Part 2 - The appearance & construction of Democracy - childhood to maturity in Greece

As we have seen repeatedly, movement forward in Democracy’s development was often triggered by discord and its’ frequent consequences of violence and chaos.  This continued at the end of the reign of Peisistratus (see the appearance of Democracy, birth to infancy in Greece, Part 5).  When Peisistratus died in 527 BC, his eldest son, Hippias, took his place and continued the policies and practices of his father for 13 years.  Then, based on a personal quarrel between the younger brother of Hippias, Hipparchus, and some of his friends, a coup was attempted and Hipparchus was murdered.  Hippias reacted angrily and his rule became strongly oppressive.  This motivated some exiled noble families to organize his overthrow.  While the initial attempt failed, we now see the appearance of a key figure in the development of Democracy, Cleisthenes, who had been archon under Hippias.  With the backing of the Delphic oracle, Cleisthenes sought the aid of the Spartans which led to the expulsion of Hippias in 510 BC and the liberation of Athens.  This would lead to the world’s first true democracy. 

Predictably, the liberation of Athens did not lead directly to democracy but to more discord - something power struggles often generate. In the process of electing a new archon, the election was won by a competitor of Cleisthenes, Isagoras.  Cleisthenes responded by rallying support through a group of radical proposals meant to increase the power of ordinary people. Isagoras responded by bringing in support from the Spartans resulting in the expulsion of Cleisthenes.  However, the people (demos) wanted their champion to return and organized a rebellion which led to the the expulsion of Isagoras and the Spartans and the return of Cleisthenes.  So, based on a revolt by the people that demonstrates the power of ideas, Cleisthenes began to implement reforms.

Beginning in about 508 BC, Cleisthenses began to build his reforms around three main components, encoded in a new Constitution. Much of the detail and analysis of this was reported by Aristotle in considerable detail.

First, there was a totally new organization of citizens at the local level.  The old system was a kinship based, 3-part hereditary structure (clan, phratry and tribe).  Cleisthenes replaced this “with a system that laid the basis for popular sovereignty and a far greater level of political equality and opportunity.” (Mitchell, Democracy’s Beginnings)  He took a basic social unit, the local village, and reorganized its citizens into groupings known as demes. These were essentially the creation of political wards in today’s terms. Each deme had a political structure with a significant popular control and was a self-governing unit. Officers were elected and held to account by a structured process of scrutiny.  The demes were “a participatory form of local government and (organized) communal life…imbuing at a grassroots level the ethos of rule by the people”(Mitchell). This first component was arguably the most far-reaching of all of the Cleisthenes reforms.

The demes were building blocks of democracy in their own right but this further in their foundation for a new structure for the entire state.  Regional Divisions were created composed of districts, which were in turn made up of a new tribal structure. “Cleisthenses was seeking to forge a new unity by creating a new alignment of citizens in groupings with a geographical and social diversity of membership that would cut across old loyalties centered around class issues and factional rivalries.” (Mitchell)

Second, Cleisthenes developed a new National Council composed of 500 members.  The structure and organization of the council was carefully linked to the new system of demes and tribes.  Each tribe had equal representation with members from each tribe chosen by the demes. A steering committee was also formed, made up of equal representatives from each tribe. Committee members served on a rotating basis. The Council soon became the key organizational structure of the new constitution, over time developing sophisticated administrative, deliberative, and judicial functions.  This new Council was radically different from anything that had existed before. The Council was designed to avoid becoming an independent power center through its diversity, short terms of office, and the rotation of leadership positions. It embodied a new spirit of democracy was broadly inclusive and focused on ensuring control by the people. 

Third, Cleisthenes created an Assembly composed of all citizens, the only place where the will of the people could be expressed and determined.  The Assembly was the State’s penultimate decision-making body.  While the outcomes of Assembly decisions were of course not always as desired or predicted, this body was quickly seen as the most important source of power in the Greek state. Of course, this meant that “it quickly became the platform for ambitious aristocrats who no longer sought power through factions of their peers but through courting the confidence of the mass of citizens in the forum where decisions were now made.”(Mitchell)

It is worth mentioning one specific law that Cleisthenes was determined to implement - the law of ostracism.  “The law created a mechanism by which the people could vote once a year to send a citizen, usually a prominent citizen whom, for some reason, they feared or distrusted, into exile for ten years. The banishment carried no loss of citizenship or property.” (Mitchell). There is evidence that “its purpose was to give the people the right to take pre-emptive action to avert a perceived public danger by removing individuals whose behavior and level of power raised fears for the safety of the state or the constitution.”  To our modern ears, this might seem like an overt political tool that could be manipulated but it may have functioned as an important emergency power that helped keep Athens internally peaceful for the bulk of the fifth century.  The law “gave an exceptional power to the people to deal with an exceptional risk, and the number of recorded ostracisms (9) shows that it was used exceptionally”(Mitchell). This very strong tool was born essentially from desperation. All prior attempts to protect the rule of law and the power of the people had failed.  Finally, the law exemplified two key purposes of many of the Cleisthenes reforms: reducing the likelihood of seditious groups or individuals succeeding, and, keeping important decision-making within the power of the people.  

In conclusion, while there were many who contributed to Democracy’s construction over a significant period of time, Cleisthenes led Athens to a new level of democratization.  There was clearly a “building-block” approach to the evolution of Democracy.  Principally Solon (and some others), moved Athens in the direction of political equality and increased popular participation.  And, there was a realization that the notion of equal before the law was necessary for society to be both stable and just. However, even with this, before Cleisthenes, the notion remained that aristocratic power should ultimately be in control.  In contrast, Cleisthenes, “made the definitive ideological leap beyond that to an opposing political ideal, which held that it was the whole body of citizens, not the privileged few, who had the right to political power and the right to control directly the course of political affairs.” (Mitchell) And, importantly, the reforms of Cleisthenes were not the quick innovations of a populist seeking the people’s favor. Without question, they were thorough, inventive, and transformative and the result of substantive thought and superior planning.  “They had one grand design: to create a politically engaged and experienced body of citizens, habituated to involvement in public life at varying levels, and to interacting and cooperating on a basis of equality with fellow citizens of all social backgrounds.”(Mitchell).  This was something that had never been seen before.  This was a Democracy, demokratia (power (kratos) to the mass (demos)) to the Greeks of the time.  And, it exemplified the only extant near-contemporary definition of Democracy, provided by Pericles in his legendary funeral oration (as related by Thucydides): “its management is in the control, not of the few, but of the greater number”. (Harris, E.M., “Pericles praise of Athenian democracy:Thucydides”)