The Ancient Greeks on Democracy : Long Read

George W Bush, the erstwhile president of The United States of America, in the October of 2005, was making a speech at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington. It was 3 years into the now infamous Iraq War, when he famously made the following statement "It is true that the seeds of freedom have only recently been planted in Iraq — but democracy, when it grows, is not a fragile flower; it is a healthy, sturdy tree". On June 8, 2006, the Republican Speaker of the US Congress, John Boehner said "Now that's what the fight is all about in this part of the world(read Iraq), planting seeds of democracy". Planting these seeds was a messy affair though, with an estimated 98000 excess deaths or more in less than 2 years since the invasion. That the ideals of democracy and freedom were used to justify a bloody war would make anyone question the real reasons behind the war. But it should also make one question the ideals of democracy and freedom itself. Are these ideals so high and so sacrosanct as to be worthy of waging a war? Is a democracy such a guarantor of peace and prosperity? President Bush's optimism about democracy was unshakable, but the very founders of democracy, the ancient Greeks, were all not very convinced about this idea, let alone optimistic. 

In the piece, we shall gloss over the opinions of the high philosophers of ancient Athens, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. All the three lived in the period between 594 and 322 BC, which saw the Athenian democratic system evolve, before the Macedonian invasion brought it to an end.  But before we indulge in the theory, it is important to understand the nature of Athenian democracy's practice briefly. Only in context of the practice, can their arguments be understood. 

Athenian Democratic Setup

Palace in Athens, by Leo von Klenze

Athens like other Greek towns, was an independent city state. This meant that the final unit government was very small, in comparison to modern nation-states. Athens, was a direct democracy too, which meant that every citizen was directly involved and there were no representatives, unlike in India, which is a representative democracy. Of course, to be in this position, one is required to be a full state citizen and not just be present in the city. To be a citizen, both of one's parents had to be citizens. If either of one's parents were not citizens(i.e., not belonging to Athens), one could not be a citizen. He could however, carry on a perfectly normal life, be wealthy or intellectually influential(like Aristotle), and such were called the metics. Notoriously, women were deprived of political rights too and hence they couldn't be full citizens. Next were slaves, who had no political rights too(they were essentially non-Greek(barbarian)). All in all, Athens was a pretty large city, and full citizen comprised only a minority of the population. Reportedly, they numbered round about 35000. 

An impression of the Greek Assembly

The Greek democracy, had three major wings. The Assembly, the Council and the Courts. The Assembly met on crucial matters and decided through a show of hands. The Council, a body of 500 members elected from the citizens, decided which matters are to be debated(a body to which elections were held every year through a random pick from the lot mechanism). The Courts, by modern standards, had large juries, ranging from 200 to 500(as during the trial of Socrates) and sometimes 1000 and were selected by a lot from the citizenry. So stood the system in brief.

'A shoemaker, O Socrates!'

Now, Socrates, the first among the trio, is a very difficult subject for a historian. Socrates never wrote anything by himself, so all that we know of him, or we think we know of him, is from his description by his two pupils, Xenophon and Plato. While both wrote voluminously of him, they said very different things about him altogether. In Bertrand Russell's eloquence, "even when they agree it has been suggested by Burnet that Xenophon is copying Plato. Where they disagree some believe the one, some the other and some neither". There is also the suspicion that Plato's Socrates is actually fictional and not the real one in his dialogues. Of Xenophon, most feel he wasn't bright enough to understand Socrates very well.

However, Xenophon is convincing in some places and he tells(as Plato also does) how Socrates was continually occupied with the problem of getting competent men in to positions of power. He would ask such questions as: "If I wanted a shoe mended, whom shall I employ? To which some ingenuous youth would answer : ' A shoemaker, O Socrates!'. He would go on to carpenters, coppersmiths, etc. and finally ask some such question as 'who should mend the Ship of State?'. It appears that Socrates is probably hinting to the kind of philosopher king  that Plato talks about in his Republic, but he doesn't seem to be looking for the answer, the majority.

'What is Good?'

Plato meanwhile, was born into an aristocratic family. No wonder, his philosophy stresses upon leisure as crucial for the good life. Plato's philosophy is said it be inspired by many pre-Socratic philosophers like Pythagoras and Parmenides. But his own teacher's influence was special, especially in his preoccupation with the Good in his attempt to find answers to questions of moral and political philosophy. 

