The modern era in the world distribution of power and regime of authority is claimed to be the one of democracy. After centuries of slavery and inequality, of silent voices of the poor who had nothing else to do but to watch the rich distribute the riches of the world, as well as after the coming of Nazism that shook the global perception of the inherent right of a human being to life and decent living conditions the community came to understanding of the fact that urgent, drastic action has to be taken to make things change and to establish a new form of government that would enhance and promote equality, that would make everyone equal before the law. The reign of totalitarism over the significant part of the world called USSR also made people realize that the voice of masses should be taken into consideration when making significant decisions on the state level, which brought about high interest to democracy as a form of political power in a country.
Another favorable factor that increased the popularity of democracy was its successful implementation in the most advanced countries of Europe and in the USA. All these events in the world history strengthened the thought that democracy is the only right and progressive form of authority in a state that will finally bring the overall population of the state to coherence in the expression of their will as well as in the extent to which they can influence the state of affairs in their native state.
However, there is hardly anyone in the world who is ignorant about the origin of the word ‘democracy’ – it was used as long ago as in Ancient Greece and became the name for a form of ruling in Athens, the state that since then became the icon of implementing democracy in its daily governmental practices and did it, according to the accounts of peer historians, quite successfully. The modern society thus has to understand what the term originally meant, what were the democratic practices in Athens, what in general the Athenian democratic model looked like and what lessons contemporary states should learn to make their democracies true ones. To answer these questions more or less accurately it is appropriate to turn to the work of John Duhn titled Democracy in which the author investigated the rise and fall of this form of authority, took a deep look into what it actually was and observed the changes this notion suffered in the course of centuries. Nobody will argue that nowadays the true meaning of democracy has changed enormously, hence pushing the humanity to the necessity to look back and find what was lost in the course of history and what can aid the establishment of genuine democracies in the modern world.
Dunn at first accounts on what was called democracy in Athens, emphasizing the fact that the form of power originated as soon as the need to institutionalize power rose and the need for respect of the human dignity was recognized:
“This regime, which is called democracy (demokratia), because it is administered with a view to the interest of the many, not of the few, has not merely made Athens great. It has also rendered its citizens equal before the law in their private disputes, and equally free to compete for public honors by personal merit and exertion, or to seek to lead the city, irrespective of their own wealth or social background” (Dunn 26).
The difference from the usual distribution of power was astounding – never before poor people representing the majority of the nation (as usual) obtained the right to speak freely and to make their contribution in the evolution of their state. The main distinguishing peculiarities of democracy were, according to the opinion of Dunn, mutual politeness, deep respect to the law, determined openness of the state towards any other nation, sobriety in judgment, respect for wisdom etc (Dunn 26). Such qualities of any state would be highly desirable for any contemporary nation, and as soon as they were implemented and really worked in practice, the state would really be called a democracy.
Another peculiarity of a democracy established in Athens was that the power was factually concentrated in the hands of the poor, because the law protected them more as compared to the rich class and those who had a distinction in the state due to their wealth or origin:
“the democracy of Athens was a robust but flagrantly unedifying system of power, which subjected the nobler elements of its society to the meaner, transferred wealth purposefully from one to the other, and distributed the means of coercion clear-headedly and determinedly to cement this outcome and keep the nobler elements under control” (Dunn 28).
Though it is hard to imagine the form of power like that implemented in the modern times, still ideally a democracy had to look like that, and there is a clear and wise explanation for such a choice of preferences that is sadly neglected nowadays by the democratic power in the majority of countries. The upper class was always distinguished by certain power (due to origin or wealth they had an opportunity to influence the public opinion), so they represented a threat for the actual government of the democracy. For this reason all effort was directed at diminishing the upper class’s measures of influence and power, thus ensuring stability of power in a state.
Secondly, the nation was not only given the power – this power was effectively ensured by the law:
“The poorer majority of Athens’s citizens are very well advised to insist on their opportunity to share the public offices on which the safety or danger of the people depended, the roles of general or cavalry commander, not randomly across the citizen body but by popular election of those best equipped to hold them (inevitably, the wealthier and more powerful)” (Dunn 28)
So, what changed in the course of time shaping the modern understanding of the term ‘democracy’? What did the world community lose on their way to the long-wanted democracy and what should they take as lessons from the ancient times to make it truly effective? Much has to be done, according to the opinion of Dunn who undoubtedly admits how much has changed in the set of characteristics that used to be attributed to democracy and that are associated with it nowadays:
“Today the term democracy has become… too highly cathected: saturated with emotion, irradiated by passion, tugged to and fro and ever more overwhelmed by accumulated confusion. To rescue it as an aid in understanding politics, we need to think our way past a mass of history and block our ears to many pressing opportunities” (Dunn 39).
