In the modern era, the term ‘‘democracy,’’ until the early nineteenth century, was used in political thought and practice to refer to Athenian-style direct democracy (though in the hellenistic world, democracy was used sometimes to refer simply to constitutional government (Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 531-6)). Historians and political thinkers alike tended to view democracy as an anarchic form of government; the Athenian experience of government was held up as an example which was to be avoided (Roberts 1994: 156-207). Only after the French revolution did the terms ‘‘democrat’’ and ‘‘democracy’’ start to become universally accepted political slogans (Dunn 2005: 16-17, 71-147). De Tocqueville’s Democracy in America appears to have been the first text to use the term democracy to describe the modern form of representative government: it was used in this way in an analysis of the American constitution which, until that point, had been described as a republican form of government (Samons 2004: 1). In the mid-nineteenth century, as the word ‘‘democracy’’ came to be one that was increasingly used to describe a set of political institutions and ideals, some liberal historians and political thinkers began to use the history of Athenian democracy as a way of making points about modern democracy (Roberts 1994: 229-55; Turner 1981: 187-363; Urbinati 2002).
But significant discrepancies between the institutions and practices of ancient and modern democracy have made the transcultural significance of Greek democracy difficult to grasp. Greek democracy was significantly different in terms of scale and eligibility (Cartledge 1999). Modern democracy, particularly in powerful states, is most consequential at the level of the nation-state; contrarily, the classical form of democracy, despite the attempts of the Athenians to establish democratic governments in some of the cities of her fifth century empire, never established a stable interpolis community of citizens (de Ste Croix 1972: 34-49). The difference in eligibility becomes most clear when we consider that the exclusion of women, slaves and foreigners indicates that Athens was neither a cosmopolitan nor a liberal democracy.
More differences appear when we look at the mechanics of democracy, and in particular those through which popular power was put into practice. Athenian citizens were powerful because they were able to speak, debate, and vote on matters of great political significance. In modern democratic theory since Burke and Mill, the answer to the question of how popular power is to be effectuated has lain in the manipulation of systems of delegation or representation (Blaug and Schwarzmantel 2001: 92-5, 150-6). Theoretical and practical experiments with direct forms of democracy have, however, been undertaken in the modern world. Some ofthese make room for popular initiative: the practice ofoffering citizens the right to place issues to the vote has been tried in the state of California (Dunn 2005: 177); a nearly extinct form of direct democracy which has endured in a few rural cantons of Switzerland since the thirteenth century is that of annual popular assemblies (Landesgemeinde) which offer every citizen the right to speak and vote (Hansen 2005a: 14, 60 n3, 62 n14). Other experiments in direct democracy have included the use of small randomized panels of citizens in British Columbia, and Marcus Schmidt’s theory of popular digitally enabled decision-making (Hansen 2005a: 53-7). Despite the reported success of the experiment in British Columbia, it is unclear how direct democracy, given its reliance on participation and initiative, might be affected by the problems of apathy, disengagement, and self-interest. A more widespread form of direct democracy is the referendum, but the usual form of the procedure means that the choices put in front of citizens are determined by politicians (Butler and Ranney 1994): the absence of initiative means that the procedure is less direct than it at first seems.
Athenian democracy looks very different to modern democracy given the absence of a comprehensive constitution, separation of powers, or supreme court. A further important difference between ancient and modern democratic institutions concerns the selection of magistrates. In some modern democracies (such as the United States), the head of state is elected by popular ballot, a process which bestows political legitimacy on the leader. In the United Kingdom, a hereditary sovereign appoints a prime minister from the elected members of parliament; in effect this is usually the leader of the political party which holds the majority of elected representatives in the House of Commons; this means that the prime minister is elected by only a small number of constituents. Lesser offices are selected by committees or elected officials, while many key public officials and administrators (in the UK, the Civil Service) are unelected. But in Athens most public officials and administrators were selected by lottery (Headlam 1933; Dow 2004; C. Taylor 2007a). While the use of lot may have had its origins in religious procedures, its use was explained on the basis of the idea that the election of magistrates was an aristocratic means of selection (Arist. Pol. 1300b4-5; cf. Isoc. Areop. 23). The effect of lot was twofold: it made the issue of selection of magistrates, a highly momentous but often controversial occasion in modern democracies, a relatively insignificant process (Headlam 1933: 25-6); it reinforced political equality, as it gave all citizens an equal chance to hold office regardless of their profession. Voting, therefore, is much more central to the modern practice of democracy; nevertheless, a small number of ancient Athenian officers were selected by popular election (Ps-Xen. Ath. Pol. 1.3; Arist. Ath. Pol. 61.1; C. Taylor 2007a), including the ten generals. These two methods of selection were central to the Athenian democracy’s support of coexisting modes of elite and mass participation.
World History
