Un-Democratic? Or TOO Democratic?

First of all, I would like to thank all who have commented on this blog and encourage more to do so. This is exactly why I wanted to start Classics Reloaded. It is easy enough to sit around by yourself, coming up with ideas, tossing them around your own head, with no one to challenge or support you, then moving on. I was hoping that this would be a place for me to do more than that. This will be for me a testing ground of sorts for different ideas, theories, etc. that I may come across. Ideally, I want this to be a conversation. I am just starting off in the field of classics. I know I have a lot to learn. It is my hope that this blog will be a place for me to share my thoughts and receive criticisms and encouragement from you, the readers.

That being said, the most recent comments on my last two posts, both on democracy in Athens, have really got me thinking. As I read them over, I realized that I do indeed need to take a closer, more critical look at my own thoughts on this topic. I believe that I may have been too hasty in my judgments of Athenian democracy. I think that I may have come out too strongly in my posts against the Athenians, sounding as though I was certain of the undemocratic nature of Athens rather than accurately conveying the state that I was in – one of questioning and doubt. I believe that the events that I discussed were intriguing occurrences in a democracy and warrant a closer look. I do not, however, claim to have the answers.

Looking more closely at my issues with the cases of Alcibiades and Nicias, I realize now that it is not the democracticness, as you might say, of Athens that I should be questioning, but rather, perhaps, the fairness, or justness of the system. (I am still searching for the correct word here, for neither of these are quite accurate.) The problem may not be that Athens was not democratic enough, but rather quite the opposite, that it was too democratic. With the citizens having the right and expectation to vote on quite literally everything, there were no checks on the swings of public opinion. If there was a particularly persuasive orator speaking against Alcibiades, he would be put to death. Is this wrong? Not technically. If that is what the people want, then, in a pure democracy, that must be what happens. Morally, however, it is easy, hopefully obvious, to take issue with this possibility. This very well may be a flaw in the system. One that was remedied with modern democracies, beginning with America. This is precisely why today we have a republic, not a true democracy. The legislature and judiciary, in essence, are in place to protect us from ourselves. I believe the necessity for this protection can, at times, be seen in ancient Athens.

Again, this is a topic that requires far, far more discussion than what has already taken place. I hope that anyone who has anything to contribute will post a comment. As you can see, I may at times, be a little too hasty to post my thoughts on here. That’s when I hope you will call me out on it. The comments here have forced me to reconsider my opinions, to take a closer look at stories I already thought I understood and find a more convincing argument. Hopefully with more time and research, I will yet again fine-tune my opinion on this and other topics. We shall see...

How Democratic Was Athens? (con’t)

This, of course, is a topic that could, and has been, expanded upon to a much greater extent than I can here. However, in this post, I will explore another incident in the Peloponnesian War which brings into question the fairness of Athenian democracy. I acknowledge there is a great deal more to say on this topic, and I intend to return to it in the future.

In war, it was not abnormal for Athenian generals to be tried and punished for crimes and shortcomings in war - they were always to provide a proper burial for the dead; they were never permitted to hit a soldier. These all seem like reasonable expectations for military leaders. However, you’d expect there to be a limit. You, being the Athenian people, can’t punish someone for doing something in you best interests but that you don’t like… right?

Apparently not. As the inevitable failure of the Sicilian Expedition became increasingly apparent, Nicias, one of the greatest generals Athens ever produced and the man responsible for the earlier Peace of Nicias, refused to retreat from Sicily out of fear of the Athenian people. His fellow general, Demosthenes, openly declared that it would be best for the Athenians to retreat. Even the soldiers were “crying out so loudly about their desperate position” (Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War VII:48). It seems as though this would be an acceptable move. But Nicias disagreed.

