The origins and development of democracy in the Ancient World

Athens is the birthplace of democracy. Around 2,500 years ago a constitutional structure was developed that would become the model for all democratic constitutions to follow. Both of the texts below describe the most important steps in this process.

The word "politics" comes from polis (city-state). This term's emphasis is on community rather than the area of territory on which the state stands. In archaic monarchies the king's castle formed the centre of the city, around which everything else was grouped. In contrast, it was the agora or marketplace that formed the central meeting place for citizens in the polis. Political decision-making powers were transferred from the king to the assembly; decisions were formulated in public; they had to be justified to the citizens and required their agreement. This led to a process which rationalized political decisions:

"The polis (city-state) system was based on an unusual dominance of the spoken word above all other instruments of power. This spoken word becomes the political means par excellence, the key to all state authority, it becomes the tool for achieving dominance and authority over others...the word that we are talking about here is not the well-known ritual of finding the right wording, but rather controversial debate, discussion and argument. It demands a public, which is prepared to play judge and jury and to raise its hands to decide between the two parties standing before it; this purely human judgment represents a real measure of how convincing each of the two speakers has been and ends in awarding victory to one of the speakers.

In this way, all the issues that were once the responsibility of the sovereign ruler and which are both relevant to the general public and which fall under the authority of the arche (local rule) are from now on the object of rhetoric and have to be decided upon within the scope of debate. This means that issues must be worded in a discursive way and take on the form of antithetical argument (argumentation contrasting with a previous proposition). And so, a close reciprocal relationship between politics and logos (reasonable argument) develops. The secret to politics, therefore, now lies in the use of language, and logos develops a confidence in itself, in its rules and in its effectiveness through its political function" (Jean-Pierre Vernant, Die Entstehung des griechischen Denkens, Frankfurt/Main 1982, 44f.).

[Back to top of page]

Vernant fixes the development of political affairs in Athens to two closely connected criteria: On the openness of political decisions and on the growing pressure towards rational explanation. There is also a third criteria: The democratization. "This twin process of democratization and making issues public will have far-reaching consequences for intellectual thought" (Vernant 1982, 46).

The Homeric world of heroes and the Periclean period of Attican democracy are fundamentally different. How was it that one of these evolved through the other? The original social arrangement was like this: At the top of the social hierarchy were the eupatridai, wealthy and noble, old-established aristocrats who owned plenty of land and who drew their privilege from their birth into nobility. After these came the georgoi, farming folk with far less land and property and the demiurgoi, businessmen and tradesmen. There were also the theten, seasonal workers without land and family, and the slaves.

[Back to top of page]

An aristocracy of Greek nobles were soon able to gain ascendancy over the king (basileus); rather than doing away with the king altogether, his functions were subjected to far-reaching limitations and were restricted primarily to the areas of culture and religion and a few judicial decisions. From now on, it would be the prominent nobles that would run things. The Archonten, the rulers, were chosen from the centre and, following the end of their period in office, became life-members of the council, the Areopags. The Archonten and the Areopag ruled over the fate of the city-state. This aristocratic rule, however, was soon plunged into a deep crisis. The pressure created by a growing overpopulation provided the trigger for a movement towards colonization during the eighth century; Greeks settled in the Mediterranean coastal areas of Asia Minor, North Africa, Sicily, lower Italy, southern France and even as far a Spain. Once there, they formed new communities that were either fully independent or had only loose ties to the mother nation. Small farmers became increasingly dependent on large owners of land; they fell increasingly into debt and many were sold into slavery. Trading relationships began to intensify. A new form of wealth was created: Riches from trading metals, pottery, grain, oil and wine. Bartering became increasingly widespread: The first coins were minted. In short: The social tension in Athens grew immensely. And so a process had been set in motion that would end with the aristocracy losing power. A form of public life would be created in which citizens could take part.

[Back to top of page]

And so the hour of truth had arrived for the first great legislator of Athens, Solon (around 640-560 BC.) Solon came from a distinguished aristocratic background, but had gained his wealth as a businessman. In 594/3 BC he became archon, the highest ruler of Athens and was given wide-ranging powers. The idea was that this man from the centre, with no alliances to any particular group, could act as a referee and reorganize public life. While abolishing slavery brought about through debt, he failed to reapportion land. He introduced a new standard of weights and measures, essential for the free trade of goods, and reorganized the system of coinage by turning the minting of coins into a public monopoly. Applicable law was recorded in writing on publicly erected pillars. He divided the entire population into new groups. Instead of origin, the determining factors in this division became the amount of wealth, the size of the harvest or the amount of income. The degree to which individuals were allowed to take part in political life and the contribution they might make to the army was dependent upon to which of the four classes they belonged: the pentakosiomedimnoi (those who owned at least five hundred units of wheat per year), the hippei (knights, and those who could afford a horse), the Zeugiten (those who owned a suit of armour as worn by a heavily armed infantryman) and the theten (those without property). Solon's constitutional reforms created two new public bodies: The council (the boulé) as a counter to the aristocratic Areopag and the people's court, and the heliaia, which acted as a citizens' appellate court against actions taken by state bodies. Solon replaced the traditional aristocracy of the hereditary nobility with a Timokratie which means the right to rule born out of the honour of wealth. Solon called his constitution eunomia, the rule of good law created by people.

