What Are the Key Features of the Athenian Democracy at the Time of the Peloponnesian War (431-404bc)?

The Athenian government tried many systems such as tyranny and oligarchy before reaching the reputable direct democracy. The first known leader of Athens, according to legend, was King Cecrops, half-man half-snake in the 16th Century BC yet over time power was divided between three leaders. In 594 BC the first signs of democracy were developed by The Reforms of Solon in which a council of 400 men, 100 from each tribe, was created. In 462 BC Ephilates modified the system by reducing the power of the aristocracy in the Areopagos 'by bringing charges against' (Aristotle, Constitutions of the Athenians, (25.2)) which led to the beginnings of a long and stable democratic system. Athens is regarded as the first democratic state originating in around 508 BC and whilst many surrounding territories of Athens attempted a similar form of government none were as successful or as well established as Athens. The policies of the Athenian democratic system and modern society's democracy are strongly comparable as they both 'govern with a view to the common interest' (Aristotle, Politics 3.IV.7), yet there are stark contrasts regarding its structure and methods. The following essay will explore the key features of Athenian democracy whilst making contrasts with modern western democracy.

Aristotle describes the nature of the political constitutions in Athens explaining that the government 'must be in the hands of one, or of the few, or of the many' (Aristotle, Politics 3.IV.7),. He continues his account to clarify the difference between these constitutions presenting for each the perversions that can arise: 'of royalty, tyranny, of aristocracy, oligarchy, of constitutional government, democracy'(Aristotle, Politics 3.V.5). None of these political organisations, he believes, rules with a common interest for everyone. Monarchy regards only himself, aristocracy only consider the interest of the wealthy and a democracy's primary concern is for the needy. His conclusion is therefore that since the rich cannot lead as it would be despotic, nor can they be led as they have not learnt the 'habit of obedience' (Aristotle, Politics 3.IX.5), the only solution is the ruling of the middle class as they are the most 'secure in state'(Aristotle, Politics 3.IX.7),. In the archonship of Phrynichos, 337/6 a law against tyranny was proposed and inscribed upon a stele; 'if anyone rises up against the people for a tyranny or joins in establishing a tyranny or overthrows the Athenian people of the democracy at Athens' , shall, and his descendants too, be deprived of citizenship and property. This shows that by this time, tyranny was not commended and that the democracy had been firmly established as a way of rule in Athens. It also suggests, however, that Athens was concerned about its democratic constitution especially with the Macedonian threat, which in 322 turned out to be a justified apprehension as they overthrew the democracy.

Herodotus' Histories presents us with a debate exploring the positive and negative aspects of each the political organisations. Otanes describes a rule of a monarchy to lead to 'insolence' and a selfish rule: 'he envies the best who thrive and live, and is please by the worst of his fellows; and he is the best confidant of slander' (Herodotus, Histories,)

. He exalts the power of the multitude explaining how equality in power is the most successful way to rule. Megabyzus supports the rule of an oligarchy agreeing with the defects of a monarch and imploring that a rule of a mob could never work as 'how can they have knowledge who have not learned or seen for themselves what is best'(Herodotus, Histories,) and thus an oligarchy is the only solution. Darius, on the other hand, faults an oligarchic system justifying himself by showing that men are competitive and will want to make his opinion heard causing 'bitter hate among them'(Herodotus, Histories,). He concludes by saying that whatever rule there is a monarch will always be the final result and is therefore the best. In Barak Obama's inauguration speech he paid respect to democracy, noting that "when the bombs fell on our harbour and tyranny threatened the world she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved' . This suggests that the opposite is true for modern society as we have suffered dictators, communists and socialists with no avail and settled with democracy.

To be able to employ a successful direct democracy the community must be small enough for inhabitants to easily attend meetings and debates and for the citizens to have enough leisure time by having slaves to develop an interest and opinion in politics. However, of the entire population, estimated to be around 300,000 citizens, only 15% were actually eligible to vote due to strict requirements. One had to be over 18 years, have an Athenian father and in 451 BC an Athenian mother as well and had to have completed military training as ephebes to be able to vote. Women, tradesmen and slaves were all therefore excluded from a political life. Furthermore, the right to vote was removed if one was in debt or engaged in prostitution for instance. This resembles the origins of modern western democracy in which women, slaves and non land owners could not vote resulting in about only 25% of the population having a say in the government. Today, nonetheless, all that is required is citizenship and to be over 18 years of age. Thus the difference between archaic and modern democracy is significant as their 'politicians' were randomly selected and fairly rotated whereas ours are elected on merit and strength of campaign.

The governing body in the 5th Century BC was divided into three main areas- the Assembly, the Council, and the Court. The Assembly, or the Ekklesia, took place four times a year on the Pnyx, a hill near the Acropolis, in order to accommodate the large numbers that attended. Around 6,000 men would attend and in 390 BC, to encourage participation, men were paid for their time. Any male citizen was entitled to be present to discuss matters such as going to war or granting citizenship. They were also required to consider the performance of the magistrates. This procedure that enabled all men to attend is very different and far more direct to modern ways in which there is the House of Lords and the House of Commons who are delegated to discuss political matters. Even the ten members who preside over the meetings were randomly selected by lot each day from one of the ten tribes. Furthermore, the method of passing a law was far more personal than it is today as if there is even one objection to a proposed idea, then it would be further discussed and possibly amended. Unlike today where voting is privately done in ballots men simply raised their hands

...