The Democratic Experiment

In the modern context, it is almost impossible to achieve a perfect direct democracy. Unlike in the age of the Athenians, the general population of the United States is not limited to a concentrated geographic region, and the economic system is not a simplistic as it was then. Because of these factors, the representative model is the only viable form of democracy possible for a modern global power such as the US. Furthermore, instances of direct democracy present in the current US political system, the primary example being referendums and initiatives, have proven to be failed experiments of the directly democratic legislative process.

Referendums and initiatives have become increasingly utilized in the past decade to shape policy across the US. Referendums and initiatives differ slightly, with a referendum being a vote from the general public on recently passed legislation, and an initiative being where a new bill is put on the ballot for the general public to vote. Referendums function to use the popular vote to either confirm or veto the ruling of the state legislator whereas an initiative bypasses the legislator completely.

Proponents assert that initiatives and referendums cede power of the political elites back to the people. This ensures the state constitution and any legislation passed is reflective of the constituents’ opinions, regardless of the balance between parties in the legislator or any external influence from lobbyists on the district representatives. Originally developed in the Progressive Era, the goal was to prevent the states from being “in the pockets of wealthy interests” (NCSL).

Referendums and initiative are often criticized as undermining the intentions of the representative political system. It promotes the rule of uneducated constituents on nuanced legislation they have neither the time nor willingness to understand the implications of. Getting signatures for referendums or initiatives to appear on the ballot is most often be a money game, as campaigns to promote the issue at hand are central to a successful initiative. The power is not, as it turns out, going to the people—the power is going to private corporations.

Large corporations with a vested interest in a given piece of legislation can easily fund a campaign to have legislation overturned in states where this is permitted. In 2016 alone, corporations across the US poured over a billion dollars of funding into ballot initiatives advantageous to their industry. Food regulations were repealed, gas taxes slashed, and wildlife habitats violated as a result of this. With “policy stakes in the billions” for these companies, initiatives are used to bypass the entire legislative process (NCSL).

It is important to note, however, that referendums and initiatives are not part of the federal legislative process. If this were to be applied in the national context, the results could be disastrous. We’ve already seen the impact of Congressional lobbyists in skewing the public opinion on federal legislation. If the direct democracy seen in the referendum and initiative process were extended to the federal level, the careful dynamic of checks and balances would be disrupted and the formerly separated powers concentrated in the hands of the collective hands of citizens and corporations.

It’s easy to idealize the direct democracy from the golden age of Greece, but seen even in the constrained, state level context of initiatives and referendums, direct democracy has proven detrimental to the representation of US citizens. Despite idealistic theories of direct democracy as egalitarian representation, the referendum and initiative experiment has shown that this would only amplify the current corruption of the politics by corporations. Direct democracy would not be a rule of the people as one would hope, but rather a rule by corporation, where public good is secondary to profit margins.

— Julia Lotterer

Word Count: 600

Sources: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/chart-of-the-initiative-states.aspx h

Gridlock: Now and Then

February 22, 2019 | Blog #2

Have you ever witnessed a heated congressional hearing on TV and wondered how it’ll turn out?

You’re not alone.

The United States legislative branch holds a similar problem with thousands of smaller gridlocks which together are seen as clashing polarities between different political parties.

We’ve seen similar strife in the RTTP debate in class, and a seemingly simple solution is compromise. To be frank, it’s not that easy.

Such dissent often leads to gridlock within Congress, and we saw this occur between the radical democrats, the moderate democrats, the oligarchs, and the indeterminates. Over three days of intense debate, three vague and poorly formed laws were passed by the Athenian Assembly. A lack of productive outcomes results from gridlock, otherwise known as deadlock or political stalemate.

Many might question how 5th-century Athenian politics could possibly share similarities with 21st-century American politics; well, gridlock is an example of significant similarity.

To provide some background information to illustrate my point, allow me to talk about ancient Athens first.