[Back to top of page]

With these changes Solon had managed to create the political area, a public arena in which the participation of the citizen could flourish. Despite all his efforts, he was not able to solve social problems over the long-term. Just thirty years after his reforms, Peisistratus, an aristocrat from a privileged background (approx. 600-528 BC), swept into power in 560 BC as a tyrant over Athens with the support of the aristocracy. He received most of his support from the less-wealthy sections of Attica's population. Tyrannis is regarded as being the worst form of government in Greece. Tyrannical in nature and without any legitimacy, it ignored the law (the nomos) set down in the constitution and in doing so broke up the public arena, a key cornerstone of politics in the polis. Nonetheless, the system of tyranny played a major role in the process towards democratization: The mobilization of the demos, the people, meant that the power base of the aristocrats was limited further.

Cleisthenes created the political foundations for the Attican polis. Exact biographical details are not available. His constitutional reforms seem to have been introduced soon after 510 BC. His origins were also of a privileged aristocratic nature. The motives behind his reforms are best sought in a dispute with another aristocratic faction. He can be considered as being the real creator of a democracy based on equal rights for all citizens. His reforms removed power from the aristocratic and class interests which had gone before them. He divided Attican territory into three zones (city, land and coast) and the people into ten phylae, each of which sent fifty representatives to become members of the "council of the five hundred". Each of the phylae conducted state business for 36 days (one tenth of annual office) and held the chair in the council's interior. Cleisthenes was also probably responsible for the introduction of Ostrakismus, ostracism, a system in which a person could be banished by popular vote because they were regarded as dangerous to democratic society.

[Back to top of page]

Pericles completed the democratic structure of Athens and finally removed power from the nobility forty years after the reforms introduced by Cleisthenes. In the year 462 BC, Pericles ordered that all political decisions were to be taken by the "council of the five hundred", the people's court and the people's assembly (ekklesia). In order to enable poorer citizens access to political office, daily allowances for members of both the council and courts were introduced a year later. And in 458 BC, the Zeugiten, a third class of taxpaying citizens was finally allowed access to the highest offices of state.

Not only did this represent the completion of the constitution for the polis, it also formed the model for all democratic constitutions to follow. The Greeks used this constitution for guidance in political philosophy, especially in the work of Plato and Aristotle, the founding father of European political thought. Both of these were active (...) at a time in which the classical system was already in decline. It was during this time of democratic crisis that the onset of philosophical reflection began. That which during the height of democracy had been regarded as being neither capable nor in need of further justification, now became the object of searching thought. The crisis within the community brought forth an attempt to provide both an appraisal and a development of its possibilities using reasonable language and the search for a better argument. This is something that continues today.

[Taken from: Eberhard Braun/Felix Heine/Uwe Opolka, Politische Philosophie. Ein Lesebuch. Texte, Analysen, Kommentare, Reinbek 1984]

[Back to top pf page]

Overview:

Introduction

Modern democracy evolved from a process in which theories made over many centuries accumulated to enable modern society to break free of the aristocratic system of rule in the old world. The Ancient World provided the basic idea for this. In contrast to modern democracy, democracy in Ancient Greece evolved out of political practice rather than being assisted by theoretical-philosophical systems.

Sine Ancient democracy was a part of the polis system, to understand it we have to take a look at the process leading to the creation of the polis. The rise, establishment and eventual fall of the polis all reflect different aspects of democracy's development. We will be asking the following questions: What is the polis? What form did the process leading to the creation of the polis take? How did democracy come about? And how has democracy developed?

[Back to top of page]        [Back to overview]

Attempts to find a fitting translation for the term polis continue today. The most common translation of polis is city, state or even city-state. None of these translations, however, do justice to the organization of the polis. The polis cannot be defined in terms of state territory, since it also partially encompassed the "hinterland". Then again, neither can it be regarded as a state, since it does not bear the basic traits of a state such as internal and external sovereignty.

The polis is best understood as a community of politically and commercially independent citizens (self-sufficient). Decisions and policy were made by all freeborn and equal male citizens in their entirety.

[Back to top of page]        [Back to overview]

Only after power had been removed from the old aristocracy and politicization of the entire populace had taken place was the Ancient Greek "community of allegiance" able to develop into the polis. As a result, citizens became responsible for their own administration and established offices of state, institutions, legislation and a court system. Indeed, it was during this period that the classic understanding of politics as used in Greece was formed. This term concerned those citizens directly connected with the polis and its activities such as its creation, establishment, maintenance and running.

Greek politics was based on a division of public and private life. All material and commercial affairs were transferred into private life, the oikos. It was here that the hierarchical structures were based: The head of the household ruled as despots over women, who were kept at a distance from public places and public affairs, children and slaves.

