More Like the Swiss?

The United States is a representative democracy, and has been for centuries. With such a strong worldly presence and a large population, it is hard to envision the nation with any other type of government. This sentiment is echoed through the fact that many nations are either a representative democracy or a hybrid of it. When examining the reasons behind the current system, it dates back to the Founding Fathers, who feared the consequences of a radically direct democracy, and rightfully so.

A representative democracy is, in general, better suited for dealing with a large electorate. The fact of the matter is that, while a direct democracy works well with a smaller population, it gets exponentially harder to maintain as the number of people increases. When each voice must be heard individually, it becomes much more work for the government. Time and money can be lost at the expense of entertaining a direct democracy, especially when only 55.5% of the United States’ population even votes (“2016 November General Election Turnout Rates.”). This low percentage may be variety of reasons, ranging from a busy schedule to sincere apathy. The beauty of a representative democracy, though, is that, even with a low voter turnout, the nonparticipants are still represented through elected officials.

The representative system additionally prioritizes the needs of the group more so than the needs of the individual. It is only natural for citizens to vote for proposals that benefit themselves, neglecting to think of others and the nation itself. This is evident with Switzerland, one of the only countries still with a direct democracy. In 2009, the populous voted to ban the construction of minarets adjacent to mosques, preventing them from getting any ventilation (“Swiss Ban Building of Minarets on Mosques.”). This vote excluded the Swiss Muslim population, and handicapped their ability to worship comfortably. Additionally, even if not for self-interest, a direct democracy would allow for people who do not completely understand issues to still vote on them. The average American may not have the time or tools to make a well-informed vote, which is why a representative democracy works better. An elected official, whose only focus is making large-scale decisions, is better suited for this civic responsibility.

The direct democracy of Ancient Athens was, in itself, flawed. Although advertised as being open to all, it was in fact barred from slaves, women and foreigners born on Greek soil. It was also off-limits to the exiled, which was a growing list since there was an annual vote on who to banish. Votes were taken by submitting stones or through a show of hands, methods that were easy to manipulate, hard to document, and not necessarily anonymous. While these elements are considered undemocratic by today’s standards, it is undeniable that they paved the way for modern politics. While the representative democracy still prevails, it would not be what it is today without the Greeks and their rudimentary direct democracy.

The Minds of the Masses

The most significant similarity between the American and Athenian system is the behavior of political parties in politics. Political parties are comprised of three defining characteristics: competing groups with a small number of prominent leaders and a substantial number of followers, a group that shows loyalty and stability, and groups that compete for a majority vote that would allow them to impose their will. Athens was controlled by the desire of the masses. Whatever party gained the most support of the masses would capture the majority vote. A good example of the existence of political parties in Athens occurred during the reconciliation agreement of 403. Following the defeat of Sparta and the fall of the Thirty Tyrants, radical democrats, largely supported by farmers, poorer members of society, and those who fought directly under Thrasybulus, and the oligarchs, mainly followed by wealthy, educated aristocrats, were contesting over the granting of amnesty towards the Tyrant’s supporters. While both parties had large followings, the oligarchs were ultimately successful in their mission and the agreement was passed. It is clear that the two major parties in today’s politics leave little to no room for smaller parties to gain support. Unlike our current political system, the Athenian Democracy was direct, such that there were no representatives. This encouraged voter participation and encouraged political candidates to be better politicians. Today, this type of voting is mirrored in the popular vote for presidential elections. The candidate with the majority of votes is awarded the popular vote.

Because Athenian political institutions followed the democratic principle, people did not just vote in accordance with their leaders. Presently, this phenomenon can be seen as party lines are becoming blurred and citizens are, more frequently, voting for candidates outside of their previously stated party. In Athens, a good politician, otherwise known as a rhetor, would require political skill, rhetorical gifts, charisma, and a solid reputation. The 1960 Nixon- JFK presidential debate is a clear example of how important these skills still are in politics; a candidate needs to be well rounded and well versed in public interactions and political knowledge. JFK won the debate because he was so much more personable and relaxed on camera when compared to Nixon. The influence of voters encourages all political parties to maintain positive leadership and present promising candidates.

