Part 10 - The appearance and construction of Democracy - childhood to maturity in Greece

Without question, the period of 460 - 430, discussed in the prior three Posts, were one of most important and influential periods in European history.  Democracy had come of age, a powerful empire was created, and there was a golden age of cultural development and transformation. However, trouble had continued to brew in large measure to the problems of the new Athenian empire and the allure it continued to hold for the Athenians. As we have seen, after a difficult outcome for Athens at the end of the First Peloponnesian war (446) resulting in the thirty years peace, the Imperial empire continued to develop.  Not surprisingly, the peace did not last 30 years and in 431, the greatest war in Greek history began, the Second Peloponnesian war.  

A quick geographical aside may be of use.  The Peloponnesian peninsula (southern Greece) is a large peninsula linked to northern Greece (Athens, etc.) by the Isthmus of Corinth.  Corinth was a key power in Greece due to its position as a gateway between southern and northern Greece.  Sparta was the most powerful city/state (the Laconia region) on the peninsula and Athens held sway over most of central Greece with Thebes the dominant power at the time in northern Greece. 

Due in part to the imperialistic ways of Athens, after a series of incidents among various cities connected with Corinth, Thebes, and Sparta, war broke out more broadly in late May of 431.  Much of the responsibility for this lies with Pericles.  However crucial he was to the strengthening of democracy, as described previously, he was a confirmed and assertive imperialist.  Through his leadership and with the support of the populace, Athens had “an almost compulsive urge to grasp opportunities for greater dominance and to take risks in the name of power and glory.”(Mitchell). Just over a year later, a terrible plague hit Athens that lasted for over three years. This was very damaging to the Athenian army and Athens in general. Despite this, Athens did keep the war effort going. The war was not going well and the rich had lost much of their estates and land and the poor had lost what little they had.  Then, in 429, a year after the plague began, Pericles died, a victim of the plague.  One of the greatest figures of classical antiquity was gone.  

Unfortunately, since Pericles had been in power for a long time, had overwhelmed rivals, and had mentored no successors, a major political power vacuum occurred. In addition to the lack of leadership grooming by Pericles, this situation shows that despite all of the careful structuring and organization of democracy, political leadership development was oddly unstructured. This was mainly due to the contradiction between keeping power with the people and the idea of a strong leader. The result was an almost haphazard process of leadership succession. With the right personality and rhetorical skills, there was a pathway to power available.  Of course, a good leader needs more than this to be an effective statesman - integrity, devotion to the state over self, good judgement, and strategic vision among other qualities. 

The next period in Athens is known as the rule of the so-called Demagogues.  For the most part there is little evidence of what this period was actually like.  However, one notable leader is well-known - Cleon. He was part of the new social class, the nouveaux riche. The wealth of this group came from success at commercial ventures that were possible through the growth of the empire.  Cleon was the first leader who did not come from the aristocracy.  He as a heretofore unknown type of populist who focused on relations with the masses and railed against the aristocracy.  He  had little education and no significant military experience. - Cleon “drove home his messages in a new, forceful, flamboyant style of oratory.… He was described as a very violent figure. The aggression shows itself in his mode of delivery. According to Aristotle, he was the first to shout when addressing the people, and to use abusive language,… and the first to use extravagant gestures.”(Mitchell)  Cleon was also the first to use the jury court system to launch investigations of the well-connected for crimes against the state. His popularity was also driven by a very militaristic and jingoistic approach to war and foreign policy in general.  His focus on dividing, populism, and a harsh style reminds one of a recent American president.

The war dragged on with swings back and forth for each side and both determined to continued.  finally, after Cleon and an opposing leader were both killed in battle, the Peace of Nicias (the main architect of the peace agreement) was signed in 421.  Although Cleon’s death partially diminished the style of populist militarism he exemplified, it did carry on at various points into the fourth century. 

The second Peloponnesian war had been devastating for Athens - the horror of the plague unlike anyone had seen was bad enough.  But the war had meant their territory was invaded five times within the first seven years of the war.  Each time, homes and land had to be abandoned and the Athenians had to watch as they were destroyed and looted while living in difficult conditions inside the city walls.  This, combined with the loss of Pericles damaged the culture and democracy.

