What Are The Pros And Cons Of Ancient Athenian Government

Question #1:

The ancient Athenians were the first society to give the vote and say of the people to citizens and not oligarchs or tyrants. As a people, they wanted to distance themselves from the despots of the east and other city states that dominated the area. The Athenians were the first to utilize a constitution as brought in part of the reforms of Solons. This was the rules and laws that the government had to follow, how it would operate and what limits the government itself had imposed. Voter apathy was punishable with a fine, seeing as they considered political action one of man’s greatest forms of expression. The Athenians regularly met to discuss politics in assemblies and at the agora. This is where males of age could openly discuss

political ideas with others given the same rights. Greeks were quick to see what worked and what did not, and had it down to a science.

Minogue notes that the Greeks “Studied constitutions and generalized the relation between human nature and political associations” (Minogue 27) believing that like the seasons, man went through many different forms of government. From despotism back to democracy in cycles. The greatest benefit to their citizenship is that they lived in a direct democracy, and had many opportunities to express their opinion regardless of who they were and what their background was. A poor person that had worked hard had the same vote that a rich person who had life handed to them. Oligarchs had no say over the masses. Instead of voting for a politician to represent them (As America is now) their vote directly mattered in political affairs, not the person they voted on in hopes they share their view. Every opinion from every voter was given the time of day to be listened to inside the Agora. The negative to citizenship, was that it was fairly limiting politically. The only people in Athens with a vote were free born men over the age of 18. Professor Paul Cartledge notes that descent from a naturally born from an “Athenian mother as well as father - was strictly insisted upon.” (Cartledge) Keeping this voting group

rather closed off. Women were given the full citizenship of a man and all the rights that would give them in front of the law, just without the right to vote. This was because they were not viewed as not rational enough to have such a power in a direct democracy. Slaves were not given citizenship, as they were viewed as not rational as well. Using their concept of rationalism, they could easily discriminate on who was entitled to what and who lost their voice in affairs of the state. A contemporary American could find multiple ideals from the ancient Athenians discomfiting. While America did start out as rather limiting in citizenship just as the Ancient Athenians did, we have changed drastically over time. Now, everyone who is considered a citizen can vote and we do not limit who gets to be considered a citizen based off of race, gender or heritage anymore.

Question #3:
While America took its influence of citizenship and what that entitles from the ancient Greeks (and in a short span expanded on and opened up more groups to), the Roman Empire was a huge influence to how we govern ourselves.

Minogue argues that, and for great reason. The Romans were the first to introduce splitting power into more groups. This was an effective way to fight off the despotism of tyrants and to make sure one did not hold much power over an entire empire. While the Roman Empire was ruled over by a Kings in its early days, after the last one met an unfortunate end the power of absolute monarch was abolished. Kings were seen as demanding of servitude, far from how the rulers wanted the empire to be for its people. In its place, two Consuls held the highest position over the Empire. This is an equivalent to a president that we have in modern America. The Roman senate helped split power as well. The senate advised the Consuls on their actions and what they were doing with the Empire. Tension and stand offs happened when these two parties disagreed. Much like in America when one branch disagrees with each other or does not want to let the other party gain much power. Another influence America took from the Romans was giving the typical person a way to represent themselves. When the plebeians of the empire demanded a fair say they protested against how the patricians treated them and equated it with them having too much power. After that successful protest, they were

given a representation to vote on from their groups. In a way this was a start to representative democracy. Through all of these contributions, it is easy to see where Minogue was coming from when he argued that the Romans were the architects for checks and balances and a huge influence on how the government we have is set up. Modern Americans might have some difficulty understanding just how patriotic the Romans were when it came to politics. Corruption was a capital offense, which here would equal much less drastic charges. The Romans love for their country is what fueled this so much. Generals who failed to bring military glory to the empire would commit suicide out of shame. Through this over the top patriotism that the empire had, pluralism was not a huge issue like it can be here. The typical citizen had unconditional love for the empire, which came first in every matter. In a way, this idea of putting the empire first helped make sure that pluralism could never harm the empire from the inside. While different interest groups did exist throughout the Empire, they were free to debate and protest as long as it was peacefully. Machiavelli mentions that pluralism was “merely reflected the Roman concern for liberty and for the protection of civil rights” (Minogue 35). James Madison as well believed that this was the best way for groups to work together. Let them have their interests and control them, while not trying to eliminate them.