After the Peloponnesian War between the ancient city-states of Sparta and Athens resulted in an Athenian loss, tyrants known as the Thirty were installed to control the city of Athens. Bloodthirsty and greedy, these tyrants ruled with an iron fist and crushed any opposition; soon they were overthrown by democratic insurgents led by Thrasybulus.

The Athenian Assembly gathered once again and debated about concerns that included the electorate and social welfare. A significant topic revolved around the Reconciliation Agreement, a law that provides a general amnesty to those who may have helped the Thirty Tyrants. The radical democrats under Thrasybulus wanted to defeat this law, while the moderate democrats fought to pass the proposition. Ultimately the Reconciliation Agreement was adopted with strong disagreement still ever present.

Athens back then was a direct democracy, which encompassed numerous advantages. In theory, idealists believe that it makes sure that the people’s voices are heard, encourages people to participate in the government, and reduces the chances of corruption.

However, in reality, not every person gets an equal vote and equal representation. Those on the Assembly were wealthier, land-owning citizens of Athens while metics and slaves were not permitted to join the Assembly. Furthermore, factions had varying representation as each had differing numbers of members.

Now comparing the Athenian Assembly to Congress, we see massive problems with gerrymandering and voting eligibility. Often there would be purges of voting rolls and controversies over voter ID laws.

Gridlock in Congress, according to the Stanford professor David Brady and University of Virginia professor Craig Volden, is due to two interrelated factors: first, “the preferences of members of Congress regarding particular policies” and second, “supermajority institutions – the Senate filibuster and the presidential veto.”

The two professors argue that gridlock is not due to solely party differences in Congress, but to individual preferences of politicians and policies.

The Founding Fathers designed the federal government in such a way to make the lawmaking process as difficult and winded as possible to enforce a system of checks and balances. Such policy is also a flaw as we witness stalemates and inaction regarding policies and laws on significant public issues such as gun control, abortion, and funding.

“The whole country is crying out in an agony of distress for measures of relief,” Henry Clay of Kentucky said in debate over a bank bill in 1841. But, he said, long-winded senators were delaying the public business with amendments that served only to “kill time, without any hope of practical results.”

In both Congress and the Athenian Assembly, we now understand how dissent leads to gridlock and a lack of outcome.

As Thucydides once said, “I shall be content if those shall pronounce my History useful who desire to give a view of events as they really happen, and as they are likely, in accordance with human nature, to repeat themselves at some future time—if not exactly the same yet very similar” (Thucydides 1.22). Perhaps we can propose change to our political system to create more productivity for the betterment of our lives and the lives of later generations.

— Cameron Guan

Word Count: 590

Sources:

Brady, David; Volden, Craig (2006). Revolving Gridlock: Politics and Policy from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. p. 4.

History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides (c. 431 BCE)

New York Times article The Nation; Gridlock, the Way It Used to Be by Robert Pear, published on Oct. 9, 1994, retrieved from 1994 Archives

Mob Rule: Why Should We Care?

The main difference between the American and Athenian democratic systems is the degree to which both guarded against the negative effects of mob rule. Due to the lack of a representative legislative body, the Athenian democratic system was more susceptible to harmful mob rule effects than the current American democratic system. A very popular example of the negative effects of mob rule in Athens is the fact that the public assembly voted to go to war with Sparta, a decision which ultimately led to the downfall of Athens. During the war, Pericles instructed the citizens to lock down the city and remain very conservative, and he promised that it would help win the war. Thucydides tells us that instead the public did “the very contrary, allowing private ambitions and private interests, in matters apparently quite foreign to the war, to lead them into projects unjust both to themselves and to their allies—projects whose success would only conduce to the honour and advantage of private persons, and whose failure entailed certain disaster on the country in the war.”[1] Thucydides is saying that since the citizens were given majority rule and their decisions were driven by anger and anxiety from the war, they were bound to make decisions that benefited the individual temporarily but not the state nor the future of the state. Even Aeschines condemned the state of the Athenian democracy and assembly, saying “there are men who do not hesitate to make illegal motions, and other men who are ready to put these motions to the vote”, meaning that the assembly had come to the point where there was no order and tradition because mob rule was beginning to take over.[2] Mob rule was a very real issue in the Athenian democracy because there was no official body that could counteract the decisions of the masses to ensure that decisions were made with the state in mind.

