Athenian tyranny vs democracy

Lord_of_Gauda · Jan 3, 2011

Thessalonian said:
I see that no one can actually refute what I said, with evidence.... Some people even ignore how the Roman republic worked... There was some form of direct democracy even in Rome. It is even stated on wikipedia. Check out the assemblies.
My point still stands strong and except for red herrings, I see nothing interesting. Athenian democracy was the only ancient example of democracy, where a large part of the population would actually vote on every piece of legislation. That's far more democratic than any modern pseudo-democracy. PERIOD.

You continue to propagate falsehood to glorify Greece, as is your wont.
I have already produced evidence that suggests the Kalinga democracy was just as old as Athenian and unlike Athens, it was an actual democracy, where right to vote was accorded to ALL citizens born to the nation, not just the rich and poweful ones like Athens and unlike the primitive and sexist idelogies of Athens, the Kalingans allowed women to vote.

Their democracy was not only far more encompassing, it was far more realistic and in line with modern parliamentary monarchies, since Kalinga also had a king, who was bound by the legislatures of the ministrial council, which in itself was elected.

Athenian democracy is a red herring: there is nothing democratic about restricting votes to only the rich, influential males. Its an oligarchy, nothing more, similar to modern day China or Soviet Union, where a very small, select body of men make democratic decisions that affect the entire nation but come to their position in the first place through undemocratic means. Ie, Athenian democracy = communist party. The athenians did not vote to elect their representatives- only the rich who were men voted. Just like how the communist party votes to elect its leadership.

Yorgos · Jan 3, 2011

Labienus said:
I tend to think that the Athenian democracy was a step in the right direction but it was too radical. I think that the Roman republic form was a better system because it was a better compromise between the different classes and types of powers but it ultimately strengthened the aristocracy too much and was torn apart by civil wars.

This is a good remark. However that radicalism of Athens managed both to flourish and to keep the social tissue of Athens safe during many decades. Certainly, even if someone reads some masterpieces of the Classical period (Aristophanes' the Frogs is quite relevant) the tension between reactionists and radicals is obvious but it never lead to a civil war nor it braked the social tissue. The key for this resistance is to be found in philosophy. Athens had a strong civil philosophy, forged in the AGORA of the city. Not so easy to call for arms against other citizens nor to deceive Athenian citizens at that time.

Alcibiades · Jan 3, 2011

Labienus said:
I tend to think that the Athenian democracy was a step in the right direction but it was too radical. I think that the Roman republic form was a better system because it was a better compromise between the different classes and types of powers but it ultimately strengthened the aristocracy too much and was torn apart by civil wars.

Agreed.
Alcibiades

Alcibiades · Jan 3, 2011

Yorgos said:
tension between reactionists and radicals is obvious but it never lead to a civil war nor it braked the social tissue. .

Are you serious?What happened in 411 BC?Does the name Thirty Tyrants ring any bells?
Alcibiades

Yorgos · Jan 3, 2011

Lord_of_Gauda said:
You continue to propagate falsehood to glorify Greece, as is your wont.
I have already produced evidence that suggests the Kalinga democracy was just as old as Athenian and unlike Athens, it was an actual democracy, where right to vote was accorded to ALL citizens born to the nation, not just the rich and poweful ones like Athens and unlike the primitive and sexist idelogies of Athens, the Kalingans allowed women to vote.

Their democracy was not only far more encompassing, it was far more realistic and in line with modern parliamentary monarchies, since Kalinga also had a king, who was bound by the legislatures of the ministrial council, which in itself was elected.

Athenian democracy is a red herring: there is nothing democratic about restricting votes to only the rich, influential males. Its an oligarchy, nothing more, similar to modern day China or Soviet Union, where a very small, select body of men make democratic decisions that affect the entire nation but come to their position in the first place through undemocratic means. Ie, Athenian democracy = communist party. The athenians did not vote to elect their representatives- only the rich who were men voted. Just like how the communist party votes to elect its leadership.