Political life was characterized by the coming together of freeborns and equals; a ranking system in which certain individuals were given higher status over others did not exist. The people's assembly met and discussed joint aims and issues, as well as the structure that the community should take and the institutions to be set up within it etc. Politics meant the participation of citizens in the organization and self-administration of the polis, which was stabilized by a division into three sub-departments (Demen, Trittyen, Phratrien) and by different institutions such as the people's assembly, the council of the 500 or the archonship.

The interesting factor in all this, however, is how and why the polis and indeed democracy itself developed in the first place. We will be addressing this question more closely in the next section. Because democracy in the full sense of the word had existed in Athens only right up until the middle of the 5th century and because all democratic constitutions that were to follow were influenced by all that had gone before, it seems sensible to use Athens as an example.

[Back to top of page]        [Back to overview]

The reasons for the politicization of a wide section of the population can be found in social and economic change and in the power struggle that took place among the aristocrats.

An economic boom characterized by increased trade and commercial activity, as well as the creation of a highly significant middle class took place during the 8th century. At the same time the population grew enormously leading to impoverishment of the poorer classes and slavery due to debt. The middle classes with more power had had enough of aristocratic despotic rule and demanded law-making powers (eunomia). Small farmers wanted to be set free from slavery and demanded a comprehensive reform of agriculture.

The aristocracy became enmeshed in dispute and battle and apposing groups and factions formed. The political situation was tense and in desperate need of stable structures and systems. As a result of this, several aristocrats began listening to the demands being voiced by the people and took up their cause. 

In 594 BC Solon was elected archon of Athens. His job was to reform the polis in order to head off the danger of civil war and dampen down class wars. While he did abolish slavery due to debt, he failed to introduce more far-reaching reforms. Before long the battles reemerged. The lower and middle classes recognized that they would have to get involved themselves and soon gained influence and sway.

[Back to top of page]        [Back to overview]

Reforms made by Cleisthenes

It was not until the reign of Cleisthenes and the reforms that he introduced (508/7 BC) that these demands for new institutions were met. The following measures were taken:

These reforms brought about the complete removal of power from the aristocrats. From now on they would have to settle their arguments in local associations (demes) with the "lesser people". Poorer people were also permitted to participate in political life from now on. Participation in political life became a duty and requirement of all citizens. Those refusing to take part lost their civil rights and were excluded from society. Cleisthenes' reforms introduced institutionalization of civil self-administration and, combined with the principle of equality before the law, represented a moderate form of democracy.

[Back to top of page]        [Back to overview]

Civil identity was reinforced as a result of the Ionian uprising (500-494 BC) and the Persian War (490-479 BC). Indeed, not only did victory over the Persians secure freedom, it also proved that the polis was both capable of surviving and superior and it emerged from the war with a new sense of confidence. Its citizens were keener and more committed to politics and the whole system rose in status to an individual sphere of activity, in which more recognition, glory and honor could be demanded than in the areas of material production.

When power was finally removed from the old aristocratic council (Areopag) by Ephialtes (462 BC) the gates were opened to a more radical form of democracy. Pericles, the successor of Ephialtes, further stabilized the rule of the people and Athens reached the peak of its power.

Freeborn citizens led a double life: In addition to a private life, a political life had arisen, in which measures for the well being of the state and the interests of society as a whole were considered. The introduction of limits to the time individuals could spend in office and the principle of drawing lots ensured that most citizens could and, indeed, must take over public office at some time in their lives.

The polis and the system of government it represented remained uncontroversial until fratricidal war broke out between Athens and Sparta. With the death of Pericles and the arrival of the epigones, the new "leaders of the people", who were only concerned about their own grip on power, trust in laws introduced under democracy began to diminish. The significance of the polis had taken a mighty blow and political disaffection spread across the land. The constitution in Athens was changed four times in just 8 years and in 411/10 BC democracy was replaced by an oligarchy only to be reintroduced again in 403 BC.

[Back to top of page]        [Back to overview]

An acute need had become necessary for the kind of theoretical reflection that would encourage new commitment, justify the purpose of participation and search for the firmly established manifestations of the system. The ultimate aim was to convey a new sense of meaning and stability to individuals and public life. Plato and Aristotle were particularly active in trying to breathe new life into the ailing polis. We will not be addressing their theories here, but will continue instead with the fate of democracy.

War and devastation characterized the years which followed under the polis until, around two decades later, King Philip of Macedonia gained power in Greece and integrated the old members of the polis into what would be come the kingdom of Alexandria following the victory on the battlefield of Chaironea in 338 BC. This signaled the end of democracy. It was replaced by an oligarchy of notabilities.

After achieving such revolutionary success, democracy had led to its own downfall. The unbridled will to power of the people of Athens had led them into the murderous war with Sparta and eventually to defeat. Democracy disappeared without a trace for 2000 years. During the 18th century, it was rekindled by theorists in the battle towards modern democracy.

[Back to top of page]

Subjects:  Human Rights  I  Democracy  I  Parties  I  Examples  I  Europe  I  Globalisation  I  United Nations  I  Sustainability

Methods:    Teaching Politics    II    Peace Education    II    Methods