The American democratic system, more accurately described as a republic, is comprised of several institutions that guard against mob rule. The most prominent example is the elected legislative body we call Congress. The power of the people lies in the fact that they directly elect the legislative officials, but in the case that the public opinion shifts in a direction that may harm the state, the legislative body has the responsibility to withhold against the sudden sway of public opinion. Even if the legislature caves to the sudden sway of public opinion, the nationally elected President has the power to keep the legislature in check if he deems that the state may face harm. In the event that the President also caves to the public opinion, our court system has the power to reverse any decisions that violate the concrete Constitution of our nation. If even the courts decide to agree with a sudden sway of public opinion, it can be concluded that such a change in opinion will be helpful to the nation. The American system is so beautiful because each institution of our society has different and competing powers and agendas, ensuring almost to the point of certainty that a political takeover of a majority is impossible. Mob rule in America is non-existent because of the institutions of the government (elected by the people) that serve the goodwill of the state, not the individual.

-Andrew Mitchell

Word Count: 563

[1]History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides

[2] Against Ctesiphon, Aeschines

Democracy in Miniature versus Magnitude

The democracy of Ancient Greece, specifically of Athens, is often given credit for providing the foundation to modern democracy. Ancient Athenians such as Cleisthenes and Solon certainly brought the government of Athens into a new direction by offering reforms that greatly differed from neighboring countries who ruled by aristocracy or oligarchy. However, in comparison with our democracy today, there are vast differences in electoral processes and the jury system. While Athenian democracy provided a model for our government today, many differences have risen stemming from diversity and our larger populous and territory (1).

The electoral process of Athens greatly differs from our voting system today. One distinct example comes from the results of several presidential elections. In 2000, George W. Bush “was named winner of the U.S. presidential race, even after more U.S. voters had cast ballots for Gore” (2). A similar situation happened in our most recent presidential race where Donald Trump won the presidency despite Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote. Both of these victories were due to Bush and Trump having more electoral votes than their opponents; in our democracy today the Electoral College rather than a simple majority decides the winning party. These presidential races would have gone in the other direction if the United States adhered to the Athenian version of democracy. Our democracy today is representative rather than direct as in Ancient Greece and this representative version is necessary due to our large and diverse population that requires checks and balances (3).

The difference between our democracy today and that of Athens is further exemplified through the varying jury systems and specifically the Trial of Socrates. Socrates was accused of impiety and corruption of youth; he was found guilty and sentenced by a jury of “500 male citizens over the age of thirty, chosen by lot” (4). Most of the jury members were farmers and had grown to despise the philosopher due to his involvement with the Thirty Tyrants and his rather arrogant demeanor. Like the previous example, the jury voted with simple majority on Socrates’ guilt and decided that a suitable punishment would be execution “by drinking a cup of poisoned hemlock” (4). This chain of events would never exist in a trial today, as jurors nowadays aren’t given complete authority. In modern times, if a jury decides that the accused is indeed guilty, then the central authority of a judge will determine the appropriate sentence. Additionally, the modern jury attempts to get members of diverse backgrounds that are unbiased towards the case at hand, unlike the trial just discussed. In trials today, both the prosecution and defense have the chance to partake in voir dire, a “process in which lawyers question jurors about their background” (4). If the lawyers decide from these questions that an individual is too biased to partake in the trial, that juror can be dismissed from the jury pool. Socrates, on the other hand, was not given the opportunity to dismiss; he probably would have expelled most of the 500.

