To some degree, the practices of democracy in Athens followed the pattern of inclusiveness set by its values and institutions. Allowing the people to propose or to make decisions by majority vote is one way of solving the problem of how the theory of popular rule might be translated into a legitimate democratic reality. Indeed, the people were so powerful in their collective decision-making capacity that in 411 BC, they were able to abolish their own democracy when perceived external pressures made it appear expedient to do so (Thuc. 8.69). Important judicio-political decisions, such as the execution of Socrates or the acquittal of Demosthenes, were also made by the panels of popular jurors, who possessed no expertise other than that which they would have developed as citizens of the Athenian polis. The history of events gives us an example of a case where people power was supreme in Athenian democracy. In 406 BC, the Athenians castigated their generals for failing to rescue men shipwrecked after a battle off the Arginusai islands (Xen. Hell. 1.6-7). The council passed a proposal to the Assembly that the generals be tried as a board rather than as individuals. An intervention against this proposal, claiming that such a trial was unconstitutional, was rejected violently in the Assembly, with the ‘‘great mass shouting out that it was an intolerable thing if the people was not allowed to do what it wanted’’ (Xen. Hell. 1.7.12). The generals were executed; the people soon regretted their actions (Xen. Hell. 1.7.35); Kallixenos, proposer of the motion, was shunned and starved to death. Such imposition of popular power has led to the claim that Athenian democracy in the fifth century was particularly radical or extreme. Indeed, for the author known to modern scholars as the ‘‘Old Oligarch,’’ the impact of democracy was to give more power to the poor than the rich (Ps-Xen. Ath. Pol. 1.4). However, the partisan view of Athenian democracy as a class struggle was not universally accepted: the Syracusan politician Athenagoras, for instance, defined democracy as that form which gives both rich and poor a share in political rights (Thuc. 6.39.1).
The openness of the democratic system enabled certain citizens to win ascendancy and influence over their fellow citizens so that they became politicians or leaders in a modern sense (Rhodes 2000; on the selection of magistrates see the next section). Although the authority of all magistracies was limited by the powers of the courts and the Assembly, power was accrued by persuasion: expert knowledge, charisma and skill were key qualities, but a politician’s standing was as secure as his last speech (Finley 1985a: 38-75). In the fifth century, the most prominent and influential politicians were, for the most part, the generals who were elected to their office (to which they could be reelected without restriction): Pericles, who was elected general continuously for 15 years from 443 bc, is the prime example (Plut. Per. 16.3; Thuc. 2.65.10); in the fourth century, politicians rose to positions of prominence through oratorical power in the law courts and Assembly. Often it was the case that these politicians deployed democratic institutions to serve their own interests. ThegraphlparanomOn, for instance, was used by politicians who wanted to build their reputation or to challenge another’s ascendancy. Aeschines’ prosecution of Ctesiphon in 330, for proposing an unconstitutional and undeserved crowning of Demosthenes, led to a showdown between the prosecutor and Demosthenes: the verdict of the jury drew his political career to a close (Aeschines 3 Against Ctesiphon). There were no fixed party groupings in ancient Greece (Anastasiadis 1999; B. Strauss 1986: 9-41), and individuals were free to appeal to as broad a spectrum as possible; however, it is highly likely that individual politicians were able to rally family members, friends and those with shared interests in coalitions known as hetaireiai (Connor 1971).
Some modern scholarly research has emphasized the significance of individuals or ruling elites in Athenian politics. While selection by lot of officials appears to have encouraged participation from a wider section of society, those registered as citizens of city-demes were disproportionately well represented in elected magistracies such as the generalship (C. Taylor 2007a). In the judicial sphere, it is clear also that wealth was a very useful tool in political self-promotion. Wealthy citizens would boast of their contributions to public levies in their speeches (Millett 1998); they would have been less deterred by the threat of fines imposed on those who brought unsuccessful public prosecutions, and for this reason they would have been able to take advantage of the procedural flexibility of the Athenian legal system (Osborne 1985b). The wealthy would have been able to make effective use of bribery to buy off would-be prosecutors (C. Taylor 2001). Despite the ideology of political equality enunciated in Athenian public discourse, it is widely recognized that in Athens there was no institutional attempt to eradicate inequality of opportunity, social status, or education. Although jury and assembly pay may have been enough for citizens to support themselves and dependents, and allowed Athenian citizens the leisure to participate (Markle 1985), it is likely that seasonal demand for agricultural labor may have determined the makeup of such meetings (Todd 1990).