Democratic states that exist nowadays have proclaimed the power of the nation due to the severe and cruel fight for the rights of man initiated in different parts of the world in different periods of time (it is enough to recollect the French Revolution or the October Revolution in the Russian Empire) – these multiple facts show how badly people needed and wanted it. On getting it, they appointed those figures who they considered able to control the affairs in their country and who were subordinate to the will of the nation to expression of which it was lawfully entitled under the conditions of a democracy. But can anyone nowadays state absolutely confidently that the principles of equality are realized in his or her country to the fullest extent? There hardly be anyone like that.
Reasons for disillusionment can be found in the power of the few that is seen nowadays and that cannot be neglected – in contrast to the ancient times, people in modern democratic states can hardly be sure that they all will be equal before the law and that their opinion matters as much as the opinion of the ruling class. Masses still express their opinion at public referenda and during elections, during polls that are arranged to keep track of the public opinion and to try to shape the country’s policy according to it. But in fact the power has long ago gone to the hands of those few who have the power and the wealth to dictate their own conditions for the world order. This change happened as soon as our society entered the era of consumerism, the epoch of business that can be run in any sphere of human lives.
It is enough to recollect the whole arsenal of mass persuasion means like mass media – every day they shape the public opinion to make people think that they really want this or that while in fact they are only told to want that. Learning from the experience of Athens one should ask him/herself a question of whether he or she truly wants something or the life they lead is only a series of responses to marketing campaigns tested on them. The true wishes of the nation are lost in never-ending political races for power, promises and appeals designed to raise the wish to vote but not the wish to want something genuinely.
One more lesson that can be taken from the Athenian model of democracy is to encourage deep respect of law and wisdom in a state. Despite the simplicity of this lesson, it is hard to find a state where law is respected as the objective, strong intermediary between the nation and the state, as well as between the members of one nation. Nowadays law has become so sophisticated and unintelligible that people do not believe in its power to protect them anymore and do their best to cheat on it. Nonetheless, if the law were simpler to comprehend for an average citizen of the country, and there were multiple examples of its enactment disregarding the class and the power of a person, law would be respected much more, and it would be observed much more obediently by all people without exception. As for wisdom, the lesson pertains to the authoritative representatives of power in the modern period of time. They are too obsessed by the rhetoric they apply to influence the minds of people that they can hardly focus on the wisdom of their expression. Wisdom has been substituted by persuasion in lack of understanding of the fact that true wisdom does not require any persuasion; it will reach its goal for sure.
Nonetheless, no matter how great the ancient idea of democracy may sound, there is a fresher, more objective and, logically, more critical viewpoint of its essence:
“The brilliant “democracy” of Athens was stained by slavery (and also by the exclusion of women); while in extending their dominion, the Romans never made it possible for those who could not easily get to the city of Rome to participate effectively in governing the republic” (Dahl 5).
As one can see, slavery really existed next to democracy, and the state was called in such a way because slaves were not considered people equal to the public of Athens. As in the case of the slave past of the USA, even the poorest and the most miserable citizen of the country was still considered much higher in position than a slave. Another remark as for the democracy in its pure form is that it cannot last for long – according to observations of Dunn (45), any constraint applied to the nation will be regarded as enslavement, and the chaos that can follow such rejection can be taken under control only with the help of tyranny. This is why pure democracies do not exist; however, there is always an ideal form to which each state may long.
As it may be seen from the present account of democracy nowadays and several millenniums ago, there can hardly be a single definition of a genuine democratic state that will correspond to all requirements of the notion. Even under the conditions of Athens being considered the ideal state with the democratic form of governing, there are many remarks that throw a shadow on the democracy it really represented. Still, there is much to be done to ensure democracy in modern states, which can be done with the help of looking back and learning from the lessons, mistakes and victories of the past.
References
Dahl, Robert. After the Revolution? Authority in a Good Society. Yale University Press, 1970.
Dunn, John. Democracy: A History. Open City Books, 2005.