The democracy of the United States has significant variations from that of ancient Athens. However, it must also be understood that their “system wasn’t designed for enormous, spread-out, and diverse populations of modern industrialized countries” (2); Athenian democracy was meant to solve ancient Greece problems, not problems of today. Thomas Paine, one of the Founding Fathers, believed that our system is of lineage with Athens, for he wrote that “what Athens was in miniature America will be in magnitude” (5). The United States has borrowed principles and values from Athenian democracy, and has developed into its own.

Lauren McDonnell

Total Word Count: 596

Without quotes: 532

“Ancient Greek Democracy.” History (A&E Television Networks), 23 Aug 2019. Web. 21 Feb 2019.
Christiano, Ramon. “The Ancient Greek Democracy’s Influence on the United States.” The Classroom, 16 June 2018. Web. 21 Feb 2019.
Gill, N.S. “Democracy Then and Now.” Thought Company, 13 January 2019. Web. 21 Feb 2019.
Linder, Douglas O. “The Trial of Socrates.” Famous Trials, UMKC School of Law. Web. 21 Feb 2019.
Paine, Thomas. The Rights of Man. The British Library (1791), 125. Web. 21 Feb 2019.

Imperialistic Commonality Shared by 5th Century Athenian Democracy and 20th Century American Democracy

IThe Athenian Democracy of the 5th Century BCE and the American Democracy of the early 20th Century are similar, yet distinct, regimes. Each share similarities with the each other while maintaining certain contrasts. One of the most significant commonalities of this Athenian Democracy and American Democracy is each regime’s practice of militaristic imperialism, as displayed by the historical events of Athens’ Empire, the Delian League, and the ‘Big Stick’ Diplomacy of the Roosevelt government in the first decade of the 20th Century.

The Athenian Empire was a key characteristic of the Athenian democratic system; arguably, the two were simultaneously the cause and the effect of each other. Athens’ ‘first citizen’ spoke of his city as an empire, as Pericles is quoted to have said “[F]or what you possess, to speak plainly, is a tyranny. It may have been wrong to acquire your empire, but it would be folly to give it up” according to ancient historian, Thucydides ( Thucydides 2.63). Such a claim reinforces the status of the empire which itself served to lay siege to many Greek cities near the Aegean Sea, earning the Athenians increased wealth in phoros and increased influence in the region. One of the most aggressive imperialistic acts of this new naval superpower of the Aegean was the capturing of Melos in 416 BCE. Determined to overtake the neutral city, the Athenians arrived at the island of Melos, demanding the Melians entrance into the Delian League. Emboldened rather than disheartened by the Melian refusal, the Athenians captured the island, enforcing that the “strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must” (Thucydides V.89). Melos befell a similar fate to that of the other Greek cities of the Delian League, as the Athenians murdered or sold into slavery the cities’ original population, and populated the city thereafter themselves. The Athenians applied their superior naval might to a policy of militaristic imperialism ultimately to accomplish a goal of self-servitude.

The American ‘Empire’ was not identical to the Athenian Empire, but shared many notable similarities. In reference to American imperialism within the realm of Central America, President Theodore Roosevelt audaciously confessed to having taken the Canal Zone of the nation of Panama after having aided an insurrection, provided protection to the new government of Panama, and signed a treaty with this new state (which the American government conveniently recognized immediately as sovereign from Nicaragua) (https://www.shapell.org/manuscript/theodore-roosevelt-panama-canal-zone/#transcripts). Such bold claims surrounding American entanglements in foreign affairs reinforced a ‘new’ kind of American Diplomacy secured by the Roosevelt Corollary of the Monroe Doctrine. This American imperialism reached from colonies in Puerto Rico and the Philippines, to protectorates in Cuba, Panama, and other Latin American nations, as well as to open door policies in China (http://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-83). This kind of foreign policy by the American regime under the Roosevelt government is ‘Big Stick’ Diplomacy, founded upon the West African proverb “speak softly and carry a big stick” of which the American President was fond (https://www.britannica.com/event/Big-Stick-policy). In practice, this foreign policy assured military action by the superior American naval fleet in the event diplomacy failed to produce the results the American government aspired.