In summation, political parties have always played a large role in politics. Maintain a loyal follower-ship is an integral part of securing a political victory. Political parties compete for the attention and favor of voters in order to come out on top.

Work Cited

Hansen, Mogens Herman. “Political Parties in Democratic Athens?” 2014. PDF File.

WC: 442

Blog Post #2 – Representative vs Direct Democracy

Both the United States of America and Ancient Athens represent nations with democracies. The American representative model is a much better and safer way to govern. The Athenians had a very direct model—assembly-goers would directly vote on topics and that is how judgement would be passed. This is a very raw and literal form of democracy which truly embodies the idea of “power to the people.” Any citizen, no matter how educated they might be, would be voting on the most important of issues directly. That might sound a bit sketchy, and that is because it was. Many historical records recall moments when the Athenian democracy passed judgement that was questionable and quite harmful to their nation. In Hellenica book one chapters six and seven, Xenophon recorded a great example of poor judgement, the trial of the Athenian Generals following the naval battle of Arginusae. When they retreated in bad weather, the Generals decided not to save the crews of the ships that had been sunken. The mob that was the Athenian Assembly labeled them as cowards and blamed them for the deaths of those soldiers, sentencing eight experienced generals to death. In the middle of the Peloponnesian war, the Athenian Assembly discarded the majority of its generals, the leaders of its military. This is a great example as to why the Athenian direct model of democracy can prove to be dangerous and unstable. If educated political professionals were put in charge of the issue, they would have been more rational, due to the obvious consequences that follow executing all of your Military leaders. When the people are directly involved in voting on important decisions, the power of the mob can take over too easily.

The instability of the Athenian democracy led to development of the representative model. Naturally, the representative model comes with its own issues. Once an official is elected, they are free to vote how they wish, despite the ideology they might have campaigned. However when comparing the direct and representative models of democracy, it is clear that despite its problems, representative democracy is a much more sensible and effective form of government. The people are able to vote on who will represent them and make their decisions, and at the same time it ensures that educated political professionals are making the decisions. The American model does not end in such radical and unpredictable judgments as the Athenian model did. The representative form of democracy employed by the United States is a much better way to govern.

Wikisource contributors, “Hellenica (Xenophon)/Book 1/Chapter 6,” Wikisource, https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.phptitle=Hellenica_(Xenophon)/Book_1/Chapter_6&oldid=3769175 (accessed September 30, 2018).

421 Words

How Free Speech is Fundamental to Democracies

The most significant similarity between the American and Athenian system is the right to free speech. Both the American and Athenian system rely on the exchange of ideas and opinions from all groups of people. Without the ability for people with diverse ideas to speak freely to each other, democracy would fail. Debating and the exchange of ideas between citizens and political leaders in the American Democratic system is how many people decide who they should elect into office. Athenian Democracy also utilized the right to free speech by allowing any citizen to speak during the assembly. Although both the American and Athenian systems of democracy are different in structure, they both embrace one of the most fundamental ideas of democracy- the right to free speech.

Athenian Democracy gave the right for citizens to use free speech during the assembly. Meaning, any citizen was allowed to speak at any time. This allowed for many people to voice their opinions into a large audience. Many times, citizens used emotion and exaggerated facts in order gain votes by charming the assembly members. It was important for the average Athenian to voice their opinion and contribute to their government because “freedom needed, in addition to mere liberation, the company of other men who were in the same state, and it needed a common public space to meet them—a politically organized world, in other words, into which each of the free men could insert himself by word and deed” (Arendt 147). Democracy rests in the hands of the people. A great example of when the assembly voted on if they should pay citizens to attend the assembly. Many groups opposed this issue (such as the Solonian Aristocrats), but the issue eventually passed the assembly. The people needed representation across the assembly, and by having the right to speak at any time showed the people that the people are in control.