If Thessalonian exagerates, which can be discussed, then how much do you do exagerate when comparing ancient Athens to communist party? What is this giant theoretical leaps: from Europe to India and from 5th century BC to the 20st century?

Please do not say that me to I have the agenda to glorify my city. I say this myself: I do want to glorify the past of my city, based in what it achieved not in comparison with other civilizations unless Rome, whose vicinity is relevant.

As for Kalinda, I am sure this must be a great civilization but I have no idea and I won't study this, because I am more interested in European history and because those comparisons between two distant worlds remind me speculative theories. The discussion is for Athens, not for India. I like Athens democracy and I don't need to name it as the best nor the first nor the whatever results in comparison with Indian glorious civilization. I like what it achieved. As I like Roman democracy, for the same reasons. My comparisons end there. Yours should too, in my opinion. But they won't, since you obviously have an agenda against Athens and you will keep on diverting the discussion to other continents and to ...communism since you want to minimize Athens. Well, not so good job, it is obvious.

Yorgos · Jan 3, 2011

Alcibiades said:
Are you serious?What happened in 411 BC?Does the name Thirty Tyrants ring any bells?
Alcibiades

I am serious my friend. The Thirty Tyrans period was a brake in the long flourishing Athens Democracy.

gaius valerius · Jan 3, 2011

Yorgos said:
As for Kalinda, I am sure this must be a great civilization but I have no idea and I won't study this, because I am more interested in European history and because those comparisons between two distant worlds remind me speculative theories.

The comparison is both valid and realistic rather then speculative. Speculation is about what you don't know... obviously in the case of the former, that would hardly be the case.

Alcibiades · Jan 3, 2011

Yorgos said:
I am serious my friend. The Thirty Tyrans period was a brake in the long flourishing Athens Democracy.

And 411 BC Coup?
Alcibiades

Yorgos · Jan 3, 2011

Alcibiades said:
Good catch.I also forgot that Aeschylys and Euripides could no longer bear to stay in "glorious Athens",and left to search for their happiness at the courts of those "awful tyrants" the rest of the world(naturally,excluding glorious Athens)was full of.Makes you think,doesn't it?
Alcibiades

Hey, Alcibiades, I am not used to read ironical comments from you!

As for Euripides, read the Frogs of Aristophanes. He had a lot of ennemies, all the conservative Athens, people who preferred not to live in a democracy.

Thessalonian · Jan 3, 2011

avon said:
Thessalonian,

Most of this post is culled directly from Direct democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia without any clear attribution of source. You are very close to breaking forum rules.

As it stands, irrespective of what you have copied and pasted from Wikipedia, you still evade both my requests. Firstly, I asked you "What exactly does 'a large part of the population' amount to?" You replied with a statement that reads: 'a large proportion of citizens were involved constantly in the public business.' This remains too vague. Please, exactly how many Athenians 'would actually vote on every piece of legislation'?

Secondly, I suggested that sources would be useful. You gave me a paraphrase of a section from a Wikipedia entry and then failed to clearly cite that same page. This is, at best, rather disingenuous and possibly more than a little insulting. At risk of disciplinary action, please refrain from doing this again.

So, once again, please specify how many Athenians voted on every piece of lagislation and provide the appropriate sources.

avon

OK, then. I thought that any wikipedia copy-paste includes underlined links which cite the source. I did not know that I should mention that every single piece is taken from Wikipedia. It looks like there is a misunderstanding. Any attempt to copy a URL of wikipedia, gives a W-symbol - wikipedia link. Is that ok with you?

The most important body in the Athenian democracy was the popular assembly, in which all male citizens could participate. The Assembly would meet a number of times each month, and the first 6000 or so Athenians citizens to arrive (all that could fit in the meeting place of the Assembly) would deliberate and vote on all important state actions. The assembly had the powers of our congress, and was not checked by any powerful executive or judicial branches, for public officials became progressively less important at Athens, and the judicial branch consisted of large juries of citizens who had interests similar to those of the members of the Assembly. Cleisthenes increased the power of the Assembly largely by making use of it to push through his reforms. By this precedent he ensured that all important laws had to be passed by a vote of the people as a whole. It is now fair to call Athens a democracy--so long as we note that women, slaves, and immigrants were not allowed to vote.