Given the above descriptions, the imperialistic patterns of the two democracies are synonymous. Both regimes maintained governments which verbally reinforced the demands of the corresponding empire, while allowing its naval forces to ensure that the aspirations of the regime were fulfilled. The sentiments of each regime, as expressed by the Athenians at Melos and by Roosevelt through the West African proverb, are of the same accord: accept the demands of the empire, or face the consequences of its superior military power.

-Meagan Stevenson

Word Count: 598

Democracy (What is it good for?)

Modern democratic systems have substantially changed since the days of Athenian glory. The world’s preeminent democracy today is the United States, being the first established in the modern era. However, the democratic systems employed by the United States differ greatly from those used by the Athenians. The American Founding Fathers drew from Enlightenment principles and political theories present in Britain’s Magna Carta and the work of philosopher John Locke. As a result, the democracy that evolved in the United States has been filtered through the revelations of several different regions and time periods. Most strikingly, the United States deliberately established a system of checks and balances in its founding documents to prevent the whimsical (and often critically flawed) decisions of an impassioned mob. Checks and balances comprise the single largest difference between Athenian and American democracies.

The Athenian democracy was governed by the Assembly and thus was at the mercy of a single governing body. Whatever was decided in the Assembly would become law (or action). Given that Athens was consistently one of the most powerful polis in ancient Greece, this method worked much of the time. In the years between the two Persian Wars, the magistrate Themistocles convinced the democracy to construct a fleet of triremes. Assuredly, Athens was thanking him for that decision after the battle of Salamis. The Athenian system ensured that the proposal to build a fleet could be executed quickly, and did not require further approval than the Assembly’s. Thus, the decision-making process was demonstrably efficient.

On the flip side, the Assembly proved it could be wooed into poorer decisions, as happened with the Sicilian Campaign. Alcibiades convinced an eager Assembly to undertake an expedition in Sicily. Nicias, another member of the Assembly, tried to stay the action but was unsuccessful, and even unintentionally committed nearly twice as many troops as originally intended to the expedition. With no other body to check the power of the Assembly, the expedition was undertaken and ended disastrously for the Athenians.

The American democracy is not wont to make decisions quickly. Article I Section 7 of the United States Constitution states that “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it.” This specific check on the power of Congress ensures that no law passing Congress shall immediately enter into effect. As a result of this, decision-making in the American democracy is more deliberative and less efficient than the Athenian system. This allows time for the governing bodies to examine the law or action and reach a conclusion on its necessity.

A prominent example of this was in 2015, when then-President Barack Obama vetoed a bill approving the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline extension. This bill passed the Republican-held Congress, but was vetoed by him. As it then failed to pass over veto, the bill died (Congress.gov). The pipeline was controversial because of its potential environmental impact and proximity to Native American lands. President Obama’s veto prevented the pipeline extension from being built before its true impact was known. In the Athenian system, Keystone XL would likely be built and functioning right now, but because of the lawmaking system of the United States, it lies dormant.

The existence of Article I Section 7 is not the only check existing in the American democratic system, but is a clear example of how the checks and balances affect decision-making. The Athenian democracy, lacking any of these, was much more prone to rash decisions and the passion of a moment. For better or worse, the United States takes much more time with decisions, and has layered systems protecting against swift change.

Tom Vilinskis

Word Count: 588

Sources:

The Constitution of the United States of America
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Keystone+XL+Pipeline%22%5D%7D