Furthermore, the American Democratic system allows its citizens to voice their opinion on issue. A great example of this on the one of the lowest levels of government are city town hall and school board meetings. Many of these meetings have opportunities for citizens to voice their opinions on topics such as taxes, and how the government spends its money. Although we vote to have representatives on our school boards and city government, we still have the opportunity to voice our opinion at these meetings which is very similar to how Athenians ran their democracy. Speaking from personal experience, I know firsthand how riled people can get at local town hall meetings. Often times, a police officer shows up in case people get out of hand. Giving people the opportunity to speak is a fundamental right of democracy. People would not be able to voice their opinions without it. Because a democratic government is ran by the people, democracy would not exist without giving people the right to speak.

Arendt, Hannah. Between past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought. New York: Penguin, 1978.

https://www.ancient.eu/Athenian_Democracy/

Democracy Needs a Buffer

By MIDN 3/C Ionatan A. Soule, USN

Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” I would agree and add that what makes it the worst is its inherent messiness. By allowing the populace to participate in the arduous task of legislating, one can immediately see the difficulty that will arise come the time to agree on what a law should include, agree on how the law should be worded, and agree on how the law should be implemented and interpreted. When it’s hard for a group of five friends to make plans to go see a movie, then how can anyone expect democracy, where the voice of every single person can be heard on every single topic, to be efficiently implemented? Though potential problems are evident, democracy is still so much better than other forms of government—dictatorship, monarchy, oligarchy—because it does allow for the will of the people to be heard. The question then is how it should be implemented. The two major options are a direct democracy and a representative democracy. Of these two, a representative democracy is much better than a direct democracy because it still allows for the voice of the people to be heard, while providing a buffer from mob rule through its indirect nature.

Athenians pioneered democracy in the form of a direct democracy. On paper, this form was the best because it allowed each individual to have a voice. Unfortunately, when put into practice it quickly ran into issues. The primary issue was mob rule—whatever the people wanted they got. One example is when people began demanding compensation to attend to their civic duty of participating and voting in government. Of course, the voter would agree to that proposition. Unfortunately, this created a slippery slope and before long, Athenians were getting paid to go to their own festivals. This ruined Athens’s economy and left no money for other governmental functions such as self-defense and public works.

The Founding Fathers of the United States solved the issue of mob rule through the creation of a representative democracy. The people would vote for representatives who would then go make the decisions in government. Not only did this solution inhibit mob rule while still giving the people a voice, but it also guaranteed that the people making the decisions would be educated to perform their civic duties. All of this helps guarantee the most populous participation in the most efficient manner. One pitfall to a representative democracy is that the representative ignores his constituents because he is, after all, independent of them once voted into office. Though this could allow a representative to go “rogue” and do whatever he/she wants, it also could be beneficial to the government. If the US mob wanted to get paid to vote, then the representative could refuse to heed their wishes knowing that it could potentially ruin the economy and thus serve as a buffer. As long as the representative puts the good of the whole at the forefront of his objectives, then representative democracy is the best form of government there is.

Word count: 515

Blog Post 2: Democracy Ancient and Modern

By now, you realize that Athenian democracy was very different than our modern day, representative democracy (which is actually much closer to the Roman Republican model than the Athenian model). What do you see as the most significant difference OR similarity between the American and the Athenian system? Use at least one example from modern day (20th-21st century) politics and one example from 5th century Athenian politics to illustrate your point. Be sure to use concrete examples—as in, specific outcomes or events that resulted from certain features of government, not generic stuff like, “We have a president and they didn’t.”

Please remember to check the category: Blog Post 2: Democracy Ancient and Modern and include your word count at the bottom of your entry (> 400 words).

Blog Post 2: Athens or America? Which was better?

A hot-button issue in today’s politics is representation. Our founding fathers specifically wanted a representative model of government to avoid what they saw as the mob-rule of the Athenians. In fact, James Madison even said, “the true distinction between [ancient democracies] and the American government lies in the total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter…which leaves a most advantageous superiority in favor of the United States” (Federalist 63). But sometimes elected representatives fail to carry out the policies favored by their constituents. Do you think the representative (American) model of democracy or the direct (Athenian) model is a better way to govern? Why? Use specific examples.

Please remember to check the category “Blog Post 2: Representative vs. Direct Democracy” and include your word count (> 400 words).