Part 8 - The appearance and construction of Democracy - childhood to maturity in Greece

At first glance, the attitude of the Athenians to either rule or be ruled sounds reasonable - they chose not to be ruled and therefore needed an empire to ensure this.  However, “safety and defense against enemies are worries of all states, yet they rarely lead to pursuit of empire as the remedy in place of creating defensive alliances, such as NATO. The power building of Athens after the conclusion of the 30 years peace was not paralleled elsewhere in Greece, nor was there any unusual imminent threat that would have warranted its imperial policy and consequent expansion of its military capabilities.”(Mitchell)  So, what was different about Athens?

From all accounts, it appears that the Athenians had a developed a particularly strong motivation to seek honor and profit. Honor in this era resulted from recognition of extraordinary merit, generally in war.  Plato makes the case that the drive for honor is a widespread and apparently irrational power in human nature.  People seek fame relentlessly and will endure extreme hardship or even death to attain it.  Plato defined the why of this seeking as the longing for immortality.  Humans are in love with immortality and it could be achieved through the eternal memory of great virtue and honor.  I discuss the issue of seeking immortality in an earlier post, The What and Why of Power and will return to it in the future.

Sparta is a nearby example of the path not taken by Athens.  The Spartans certainly exemplified the seeking of honor and wealth, in some ways more than Athens. However, their society was extremely rigid and disciplined with a very controlled social and political system. This made change difficult and risk-taking often frowned upon, including in foreign affairs.   

After the reforms of Cleisthenes, Athens evolved into nearly the opposite.  They had an aggressive foreign policy, were ready for new initiatives, and driven by very high national pride and confidence and a determination to be the best.  It is quite clear that the impetus for this approach was stimulated by a demotic surge which increasingly engaged the demos (populace).  Herodotus noted this dynamic, linking the remarkable run of military victories with the political equality resulting from the development of Democracy.  He saw Democracy as both liberating and inspiring Athens to transform their society.  

Based on their success in the Persian wars in particular, Athens came to see itself the primary power in Greece and as the saviors of the entire region. Athens in this period is a “story of extraordinary enterprise, courage and resolution from a people brimming with self belief in the pursuit of power and glory. It is also a story of achievement not by the few but by the greater number. The Athenians had democratized arete (honor and virtue).  It was no longer the preserve of the elite, though the demos was led by a succession of exceptional aristocrats who found more room to excel under the democracy then would have been the case in the peer culture of an oligarchy.”(Mitchell) They exemplified the “will to power” later  formulated by Nietzsche. In sum, Athenian imperialism was rooted in its democracy. 

The profit Athens generated from its empire exceeded its domestic revenues by a very substantial amount.  This was principally in the form of tribute from Athenian allies.  In Pericles view, the benefit to the allies was Athens protecting them against outside attack.  The empire thus provided justification for military build-up and did so without imposing new domestic taxes. While the land army was expanded, the primary focus of the military build-up was the growth of the navy.  The impact of the massive military spending was arguably greatest on the Athenian working class: “building, repairing and maintaining a fleet of 300 or more warships (triremes) would also have required an elaborate industrial infrastructure and a host of skilled craftsman and laborers… it is estimated that the fourth century fleet, which at one point had about 400 ships, would have required a shipbuilding workforce of 20,000. Even half that number would have transformed the economic situation of the working class at Athens in the fifth century.” (Mitchell)  

In addition to steady work for many, it appears that imperial revenue also allowed the increasingly widespread practice of pay for public service.  Again, this pay did not need to be funded through domestic revenue.  So, the working class generally had steady, good-paying jobs and were paid for public service all without any increase in taxes.  

Imperial revenues also allowed Athens to generate a substantial financial reserves.  It was meant officially to ensure that Athens could increase military spending if needed.   However, Pericles and the Assembly had no hesitation in using the reserves for domestic purposes, including most notably the creation of a massive public building program.  This program was widespread with the centerpiece being the re-building and expansion of the buildings of the Acropolis.  This construction was a wonder of that age which has continued to the present.  This was another very large employment opportunity for the urban poor in particular. 

Empire also made possible the founding of colonies on land confiscated from recalcitrant allies. Up to 10,000 of the city’s poor were given land and a chance at new and independent life in these colonies.  In addition, trade and commerce grew substantially through the opening of new markets.  This in turn stimulated increased spending by an increasingly affluent population.  Affluence stimulated demand for imports.  In essence, Athens became a market for the world. Of course, merchants of all sorts prospered greatly.  

“Athens also gained economically and earned additional foreign revenue from its status as the imperial capital, which brought an influx of overseas visitors ambassadors, officials of the allied states, the many citizens of these states who had to deal the Athenian courts, and businessman of all sorts. It was also a magnet for artists, intellectuals and the general tourist”.(Mitchell)

Now, to the political effects of imperial power.  A number of these effects may appear surprising and counter-intuitive.  We of course generally think of empire as not about democracy but the reverse, autocracy and dictatorship.  However, in the main, the internal effects of imperial power in Athens from 460 to 430, were increases in democracy.  

First, with empire, the role and extent of participation of the mass of citizens increased substantially.  Growth of Athens and the empire increased the size of government substantially. Administrative positions and the number of magistrates (office-holders) multiplied dramatically.  Magistrates generally functioned in boards of ten with specific responsibilities such as military, financial, religious affairs, the judiciary, supervision of commerce, and physical infrastructure. Excluding the military and financial areas, Magistrates “were chosen by lot from eligible candidates who put their names forward, held office for a year and could not be reappointed to the same post, though they could hold a variety of different posts. The role of the magistrate was strictly confined to implementing the decisions of the Assembly.”(Mitchell)  

Second, the executive responsibilities of the Council were expanded as well, becoming the executive branch of the Assembly.  The Assembly was large and met infrequently while the Council met every day, except holidays and was crucial in putting the decisions of the Council into effect.  The Council had a particularly important responsibility for state finances, took on significant judicial powers, and most areas of public administration. “It provided, in effect, a single, comprehensive managerial authority for an increasingly complex state.”(Mitchell).  

Perhaps surprisingly, even at its most powerful, the Council never posed a threat to the demos.  As outlined previously, “the initial checks on its power, which came from mixing regions and classes in its membership and from procedures that changed the leadership every month and the entire membership every year, and allowed reappointment only once, never altered or weakened. The continuity and common interest necessary to build an independent ongoing power base were totally absent.”(Mitchell)  

The changes in the executive offices of the government significantly expanded the motivation and opportunity for citizens to participate in the operation of the state.  The introduction of pay for public service, filling positions by lot, annual rotation of positions, and a prohibition on re-election made participation widespread and inclusive.  Membership on the Council became viable for those who had to work for a living.  With participation of citizens estimated to be one in every two or three, this meant a much more informed citizenry.  Jury selection also drew in thousands of citizens per year where key political matters and the fate of prominent officials were often decided. 

“This was participatory democracy in a fuller forum, providing easier access to high executive levels of government and to service in the judicial system for the mass of ordinary citizens. But the most important participation by the demos continue to take place in the Assembly, where every citizen had permanent membership and full equality, and where the people as a whole has the power to control the course of public affairs.”(Mitchell)  An Imperial Athens did not reduce the constitutional position power of the Assembly.  

We can see parallels to the growth of American democracy.  As the United States grew and developed a different type of military and economic empire, it also became more democratic internally, extending rights and protections substantially over time.