Direct Democracy- The Outdated Mob Rule

The representative model of democracy is a better way of government because a more accurate view of the public is portrayed without hindering the decision-making process. The direct model calls for every citizen to voice their opinion and make decisions about issues. When 1000 different voices are heard on the same issue, but everyone’s opinions slightly differ, then it becomes harder to make decisions. For example, the ancient Athenians used direct democracy. Any able-bodied citizen that wanted to speak came to the Assembly to give their opinion. This often made it harder for decisions to be made. Many people had their own personal goals to achieve and were unwilling to compromise with others. According to Thrasybulus, “Our constitution is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people. When it is a question of settling private disputes, everyone is equal before the law; when it is a question of putting one person before another in positions of public responsibility, what counts is not membership of a particular class, but the actual ability which the man possesses. No one, so long as he has it in him to be of service to the state, is kept in political obscurity because of poverty” (Thucydides). Even though the citizens did not make up the entire population of Athens- there were over 25,000 metics compared to only 50,000 citizens- they still displayed enough trouble getting legislation passed. In a reenactment of the Assembly of ancient Athens, the Assembly proved that decisions were harder to make as each person had their own agenda as well as had views to align with their parties.

Part of the reason this direct democracy was not as effective was because not all of the population were able to attend Assembly meetings, even though they were welcome to. Blackwell argues that for some citizens, traveling 50 to 60 miles for an Assembly meeting was not worth it. He also argues that “This would have been especially true when emergency meetings were called on short notice, such as the occasion that Demosthenes describes, when news of a military disaster came to the city in the evening, and a special Assembly convened the very next morning (Dem. 18.169). This assembly, and any others like it, must have consisted mainly of citizens living close to the city.” (Blackwell). This would mean that while being a direct democracy, a large population would also have been missing to the point where decisions were only being made by a biased portion of the population.

On the other side of the coin, a representative democracy in today’s world proves to be the better system, even with its drawbacks. The representative democracy nominates two senators per state for the Senate. This way, every state possesses equal representation. Each state is also divided into districts based on population where they vote on one person to represent them in the House of Representatives. In this manner, a more widespread view of the population’s opinion is presented. Representatives are up for election once every two years and Senators every six years. This ensures that the members of Congress are up to date with issues as well as the peoples’ opinions. Whereas not every voting member of society can make it to the polls to vote, those that can still represent a big portion of the population. There are multiple polling stations across the districts so that no person has to travel an insane distance to vote. Also, online voting is available for those in the military or away from home at college so that they may still have a voice in their society. Gerrymandering, the strategic method of shaping a district to favor one group over another does occur, but due to its unlawfulness is often fixed as soon as it occurs. At the same time, there are enough members of Congress that faithfully voted based on the peoples’ opinions that any gerrymandered districts or members that vote against the public’s views are easily outnumbered. Less people voting on decisions allows for more decisions because a clearer majority is revealed. By having members of Congress be members of different boards, decisions are more immediately implemented by the boards in charge of them. The lack of mob rule coming from the whole population allows decisions to be more thought through. The representative democracy is more efficient because it gives a more accurate portrayal of the views of the population.

Thucydides 2.37.1

Blackwell, Christopher W. “The Assembly.” Diotima, www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_assembly?page=2.

-Moira Camacho

Word Count: 600

Balancing Functionality and Participation in Government

Democracy is, by nature, inefficient and flawed because not everyone is going to agree completely on everything. Too many unique experiences create too many conflicting viewpoints. Decision-making is messy, but that is the sacrifice society makes for participation in government. Representative democracy is more of a balance. Much like society sacrifices efficiency to have its voice heard, representation sacrifices participation for a level of efficiency. Representative democracy is the better form of governing because it provides a functioning government that still represents factions’ situations and experiences.

For example, this year the United States experienced “the longest ever shutdown of the U.S. government,” because Congress and the President could not agree on the government budget (Wagner et al.). While representative democracy may not allow everyone to vote directly on major issues like the government budget, it sacrifices that participation for a level of efficiency. If 536 people shut the government down for a month over one issue, it would be inoperable if 325 million people had to agree on every decision the government makes. According to CNN, “air traffic delays at airports… played an important role in President Trump’s decision to back down — at least temporarily — on his insistence of wall funding to reopen the government,” (Wagner et al.). A single disagreement caused problems across the US in government facilities like airports. Direct democracy would result in large-scale disputes such as these daily; it could cripple US infrastructure. While it is not completely efficient, representative democracy represents many different factions while still maintaining some level of functionality.

