The Pros And Cons Of Athenian Democracy

The Athenians’ democracy didn’t give them strength, it actually hurt them. They were slowed down by the political dialogue and dissidence when compared to their neighbors who were more authoritarian. Their authoritarian neighbors were far more successful due to their willingness to follow a few or one leader. Democracy is a great form of government, but in the case of Athenians, it was actually problematic.

Athens was a small but influential city state in what is now known as the nation of Greece. They were a great trade city due to their easy access to the Aegean Sea. They were also a prodigious intellectual center as they valued knowledge above all else. This pursuit of knowledge led to the creation of a democracy, a form

of government that let every qualified male participate in the government of the city state. This allowed these males to gather, debate, and vote on issues and laws that impacted the city state. This would seemingly allow the citizens a little more freedom because they had a say in their government. However, this democracy was flawed because it created a core of voices who wouldn’t necessarily agree on the right course of action in times of crisis. On top of that, this form of democracy didn’t make Athens stronger than their neighbors. Nations such as Sparta and Macedonia surpassed them because of their strong leadership and military, and as a result of this, conquered Athens and benefited from their ideas about society.
Athens was a weaker nation than many of their neighbors. A great example of this was the Persians While it was true that Athens and its allies beat back the Persians, it doesn’t discount the fact that the Persians were the greater civilization. Persia was one of the largest countries in the world, if not the largest, with a population of over 35 million citizens, and it stretched from India to the Mediterranean Sea (HIST 101 Western I). This nation was well-organized and run efficiently. This was accomplished by setting up roads and by putting public officials in charge of different regions of the nation. Religious freedom was widely practiced in the Persian Empire, unlike Athens which didn’t allow religious freedom (HIST 101 Western Civilization I). The Persians even had an official postal service, all while having a King instead of a democracy. Their nation was stronger because they had an absolute ruler.
Athens wasn’t even the strongest nation in Greece.

The Spartans were a stronger nation due to their warrior-like mind set. The Spartans were great warriors who were looked down upon by the Athenians for what they considered to be the Spartans’ savagery. The Spartans did benefit from capturing territory from other nations and they did own slaves, however, the Athenians also owned slaves even though they weren’t as aggressive as the Spartans were (HIST 101 Western I). The Spartans were focused on one craft: the art of war, while the Athenians were focused on many. Both have their advantages and draw backs, but in their pursuit of one goal the Spartans lived simply without craving riches. The poor and rich would eat together eating the same bread and the same meat creating a sense of community and common brotherhood. These practices were put into place by one of their reformer lawmakers, Lycurgus, who is credited with founding the warrior mentality of Sparta. Lycurgus didn’t enforce these laws by the means of a democracy nor a dictatorship, but by an oligarchy which consisted of the elders of society who together would make decisions that would affect the civilization. In this way, they would eliminate the useless political strife of a democracy while avoiding the traps of a monarchy

(Plutarch).
There were some Athenians who didn’t think that democracy was the greatest form of government. Plato, the great Athenian, infamously argued that the problem with democracy was that, “It was unreasonable to expect the common people to think intelligently about weighty issues”. Plato didn’t think that common folks would be able to think critically about big issues, which he feared would lead the common citizens to support men who were good at speaking to large crowds but not to wise men who would make good leaders (HIST 101 Western I). The great Greek philosopher and teacher, Socrates, also had a low opinion of democracy. Likewise, he was an Athenian who was concerned that democracy created popularity contests to elect leaders and didn’t put qualified men in charge. Socrates believed that democracy led to people becoming too at ease with the world around them because they weren’t forced to think about big questions of the world. He also believed that it led to tyranny saying, “Freedom…which, as they tell you in a democracy, is the glory of the State --and that therefore in a democracy alone will the freeman of nature deign to dwell…When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil cupbearers presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable and give a plentiful draught, she calls them to account and punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs” (Plato).
Plato’s and Socrates’ fears were realized when Athens’ power was directly challenged by Sparta. In the build up to the war, Athens had contempt for Sparta, believing it to be an inferior nation run essentially by war hungry savages. The Spartans took great pride in their warrior prowess and mistakenly saw no use for the Athenians’ way of life. These opposing viewpoints led to a war of words exchanged between the sides. This would eventually lead to war between Sparta and Athens a war that Sparta would win. Greek historian Thucydides would talk about the behavior of the politicians of the era on both sides saying, “The cause of all these evils was the love of power, originating in avarice and ambition, and the party-spirit which is engendered by them when men are fairly embarked in a contest. For the leaders on either side used specious names, the one party professing to uphold the constitutional equality of the many, the other the wisdom of an aristocracy, while they made the public interests, to which in name they were devoted, in reality their prize”(Thucydides). This behavior hurt Athens more because of their lack of a standing army and eventually led to their downfall.
The Athenians’ democracy was a great experiment which paved the way for republics like Rome and the United States who expanded on their ideas to create later forms of government. However, the Athenians’ type of government was a disaster which promoted great orators and popular members of society to become the leaders of Athens instead of experienced wise men. It created an environment of frivolous debate where politicians sought what was in their best interests. It made Athens weaker than her neighbors and caused her to be unprepared at times for war. This would eventually lead to Athens’ downfall as a nation due to the weak ground that her democracy was built upon.