Source:
Democracy begins at Athens

So, we have 6000 voters (each time), total population of around 250,000 (men with civil rights: 30,000).

Alcibiades · Jan 3, 2011

Yorgos said:
Hey, Alcibiades, I am not used to read ironical comments from you!

As for Euripides, read the Frogs of Aristophanes. He had a lot of ennemies, all the conservative Athens, people who preferred not to live in a democracy.

Alas,such is the effect of sylla's posts on me.

But not to worry,my ususal me is different.

Alcibiades

Lord_of_Gauda · Jan 3, 2011

Yorgos said:
If Thessalonian exagerates, which can be discussed, then how much do you do exagerate when comparing ancient Athens to communist party? What is this giant theoretical leaps: from Europe to India and from 5th century BC to the 20st century?

The comparison is valid in simply these terms:

Communist party: members who came to power by undemocratic means, get together to vote, by a strictly democratic process, to elect their politburo and leaders. The communist party actually votes to elect everyone in power- their dictator, assistant dictator, ministers, regional governers, etc. But those that vote come from a select and priviledged background ( people who weild influence amongst the communists) and were not elected to their position in the first place. Those who are not communists do not qualify to partake in the first place.

Athenian democracy: members, most of whom came to power through undemocratic means, vote to elect their leadership, ministries, etc.
Those who are not rich and influential and are not men do not qualify to partake.

In both cases, you have a select body of people, who are themselves not represented by demographics, engaging in a democratic process to determine the executive body of government. That is exactly where the comparison is.

As for Kalinda, I am sure this must be a great civilization but I have no idea and I won't study this, because I am more interested in European history and because those comparisons between two distant worlds remind me speculative theories. The discussion is for Athens, not for India. I like Athens democracy and I don't need to name it as the best nor the first nor the whatever results in comparison with Indian glorious civilization. I like what it achieved. As I like Roman democracy, for the same reasons. My comparisons end there. Yours should too, in my opinion. But they won't, since you obviously have an agenda against Athens and you will keep on diverting the discussion to other continents and to ...communism since you want to minimize Athens. Well, not so good job, it is obvious.

My point is very simple: Though we know less about the actual mechanisms of the Kalingan democracy, what we know of it, makes it the closest example to modern democracy, not Athens.
It allowed all its people to vote- men and women over a certain age, which is exactly what we do today. We don't follow the athenian model where only the men who are rich and powerful can vote and slaves cannot.
The Kalingans had a parliamentary monarchy, where their king was held accountable to the verdict of the ministrial council, which was directly elected by ALL Kalingan people. This is closer to the constitutional monarchies of today than anything Athens has produced.

Thessalonian · Jan 3, 2011

Lord_of_Gauda said:
You continue to propagate falsehood to glorify Greece, as is your wont.
I have already produced evidence that suggests the Kalinga democracy was just as old as Athenian and unlike Athens, it was an actual democracy, where right to vote was accorded to ALL citizens born to the nation, not just the rich and poweful ones like Athens and unlike the primitive and sexist idelogies of Athens, the Kalingans allowed women to vote.

Their democracy was not only far more encompassing, it was far more realistic and in line with modern parliamentary monarchies, since Kalinga also had a king, who was bound by the legislatures of the ministrial council, which in itself was elected.

Athenian democracy is a red herring: there is nothing democratic about restricting votes to only the rich, influential males. Its an oligarchy, nothing more, similar to modern day China or Soviet Union, where a very small, select body of men make democratic decisions that affect the entire nation but come to their position in the first place through undemocratic means. Ie, Athenian democracy = communist party. The athenians did not vote to elect their representatives- only the rich who were men voted. Just like how the communist party votes to elect its leadership.

You have to prodive evidence regarding what Kalinga democracy was really about. You have a bad habbit of not quoting any source or bibliography. The opposite of what I do...