Not all 325 million people would be participating in a direct democracy either, of course, as voter participation is low even with a representative democracy. The Pew Research Center stated, “137.5 million Americans voted in the 2016 presidential election… Overall voter turnout – defined as the share of adult U.S. citizens who cast ballots – was 61.4% in 2016,” (Krogstad and Lopez). In representative democracy, the public votes on fewer issues than the government handles, yet not all those who can participate vote on even this smaller number of the most important issues. This is the advantage of a representative democracy. Even when a large portion of the public is not involved, there is still someone representing them involved full-time. For direct democracy to represent everyone, everyone must participate all the time. With a representative democracy, only the majority of people must participate some of the time, but they receive representation all of the time. It is possible, however, for representatives to change their minds on issues, misrepresenting constituents. This is why participation in what voters directly decide is crucial. They decide whom they trust to make decisions with which they will agree.

This decision is the most valuable and important of political decisions Americans make: who will represent them? The average American is probably not qualified to write out a budget for the entire US bureaucracy, something they would have to understand in direct democracy where they would vote on the subject personally. With representative democracy, however, Americans possess a choice of whom they believe is qualified to make these decisions, and will do so in a manner with which they would agree. In this manner, representative democracy selects those whom Americans want to make their decisions, allowing those who are qualified to make those complex decisions in a manner with which their constituents would agree.

Democracy is imperfect. Not everyone can participate all of the time, so the theory that democracy represents everyone is false. It does not represent everyone. It represents those who actively participate. Thus, representative democracy is a better method of governing than direct democracy. Direct democracy allows too many conflicting views to prohibit progress, and only those who are able to participate full time are able to influence the most important decisions, decisions they may not even be qualified to make. Representative democracy sacrifices a little bit of that opportunity for everyone to participate to resolve these issues, and create a government that balances functionality and efficiency with representation.

-Nathan Forrest

Words: 597

Krogstad, Jens Manuel, and Mark Hugo Lopez. “Black voter turnout fell in 2016, even as a record number of Americans cast ballots.” Pew Research Center, 12 May 2017, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/. Accessed 20 Feb. 2019.

Wagner, Meg, et al. “The Government Shutdown Is Over.” CNN Politics, Cable News Network, 25 Jan. 2019, http://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/government-shutdown-month-2019/index.html. Accessed 20 Feb. 2019.

The Evolution of Democracy

The main differences between Athenian Democracy and American democracy is the transition to representative democracy, separation of powers, and the diversity of the electorate. America adopted democracy from Athens because it was seen as the most effective form of government where the people were intricately involved and could have their voices heard. However, a direct democracy was impractical when the Constitution was being written because the fledgling United States covered a much larger area than Athens did in Greece, and the United States was a unity of separate states. The Founding Fathers had to develop a way to both fairly represent the people and the states themselves in the democracy of the United States. The Founding Fathers decided on a House of Representatives and a Senate to both represent the people and the states. However, the power of the government still rested in the hands of the people. When asked about the form of government the Founding Fathers had devised after the drafting of the Constitution, Ben Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” While the implementation had changed from direct to representative, Athens was and America still is a democracy where the voice of the people has the strongest say in government.

