a person may be elected to the same office multiple times
in succession.
Examples are Pericles, who was elected general (strategos) for more than twenty years and
Phocion who held office for 45 years.
Elected offices were those where competence was deemed crucial.
Generals, top military administrator and chief financial officials.
Elected offices were the most important ones.
It oversaw the conduct of war and management of finances.
The majority of elected posts were filled by the economic and social elite.
Magistrates had administrative and executive power, not necessarily major political power.
They prepared the Assembly agenda (probouluein), conducted preliminary investigations prior
to law-suits (anakrinein), carried out the decisions by courts and Assembly (epitattein,
prostattein) among other things.
They did not hold decisive power, as Manin put it: they did not make major political
decisions.
This power belonged to Assembly and courts.
The power to make proposals and take initiative was not the privilege of a group….
any citizen could do this.
In practice, this meant that the process of self-selection limited the number of citizens
taking initiative.
The theory, however, that anyone could submit a proposal during Assembly meetings, constituted
one of the highest democratic ideals.
In the beginning, I mentioned Socrates and his criticism of election by lot.
This criticism was rebutted by Xenophon, and after this explanation, the election by lot,
perhaps, makes more sense.
Socrates was deliberately missing the crucial point, in democracy magistrates were not supposed
to be ship’s pilots or architects.
The Council (Boule) & Heliastai
Membership of the council (the Boule) was determined by lot.
Members of the council were magistrates.
The duration of a term was one year, and a citizen could not be a member of the council
multiple years in succession.
Members were paid, which resulted in responsibility: the council could sue its own members.
The council determined the Assemblies agenda, this meant that it had the most decisive power
of any of the functions filled by lot.
Its obligations were external cases, administration of the marine and general administration and
finance.
The full importance of lot in Athenian democracy requires us to inspect another body.
The Heliastai.
Every year 6000 citizens were chosen by lot from a pool of volunteers to fill this body.
Members that put themselves forward were generally older than the citizens that made up the Assembly,
thus they enjoyed special status.
From this group of six thousand, the members of the people’s court (the dikasteria) and
a jury panel (the nomothetai, after the 4th century) were recruited.
Different judges and jury-members were chosen every day were from among this group by lot.
The People’s court (the dikasteria) was an important political organ.
The People’s court decided over the illegality of a proposed law and its initiator.
For example when this law was against democratic principles or against the public interest.
This complaint could also be against a law that was already accepted by the Assembly
- the people’s court had a certain amount of control over the Assembly.
It could sue people for treason, corruption and attempted coups.
And it could subject magistrates to an investigation before they held office.
After the oligarchic revolutions from 411 and 404, the Assembly could no longer pass
laws, only decrees.
Legislative decisions would be left to the nomothetai (which was appointed by lot as
well) There was a difference between laws and decrees:
A Law was written, it held more legitimacy, it was law for all citizens of Athens, and
was valid for an unspecified amount of time.
In 403 existing laws were codified.
Any citizen could propose a law at any time, six magistrates checked the legislation and
could bring an invalid law before the Assembly.
What I have just explained seems contradictory to the earlier explanation about functions
filled by lot not holding any important legislative powers.
Legislative powers of the nomothetai were mostly revision, the Assembly had the initiative,
and the nomothetai had the final verdict.
This shows that an organ where the members were assigned by lot was… perhaps more influential
than people think.
Tussenconclusie
Nowadays when people make the distinction between representative and direct democracy,
the latter is usually associated with all the assembled people holding political power.
Delving deeper into the political system of Ancient Athens contradicts this notion.
Besides the magistrates, three institutions other than the Assembly exercised an important
political function.
The Council, the courts and the nomothetai.
Manin has said about this: “The people’s courts and the Council merit particular attention,
for both institutions, played a key part throughout the history of the Athenian democracy”
The courts were even able to overturn decisions (for revision) of the Assembly.
Thus, direct democracy does not mean the absence of representation.
Citizens did not hold all political power; important and certain decisive powers belonged
to institutions that were other than the citizens, even if these sometimes were indirect.
To return to the question asked in the beginning: then what does constitute direct democracy?
According to Manin, if one is convinced Athens’ institutions, such as the Council and the
courts, were organs of “direct government”, then direct government can only refer to the
election process of these institutions.
As described, the election process for these institutions was determined by lot, rather
than being identical to “the people”.
One could argue direct democracy means that people in certain positions of power were
elected by lot.
Thank you very much for watching this video.
As always, the sources that I have used are in the description.
If you have any questions or want to see a topic covered in my next video, feel free
to leave a comment.
Until next Friday!