6000 voters each time, out of 250.000 Athenians (including slaves and foreigners) against how many Kalingan voters? Did every single one of them vote? Don't make my laugh please. Provide serious and reliable evidence to see how many voters actually made decisions in Kalingan India.

Yorgos · Jan 3, 2011

gaius valerius said:
The comparison is both valid and realistic rather then speculative. Speculation is about what you don't know... obviously in the case of the former, that would hardly be the case.

Which comparison? the one with India or the one with the communist party in USSR? if you are interested to compare India's regimes, this is fine. But when this comes together with a comparison to communist party, then there is something wrong, revealing rather an obsession against Athens than a historical intention. Or not? I sincerely ask for your opinion.

And if you mean that I don't know things about India, you are right, I do not and obviousely Lord of Gauda does know things about India. I never said not. My objection is that this package of comparisons has the intention to put mud in the history of Athens.

Thessalonian · Jan 3, 2011

In ancient Athens, bad leaders were bannished.... That's more democratic than any other ancient or modern democracy. You cannot bannish a president or prime minister because people consider him a bad manager...

Yorgos · Jan 3, 2011

Alcibiades said:
Alas,such is the effect of sylla's posts on me.But not to worry,my ususal me is different.
Alcibiades

I know, me too I hardly contained my usual me when reading this comparison between communist polit buro and the Ecclesia of Demos... But never mind, nobody's perfect!

Happy new year Alcibiades!

Thessalonian · Jan 3, 2011

gaius valerius said:
The comparison is both valid and realistic rather then speculative. Speculation is about what you don't know... obviously in the case of the former, that would hardly be the case.

democracy is about representation of the people in the government. In that aspect, Athenian democracy was one billion times better than modern. Period.
The more you reduce representation, the more oligarchic a system of governance becomes.

Lord_of_Gauda · Jan 3, 2011

Thessalonian said:
You have to prodive evidence regarding what Kalinga democracy was really about. You have a bad habbit of not quoting any source or bibliography. The opposite of what I do...

6000 voters each time, out of 250.000 Athenians (including slaves and foreigners) against how many Kalingan voters? Did every single one of them vote? Don't make my laugh please. Provide serious and reliable evidence to see how many voters actually made decisions in Kalingan India.

When less than 5% of society partakes in a decision-making process, it is an oligarchy- rule of the selected few, rather than a democracy.

I've already quoted you sources for the Kalinga democracy: Pick up arthashastra, where democracy as practiced in Kalinga is discussed as a counterpoint to the centralized monarchy of Magadha or Divyavadhana, where it is discussed in even more detail.

The Kalingans were more democratic, because they defined ALL people of Kalinga as eligible voters, not just men or people of priviledged social backgrounds.
Their process represented the will of a bigger section of the populace, which makes it a more democratic nation.

Lord_of_Gauda · Jan 3, 2011

Thessalonian said:
democracy is about representation of the people in the government. In that aspect, Athenian democracy was one billion times better than modern. Period.
The more you reduce representation, the more oligarchic a system of governance becomes.

There is no democracy today that functions with less than 5% of people involved. Infact in today's world, we have 25-30% of all citizens voting, even in relatively apathetic nations like Canada. And we still moan about how we are not as representational as we can be.

Athenian democracy, where less than 5% of the citizenry is represented, is a joke.

Labienus · Jan 3, 2011

Thessalonian said:
In ancient Athens, bad leaders were bannished.... That's more democratic than any other ancient or modern democracy. You cannot bannish a president or prime minister because people consider him a bad manager...

They were apparently so democratic that they banished their best ones...

Themistokles' and Kimon's respective banishment comes to mind.

Search

Search

Athenian tyranny vs democracy

Lord_of_Gauda

Yorgos

Alcibiades

Alcibiades

Yorgos

Yorgos

gaius valerius

Alcibiades

Yorgos

Thessalonian

Alcibiades

Lord_of_Gauda

Thessalonian

Yorgos

Thessalonian

Yorgos

Thessalonian

Lord_of_Gauda

Lord_of_Gauda

Labienus

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions