Part 4 - The appearance & construction of Democracy - childhood to maturity in Greece

As per the prior post, there was much credit to give to the Athenians and their new political structure.  However, the growing power and confidence and consequent hubris, began to change the Delian League as Athens progressively asserted its will on its allies.  This hegemony began to evolve towards imperial rule, just forty years after the groundbreaking reforms by Cleisthenes.  So, we can see that success can bring new dangers.  If the reforms had not succeeded, to this day we might not know Democracy. Yes, there is another successful democracy that has had hegemonic moments.  Certainly, it is still worth it, but there is no escaping the reality that hegemony over others is not Democracy.  

Nonetheless, Democracy within Athens continued to develop and consolidate. It is clear now and it was then, that “the remarkable performance of Athens in the most trying circumstances was a powerful vindication of the new democratic order.”(Mitchell). 

One development that could have been a strong anti-democratic trend did occur within Athenian democracy.  The Persian wars resulted in a relatively secure place for the traditional aristocracy.   This group played a key role in the wars but stayed within the constitution.  There is no sign that the aristocracy sought to restore on oligarchic system.  They did have significant influence but it apparently was clear to them that they needed to work within the system and that there was no going back to the former times. The Persian wars showed that while democracy was new and quite different, it still needed strong leaders particularly in a time of war.  The Demos was ready to support such leaders as long as they retained public confidence and the public good. 

Unsurprisingly, then as now, wealth, high birth, status, and connections were all beneficial to those seeking power. Further, political gain was also dependent on education since talk and debate were important aspects of Athenian Democracy.  It was crucial for anyone seeking power and influence to have the ability to persuade in a well-reasoned and articulate manner.  The Assembly had high expectations in this regard.  Thus, the training in rhetoric received by the aristocracy was valuable if not requisite.  The result of this aristocratic benefit, while it did not directly threatened the new democracy, allowed the continuation of significant rivalry between leading families. 

On the one hand, the Athenians were pragmatic in structuring a strong executive position in areas where ability, expertise, leadership, and the power to act were important (war and upholding the public good).  On the other hand, strong emphasis on control by the demos, direct rule, and careful delegation of power was maintained. Popular sovereignty was maintained threw significant checks on all positions of power.  All offices were for a one year term, significant vetting was undertaken, and there was formal scrutiny of performance after the end of each official’s term. Officeholders had to contend with a very broad definition of treason as well as the always available if severe law of ostracism.  In fact, the overall evolution during the Persian wars and later was toward more democracy not less.  

This is particularly notable in two areas of aristocratic privilege that were not changed through the reforms of Cleisthenes;  The Archonship and the Areopagus.  First, the position of archon was weakened considerably.  Rather than being elected by the Assembly, the process of selecting archons was made considerably more democratic through enhancing the role of the demos as a whole, including requiring significant diversity among archon candidates.  And, the role of chief archon was reduced to a series of much more modest administrative responsibilities. “The assembly and council were now the center of political decision-making, and the concept of a controlling power for the demos as well embedded. A weak executive was a corollary of that concept. Strong military leader ship was accepted out of necessity, though with abundant safeguards. But the traditionally powerful office of chief archon, monopolized by the upper classes, was not acceptable and, if not in 487 then soon there after it was reduced to insignificant as a political force.”(Mitchell)

Second, the Areopagus, made up of ex-archons all from the upper classes at that time, had been established by Solon and not altered by by Cleisthenes.  The Areopagus had the responsibility to be guardians of the law and the constitution. The reductions in the power of the Aeropagus created more conflict than the changes in the position of Archon. During the Persian wars, the power of Aeropagus had increased significantly due to it showing strong leadership during the wars, including support to Athenian citizens during the two evacuations of the city.  Despite this, the demos continued to build its power in the new democracy. They were led at this time by Ephialtes, who was known as honest, a powerful advocate for democracy, and an opponent of the power of aristocrats. In 462, significant reforms were carried out that essentially took away the key power that had been held by the Aeropagus - to function as the guardians of the laws and the constitution.  These functions were placed with the Council and the Assembly.  This change was strongly resented by the aristocracy and Ephialtes was assassinated the following year.  

However, the changes held as most of the aristocracy saw that there was no going back. A strong consensus continued to build across citizens as a whole in support of the ideal of democracy. Little is known of Ephialtes but he led Athens into what some have called an era of radical democracy. And, importantly, he was mentor to Pericles, one of the foremost Greek proponents of democracy.  As we will see in the following section, Pericles led Athens for forty years and for much of this time he both carried out significant democratic reforms, and, held unmatched power. Yes, even then, people were complicated.  And Pericles fully embodied the contradictory nature of our natures.