Representation
Democracy has always meant 'authority of the people'. The problem in defining it more clearly is threefold: what is 'authority', what is 'of', and what is 'the people'? Some people have never even thought about any of these terms; most have not thought about all of them.
Democracy as it came out of Greece was pretty straightforward. Freemen who had completed national service and were not under criminal suspension voted; it was a duty for all adult (above 18) males who were not disqualified to do so. The rest (about 80-90% of the population) were not 'the people'. The majority (or plurality) won, and the minority was not represented at all. Voting was by hands if the group was small enough, or by black and white balls cast into a clay jar. At the end of vote casting, the jar was broken open for public counting of votes.
The assembly of the people was called the ekklesia. There were no limits to what they could and did vote on, although most of their business involved commercial, social and legal order. After about 400 BC, the first 6000 citizens to arrive at the assembly became the quorum, and received a payment for attendance. Their authority was not subject to review or investigation; if somehow they were shown to have made a mistake, it was commonly put out that they were 'misled' by the information or evidence provided for a decision.
For legal decisions, a juror panel was appointed from a pool of 6000 voters; these panels were large, numbering in the hundreds (commonly 201 or 501 jurors) and sometimes thousands. You had to be 30 years of age and older to vote in one of these panels. Speakers were timed by water-clock, with time limit proportional to the amount at stake or importance of the case. This was normally three hours, prosecution first, then defence. The jury had to say 'yes' or 'no' collectively, with no time limit on deliberation.
More important as a consequence of all this was that two philosophies contended over the fate of the ancient world. Democrats favoured the demos: the people who qualified as citizens regardless of further characteristics. Republicans favoured rule by the elite: the people who were more qualified by reason of wealth, descent, or education. The former believed it was unjust not to enfranchise all legal citizens; the latter believed it was against the nature of the world to not reward manifest success. The former attempted to broaden the voting franchise; the latter attempted to create barriers which would make the effective pool smaller.
Which brings us to the present day, and why it is obvious that we are a Republic. For now.
Democracy as it came out of Greece was pretty straightforward. Freemen who had completed national service and were not under criminal suspension voted; it was a duty for all adult (above 18) males who were not disqualified to do so. The rest (about 80-90% of the population) were not 'the people'. The majority (or plurality) won, and the minority was not represented at all. Voting was by hands if the group was small enough, or by black and white balls cast into a clay jar. At the end of vote casting, the jar was broken open for public counting of votes.
The assembly of the people was called the ekklesia. There were no limits to what they could and did vote on, although most of their business involved commercial, social and legal order. After about 400 BC, the first 6000 citizens to arrive at the assembly became the quorum, and received a payment for attendance. Their authority was not subject to review or investigation; if somehow they were shown to have made a mistake, it was commonly put out that they were 'misled' by the information or evidence provided for a decision.
For legal decisions, a juror panel was appointed from a pool of 6000 voters; these panels were large, numbering in the hundreds (commonly 201 or 501 jurors) and sometimes thousands. You had to be 30 years of age and older to vote in one of these panels. Speakers were timed by water-clock, with time limit proportional to the amount at stake or importance of the case. This was normally three hours, prosecution first, then defence. The jury had to say 'yes' or 'no' collectively, with no time limit on deliberation.
More important as a consequence of all this was that two philosophies contended over the fate of the ancient world. Democrats favoured the demos: the people who qualified as citizens regardless of further characteristics. Republicans favoured rule by the elite: the people who were more qualified by reason of wealth, descent, or education. The former believed it was unjust not to enfranchise all legal citizens; the latter believed it was against the nature of the world to not reward manifest success. The former attempted to broaden the voting franchise; the latter attempted to create barriers which would make the effective pool smaller.
Which brings us to the present day, and why it is obvious that we are a Republic. For now.
etched with acid at 9:58:00 am
2 Comments:
But later Greeks like Plato and Aristotle did not favoure democracy
Exactly. That's why Plato wrote The Republic, and that's why Socrates (his mentor) had to drink hemlock.
Post a Comment
<< Home