The separation of powers was devised as a way to keep any one branch of the American government from consolidating power and becoming too powerful. While this is traditionally seen as a hallmark and improvement upon democracy by the United States, there was a form of the separation of powers in Athens. The Assembly in Athens was the legislative branch and the courts were the judicial, however, there was no clear established executive. Pericles attained the role of a pseudo-executive in Athens. Thucydides observed, “Pericles indeed, by his rank, ability, and known integrity, was enabled to exercise an independent control over the multitude—in short, to lead them instead of being led by them; for as he never sought power by improper means… In short, what was nominally a democracy became in his hands government by the first citizen (Thucydides 2.65.8-9). Pericles was the unelected leader of Athens and this became even more prevalent during the Peloponnesian War when Pericles exercised complete control over the Athenian strategy in the war. While the separation of powers was not explicitly stated in Athens, it is clear a well-functioning executive is necessary for democracy to work. Democracy can often get bogged down in the legislative branch when all that is accomplished is debate and no compromises nor conclusions are reached. This was seen in our class’s Athenian Assembly activity as well. Athens may not have had an “executive” power, but Pericles filled this role and helped Athenian democracy thrive. The explicit stating of the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution greatly improved upon the idea that a legislative, executive, and judicial branch of government were all necessary for democracy, however, both Athens and the U.S. maintained the legislative was the most powerful because it was directly controlled by the people.

The area where Athens and the U.S. differ dramatically is in the diversity of the electorate. The electorate in Athens was comprised of only male Athenian citizens, and under Pericles only those who had two Athenian parents could be considered citizens. This made the electorate very homogenous and while ideological debate still occurred, this drastically narrowed the scope of debate. In the United States, the electorate is very diverse in background, character, and ideology; and is affected by a multitude of other factors. This diversity brings to the table many more issues, but there are also more ideas and debate on the best way to solve them. These differences make democracy stronger because everyone has the opportunity to have their voices heard. Through diversity, the United States has once again improved upon Athenian democracy.

-Ethan Fessler

Word Count: 583

Works Cited:

Thucydides 2.65.8-9 (obtained from class powerpoint)

Democracy or Democracy?

American Representative Democracy finds its beginnings and roots in the Athenian experiment of Ancient Greece. However, though the two stem from similar original ideas — such as equality and giving citizens a voice — the dissimilarities are too egregious to reconcile the ideas as alike. Representative and Direct democracies both contain advantages over one another, but when it comes to the most successful form of governance, Representative Democracy is the better of the two.

In the beginnings of America and in the writing of the Constitution, the founders sought to give as many people a relevant voice as possible. Though each individual can have a voice equal to everyone else’s, a voice may as well be inaudible if it is shouted down by a collective number of voices. These collective voices are expressed by James Madison in Federalist No. 10 as “factions”.

Factions in Athens formed as easily and readily as they do today, following human nature, of course. This is what America’s founders would have called “mob rule”, but which the Athenians would have called the best form of “democracy”. In theory, every citizen had equal say in the Athenian assembly. However, any faction — such as the Thrasybulans, the Periclean Democrats, the Solonian Aristocrats, or the Followers of Socrates — threatened to outshout any persons or groups hedged against them, ignoring perhaps the indispensable needs of smaller factions in favor of their possibly short-sighted, ill-natured agenda. In other words: Rule of Athens fell into the hands of whatever “mob” happened to be in control at the time, leaving the administration of one of the world’s most powerful city-states at the whims of the “mob”.

Factions are an inevitability of human nature. Like-minded people will converge into symbiotic relationships, forming ever-expanding groups that threaten all other opinions and ideas. There are two means of countering factions, as James Madison elaborates on in Federalist No. 10: “the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.”¹ The founders recognized factions as inevitable, and since the possibilities for removing them — destroying liberty or giving every citizen the same opinion (e.g., 1984) — are as impractical as they are impossible, it then became the best course of action to control their effects.

In order to control the effects of a “mob rule”, the founders introduced a system of governance that far more successfully gave citizens a voice in the direction of politics than an Athenian Direct Democracy ever could. The bicameral legislature, the Great Compromise, offered a remedy to give states a proportional say as well as an equal say, thus, California cannot so easily enact policy detrimental to Wyoming. The executive branch provides a central figurehead to unify America and chart its course. The judicial branch administers the closest form of fair rulings in criminal and civilian cases the world has seen.

No system of government is perfect. Human nature prevents this. However, when given the opportunity to prefer Direct or Representative Democracy, Representative Democracy — especially its American incarnation — is the best selection available.

¹Madison, James. Federalist no. 10 (1787) 2009.