Ultimately, the question here is simple. Is democracy good or bad? Now these ancient Athenian thinkers assumed the measure of value( of the Good )  has to be from a human perspective. So the value of any thing or object, is by the value it lends to the humans who inhabit it, and so it is for democracy. So according to Plato the question, is democracy Good, is answered by the question, is democracy Good for man(or the people of Athens)? Now, for democracy to be Good for man, it naturally has to assure a good quality of life for its inhabitants. So the the question, is democracy Good for man, can be answered by the question; does democracy assure its' citizens a good quality of life? Now any system can assure its' citizens a good quality of life, by taking the right decisions about it. So then the question becomes, can democracy take decisions or bring about decisions, good for man? 

We have used the word Good to a point where more of it might sound bad. But the question arises, what is good? Can we have knowledge of this Good that Plato appears to be insisting on. Plato assumes again, that it is possible to have knowledge of the good. The central idea involved in Plato’s criticism is that there is a truth about matters of value(or of the Good), so that whether or not something is good does not just depend upon whether or not somebody thinks that it is. If people disagree about matters of value, then it is possible that some of them are right and some of them are wrong; it is not that every opinion is as good as every other.`

So, assuming the some have more knowledge of the good than others, Does democracy take the views of those knowledgeable of the good, in order to bring about a good life for man? We know that  a democracy, is the rule of the majority. Then naturally, Plato could defend the democratic system as basis for political life, if and only if, the majority was knowledgeable of the good and he doesn't believe so. Hence, comes Plato's criticism of democracy.

Hence, Plato in his Republic , spends ostensibly long time on the idea that knowledge of value is attainable, but requires long education. Based on this is the idea that the perfect state will only arise if, in the famous phrase, ‘either philosophers become kings or those who are now called kings and rulers come to be sufficiently inspired with a genuine desire for wisdom’. For Plato, the masses could never become such rulers, for ‘the multitude can never be philosophical.’

Tyranny of the Majority

Aristotle, the last of the trio(oh finally!) announced his political philosophy in the book

Politics. A good government,he says, is good when it aims at the good for the whole community, bad when it cares only for itself. There are three kinds of government that are good, monarchy, aristocracy and constitutional government(polity). There are three types of corresponding bads: tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. The difference between a polity and a democracy being, that there is a difference of ethical qualities in the holders of power. There is also a difference in addition, for what Aristotle calls polity retains some oligarchic elements. He is emphatic in distinguishing oligarchy and democracy by the economic status of the governing party : there is oligarchy when the rich govern without consideration for the poor, democracy when they disregard the interest of the rich.

Aristotle, essentially believes that a good government must think for the whole community and
shouldn't be about the power holders ruling in their own favor. As is apparent, he ascribes democracy to the rule of the poor. He then tries to put the goodness of democracy to test by asking 'what if the poor, on ground of being the majority, decide to divide the property of the rich among themselves? Wouldn't this be unjust?'. Aristotle's fears seem misplaced for a constitutional democracy like ours. We must remember however, that his criticism came at a time when the courts were composed of large number of citizens chosen by a lot, unaided by a jurist, who could be swayed by rhetoric and party preferences. The larger problem however, that Aristotle leaves for posterity is, how can we avoid a democracy from being the dictatorship of the majority? How can the government be devoid of parochial preference towards the interests of its ilk?

Nonetheless, Aristotle after a lengthy analysis, deems monarchy to be better than aristocracy and aristocracy better than polity. But the corruption of the best is the worst; therefore tyranny is worse than oligarchy, and oligarchy than democracy. Hence comes Aristotle's qualified defense of democracy, for most actually governments are bad, and therefore, among the actual governments, democracies tend to be the best.

So, the overall point, our high philosophers of ancient Greece appear to make, is that the problems of state craft can be complex and demanding. We all believe, much like these men, that the purpose of a state, is not just to give us protection, but also to offer us a good life. To ensure a good life, requires a just and free society, but also a state that takes good decisions. A democracy, however, doesn't rely on wise philosophers or super intellectuals to meet these challenges. In light of the now infamous Demonetization exercise, the election of Trump and Britain's exit of the EU, the criticisms of Socrates and Plato come true. The manner in which different caste and religion based parties of India think only about the narrow benefits of their own communities instead of deliberating on the good of the whole country, in regard to, say demands for reservation, we witness the fears that Aristotle raised.

So democracy as a concept, despite its global appeal, deserves on the occasion, reasoned criticism and deliberation from the citizen, lest we should become idiots in the greek sense of the word:

 Idiot” ( Ιδιωτης), coming from the word “Idios” ( meaning “self”) meant a “ selfish” person who ignored political debates, did not partake in decision taking and generally did not participate at all in politics. As the word implies, someone who only cared for himself, “seperated from the whole”, as you put it.

School of Athens, by Raphael, with Plato and Aristotle in the center.