While Athenian democracy enabled the existence of ‘‘people power,’’ socioeconomic inequalities meant that the rich and the well-born always had a significant presence in Athenian politics. The skill of rhetoric was undoubtedly a significant factor in pursuing a political career (it was a skill which sophists, in exchange for a fee, may have been able to cultivate), and expenditure remained an important factor in raising one’s profile. Furthermore, prosopographical studies suggest that some sort of elite (consisting of the wealthy of those citizens whose family origins lay in the city center) played a large part in decree-making and elected officeholding. A disproportionately large number of proposers of decrees came from the wealthiest 4 percent of the population (Hansen 1987: 65). Despite the fact that there is epigraphical evidence to suggest that the dominance of the wealthy in elected offices was less extreme in the fourth century than it was in the fifth, it was still the case that the wealthy played a disproportionately large role in city politics (Osborne 1985a: 71; C. Taylor 2007b). On the other hand, the picture of politics on a local scale, in the demes, is more egalitarian: Osborne’s survey of the holders of the locally powerful office of demarch suggests that for the most part, the holders of that office were not men of high socioeconomic status (Osborne 1985a: 85).
While the wealthy and privileged dominated the foremost political roles, there were opportunities for the masses to participate in less prominent roles. Ober has suggested that the effect of popular participation in the fourth century bc was to make the de facto political leadership adapt an agenda which was amenable to the interests of the poor (Ober 1989). The frustrations of antidemocratic authors like the Old Oligarch (see above) appear to reflect this priority of popular interests. While it is impossible to be certain about the proportion of citizens attending the Assembly, it is likely that in the classical period, just fewer than 25 percent of male citizens eligible (those over the age of 30) would have served in the boule in any ten-year period (Sinclair 1988: 196). This means that a significant proportion of those with political privileges would have dealt closely with the financial, military and political administration of the city and would have been involved in debate and decision-making on behalf of their city. This may well have given rise to a very high level of political and bureaucratic awareness (Ober 2005b: 27-42); participation in political activity in the demes (Osborne 1985a: 88-92) would have raised political education to a higher degree and may, as J. S. Mill hoped, have stimulated and raised the political awareness of individual citizens (Blaug and Schwarzmantel 2001: 59-67).
What emerges therefore is that the bipolarity apparent in theories about democracy (which allowed for coexisting discourses about the value of mass and elite political activity) appears to have been reproduced by the institutions and practices of Athenian democracy: expert leaders and politicians coexisted with wide and meaningful popular participation. But the Athenian ideal of participation extended far beyond the limits of political deliberation and decision-making. Athenian citizens were highly involved in public activities that did not pertain to the political administration oftheir city. In many senses, participation was expressed as a way of life as much as it was a political system. The Athenians encouraged their wealthy citizens, by a range of institutional and social pressures, to contribute to a range of financial levies perceived by the citizens to be in the public interest (Liddel 2007: 109-209,262-93). Activities such as participation in festivals (Connor 1996), public dining (Schmitt-Pantel 1990), attending the theater (which activity the Athenians may well have subsidized in the fourth century (Rhodes 1981a: 514)), and religious activity (such as participation in shared sacrifices) were a central part of citizenship. Contributing to the well-being of the city in a range of ways was all highly valued, and the predominant discourse of Athenian inscriptions, the law courts and the Assembly constructed a theoretical compatibility between civic activity and the notion of free citizenship. To identify participation as the phenomenon at the heart of Athenian democracy is to suggest that that democratic ‘‘politics’’ is a concept that extends deeply into the realm of cultural activity (cf. Scafuro 1994).
World History