The troublesome part of this story is that Nicias did not demand that the Athenians stay in Sicily because he believed it to be the best move militarily. Nor because he thought they had a better chance to win the battle. Indeed, according to Thucydides, Nicias agreed that “ their affairs were in a bad way.” He was, nevertheless, unwilling to leave. Nicias knew the Athenian people well – they would not approve of the withdrawal. He also knew what fate awaited him upon his return. “Hostile critics” would deliver speeches and reports to the Athenians “whose judgments would be swayed by any clever speech designed to create prejudice.” Even his own soldiers could not be counted on; regardless of how dire they agreed the situation was while in Sicily, they “would, as soon as they got to Athens, entirely change their tune and would say the generals had been bribed to betray them and return” (VII:48). Plutarch agrees, explaining that Nicias refused to retreat, “not because he underrated the Syracuseasn, but because he was still more afraid of the Athenian people and of the accusations and trials which would follow at home” (The Rise and Fall of Athens VII:22).

I find this to be not only disturbing but ineffective. This seems problematic to the idea of the great Athenian democracy. How fair is a government when one of its best generals is too afraid of the prejudiced condemnation of his fellow citizens to make the militaristic decisions which he believes to be best? How well run is an army when decisions are being made for any reason other than what will give the group the best chance of victory and/or survival? Nicias made a conscious decision that death at the hands of his enemy in a failed battle would be preferable to being “put to death on a disgraceful charge and by an unjust verdict of the Athenians” (VII:48). Nicias is described as “knowing the Athenian character.” If even he did not fully trust the constructs of the judicial system, I think it is safe to say that system was corrupt.

So, how fair is a system in which innocent leaders are liable to be put to death for making a unpopular but responsible decision? Not very, I would have to say.

How democratic was Athens?

Since I've known what Ancient Greece was, I've known that Athenian democracy is touted as the great predecessor of our own American democracy and of all democracies, to some extent, throughout the world. This is a fact often taken for granted in studying the ancient world. It is very easy to make comparisons between the U.S. and Athens.

However, as I am learning more about the form of democracy developed and employed at the height of Athenian power, I am become more and more suspicious that this system may not be all it is cracked up to be. There are the obvious undemocratic aspects of Athens, such as slavery and the political and social repression of women. I am willing to leave these out of the equation, given that America, too, was guilty of these same crimes for the better part of her existence.

Apart from this, however, I am finding things that make me wonder how democratic this place really was. Several instances in the Peloponnesian War are particularly questionable. Take the case of Alcibiades, for example. The night before the great (but doomed) Athenian expedition to Sicily was to launch all but one of the Hermea in the city were mutilated. The Hermea, podiums with the head of Hermes and a phallus, were located all throughout the city calling on the god for protection from evil. Such a sacrilege, particularly the night before such a crucial expedition, was seen as a very bad omen for the mission and a grave crime that had to be punished. Although it still remains uncertain who was responsible for the acts, Alcibiades was accused. (His actual guilt or innocence is irrelevant to the point I am making with this story.) According to Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian War, Alcibiades denied the charges but requested to stand trial before leaving for Sicily. He begged the citizens not to listen to his enemies in his absence but rather try and, if necessary, put him to death right there while he could still defend himself. He even acknowledged “how unwise it would be to send him out in command of such a large army with such serious accusations still hanging over his head” (VI: 29). This seems like a very level-headed and fair thing for a man in such a position to say. However, the Athenians, so worked up about their attack on Sicily, were willing to overlook this offense for the sack of the mission. The Athenians decided, then, it would be best not to hold up the army. Alcibiades would sail with them and return in a set number of days to stand trial.

Does this sound very democratic to you? Because of his position of military and social prominence, Alcibiades was allowed to avoid trial. Eventually, after fighting for some time with Sicily, Alcibiades, rather than returning to Athens for his trial at the appointed time, deserted. He ended up becoming a key advisor and strategist for none other than the Spartans. Even if he wasn’t the one who mutilated the Hermea, he’s still probably not the kind of guy you want leading your army into an expedition of such a size and importance of that of the one headed for Sicily. (He then deserted Sparta and returned to, yes, you guessed it, Athens. And (get this!) he was reinstated as a general! How’s that for democracy?) The fact that the popularity of Alcibiades, as well as the influence of his enemies who wanted more time to gather incriminating evidence, was capable of overruling law, a fairly serious, religious law at that, says to me that this “democracy” still had a long way to go.

In my next post, I will look into another incident from the expedition to Sicily that brings into question the democratic nature of Athens: Nicias’ fear of the Athenian public, therefore courts, and his subsequent unwillingness to surrender.