Part 15 - The appearance and construction of Democracy - childhood to maturity in Greece
/The Courts
The basic structure of the judicial system was set by the end of the fifth century. However, in the fourth century there was considerable additional development. Jury courts came into being in the fifth century - previously the full Assembly was the sole jury. Based on the rapid growth of the State government and the reforms after the period of the Young Radicals and Oligarchs, there was an extremely large increase in the number of judicial cases which triggered the development of a number of other courts.
By the fourth century, jury courts was a fixed and extensive feature of the civic life of Athens, a society that had developed a massive interest in litigation. The six junior archons were in charge of the overall operation of the courts. Jurors were required to be full citizens and over 30 years of age. Juries were very large by the standards of today - from a low of 201 to over 2,000 for major political trials. It appears that there was no internal jury deliberation, with voting by secret ballot and a verdict based on a simple majority. Juries were seated from 175 to 225 days per year and required up to 2,000 jurors every court day. This is an extremely high level of participation for the population of Athens which was composed of about 40,000 citizens. “The full body of volunteers was first organized by tribes, and one-tenth of the jurors needed for the day were chosen by random selection from each tribe. A second sortition from the resulting list assigned each juror to a particular court, again by a method designed to give fair representation to each tribe on every jury.”(Mitchell)
Before going to trial, all private and public cases were first referred to an Arbitrator (citizens 59 or older who were no longer eligible for military service). There was no role for any professional elite in the jury process. The magistrates did preside over the courts but their only responsibility was to ensure that the process moved forward in accordance with the rules. All private and most public cases were brought forward by ordinary citizens. The Athenians knew that giving citizens too much power to act as prosecutors could be dangerous and developed a number of procedures to set limits accordingly.
The courts were not meant to balance the power of the Assembly - it was rather the opposite: “It was spelled out in the Heliastic Oath, which stated as its first injunctions that jurors must vote in accordance with the laws and decrees of the demos (Assembly) and Council, and refuse to support tyranny or oligarchy or anyone with attempted to subvert the democracy.”(Mitchell) Aristotle saw the creation and growth of the courts as the most important development making it possible for the mass of society to participate in a crucial area of State operation.
In conclusion, “it is difficult to argue that the constitution of the fourth century was other than democracy in its fullest form. The power of the demos was pervasive. The evidence that the assembly remained the supreme governing authority, through a strict rule of law, seems conclusive. There was no disposition for checks, other than the law, on the power of the demos, after the dire experiences with the champions of oligarchy. The court, from their inception, were seen as institutions of the people, protecting the rule of the people and giving affect to the will of the people as expressed through the assembly.”(Mitchell)
The Assembly
The role and control of the Assembly continued throughout the fourth century. There were a number of changes made to increase the involvement of the Assembly, principally focused on making the Assembly as representative as possible and expanding participation. At the beginning of the century, pay for attendance at Assembly meetings in a time of financial strain demonstrated a determination to increase attendance, especially by the less well off. In addition, also early in the century, and therefore also a time of financial stress, meeting place of the Assembly was entirely reconstructed “creating a fully enclosed in a large theater shaped space with seating. The building of such an elaborate facility in strained times was a strong statement of the importance attached to the assembly, but it also facilitated the Assembly’s work and ensured there was adequate accommodation for larger numbers.”(Mitchell)
Even more significant was the increase in the number of set meetings - these increased four-fold over the course of the century, four for each tribe. Meeting dates were set in advance and agendas were published five days prior to each meeting. Each tribe’s initial meeting was a plenary session requiring a quorum of 6,000. The first item on the agenda was the issue of the performance of magistrates followed by the opportunity for any citizen to bring forward any grievance or prosecution they wanted to propose. A tight rein was maintained by the Assembly, again to guard against anti-democratic moves.
The engagement of citizens in various aspects of civic life was substantial, covering the Council, juries, magistrates, Assembly, and military service. Rule by the people was fully established. “but rule by the people came with an obligation on the people to participate in that rule. Citizenship meant a share in the constitution, but it was a sharing that was inseparable from civic engagement. The themes of service and participation to preserve a strong democracy are constantly sounded by the orators in addressing popular audiences in the assembly and courts. They were obviously core elements of the prevailing democratic ethos.” (Mitchell) A modern-day version of this sort of ethos would likely strengthen our democracy substantially.
Certainly there is some evidence of general division between the poor and people of means that sometimes caused friction, but there is little to any evidence of actual factional strive throughout the fourth century. There was no oligarchic movement or activity during the century. Regardless of background, those who became leaders were strong supporters of democracy and the will of the Assembly and the Council. “The demos was, as Aristotle insists, fully in control, and was far too jealous of its prerogatives, and far too vigilant and intent on safeguarding the rule of the people, to tolerate factional power plays or the machinations of groups seeking to impose their will on the people’s supreme governing body.”(Mitchell)
Beginning with the next post, I will discuss the overall achievements and shortcomings of Athenian democracy as well as its final days.