Another dynamic that appeared that continued the cultural divide that had developed under Cleon.  This came from a new generation of the aristocracy that had grown up during the height of Athenian wealth and power.  They were known as the “Young Radicals”. They were extremely militaristic, and contemptuous of both the Demagogues and democracy. Their view of human nature was negative and dark and focused on “might makes right” - those who have power should rule over those who do not. This approach was entirely different from that espoused by Solon and on down to Pericles. Both the Demagogues and the Young Radicals were strongly populist and focused on the politics of division. Athens and its democracy had become a traumatized, partisan, and bitter place.  

I will move on to outline the consequences of this but note that while there are plenty of differences, we can see elements of this period today in the significant anti-democratic, “strong man” movements developing around the world, including the United States. 

The final thirty years of the fifth century (430 - 400) demonstrated the pluses and minuses of Athenian democracy and they were the most tumultuous and internecine in the history of democracy’s development to date.  The stability and strong consensus that had characterized democracy from the start broke down during this period. We will see proof that constant vigilance is a necessary for the sustenance of democracy.  As outlined previously, by this time democracy was highly developed and had created numerous safeguards against threats. However, they were not up to the task in this instance. As discussed above, the combination of the twin traumas of the plague and nearly constant warfare created the conditions in which anti-democracy began to develop. And of course, with the loss of Pericles, a power vacuum ensued. The Demagogues and Young Radicals were two new political forces who sought to fill this vacuum and that together powerfully destabilized democracy.  

‘The political methods and behavior of both were highly divisive, generating suspicion and apprehension among the body politic.” (Mitchell).  Both pursued populist strategies, creating division and confrontation that had not been seen before.  However, the impact of the Young Radicals was more significant.  The Demagogues sought power by instigating resentment against the rich and fashioned themselves as defenders of democracy who sought a return to the democracy of Solon (revolutionary in its time but less participatory and democratic the Periclean democracy).  The Young Radicals were more effective in manipulating the public and thus overcame the Demagogues for the most part.  When in power, through intrigue and deception, they were responsible for the ending of the peace at the end of the Second Peloponnesian War only one year after it had been agreed to. A series of aggressive imperial attacks and initiatives took place with mixed success, culminating in the disastrous Sicilian expedition that nearly destroyed the Athenian naval and land forces. 

“The high ambition that drove Athenian imperialism from its beginnings and finally overreached itself under the influence of demagogic jingoism, and the egotism and unrestrained aspirations of elements of a new generation of the elite fired by ordering new concept of power and supremacy is the natural prerogative of the bold and strong.”(Mitchell) Surprisingly Athens recovered reasonably well and managed a series of victories but yet another long war seemed likely. By this time, the aristocracy were increasingly upset about the burden the wars were placing on their wealth.  Leaders aside, it is important to note that in all cases, it was the demos who approved of all of the sometimes very unwise military ventures. 

By 412, the Young Radicals were plotting to directly overthrow democracy and a coup was engineered in 411. They gathered together disaffected aristocrats and some warship commanders and brought in some troops by promises of payments from the King of Persia as part of a new alliance. Crucially, a grouping of political clubs composed of mainly young aristocrats had formed during the prior several years.  These were initially a source of social diversion for this group but also became a mechanism for politicians to build a network of support. The Young Radicals were the most successful at doing this. By the time of the coup, the clubs had become political action groups and began to transition into a more problematic role. 

When appealed to by Peisander (a Demagogue turned Oligarch) the leader of the coup, the clubs responded with enthusiasm, intent on revolution.  The began an underground campaign of violence and intimidation, beginning with the murder of Androcles a major political opponent of the Young Radicals.  Fear spread throughout the population and soon the demos was thoroughly terrified.  A proposal by the coup leaders to form a new leadership group (the four hundred) with full power to rule as they saw fit was approved.  There was no demotic uprising as had occurred to counter previous threats to democracy.   “The machinery of popular rule, the council and assembly, was seemingly leaderless, and the people demoralized. The proponents of oligarchy had taken firm hold of affairs in the city. Their brutality and terror tactics were at the extreme end of the scale.”(Mitchell)  Democracy teetered on a knife edge. 

Just under 2500 years later, the same tactic were used by Hitler when he formed the infamous Brownshirts in 1921 composed of violent anti-leftist and anti-democratic former soldiers in order to lend street-level muscle to the young Nazi Party, using them like a private army to intimidate opponents. In the next post, we will see the outcome of such tactics in fifth century Athens.