It is commonly stated that history repeats itself. Now, we are able to look back and see One of the struggles of the modern world is the divisive discussion of what constitutes a citizen. In the United States, we have been dealing with this problem for decades, with it becoming hot-topic debate in the recent years. However, Ancient Greece Rome had similar disagreements between its people over 2,000 years ago. After the Peloponnesian War, Athens had to decide whether or not metics and slaves were going to be allowed citizenship as the city was rebuilding.

During our the second assembly meeting in class, we discussed the electorate, or how we were going to define Athenian citizenship as. I was a moderate democrat, so we proposed a bill that people with Athenian parents will be granted citizenship prima facie, while metics could apply to be citizens and be screened to see whether or not their allegiance is with Athens. The assembly must be filled with those who will take the best into account for Athens and its citizens. The main argument we had is that Athens is already having to fight with external adversaries, why should we have to deal with major internal strife as well? This is also seen in current disputes over immigration.

It seems as though immigration has become the focus of major political campaigns. The American public feeds off of political debate regarding the border between the United States and Mexico. In 2012, Barack Obama developed the “Dreamers” protected under The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, also known as DACA. Children that have been living in the States for their whole lives have an attachment to this country and should be able to have the opportunity to become citizens. They have grew up with a different familial culture, but that just adds to the diversity of the population in the United States.  We are already able to see that some things never change, because even with DACA, the people applying are “vetted for any criminal history or threat to national security and must be students or have completed school or military service” (The Guardian). This goes back to our assembly meetings in class where we decided that metics may be granted citizenship after our own vetting process that determined their loyalty to Athens. In reality, metics and other loyal supporters did receive Athenian citizenship (UChicago). It is interesting to see the parallels between two situations thousands of years apart.

Honestly, I did not even recognize the similarities in current problems we are dealing with today. I think that is the importance of history. We need to be able to understand the historical significance of events and learn from them for the future. Writing this blog and doing some more research has definitely refined my views on DACA and Dreamers. I would have never been prompted to do more research on the modern problems without learning more about the past.

 

Corinne DeSpain

 

Word count: 471

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/04/donald-trump-what-is-daca-dreamers

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/4B*.html

Blog 3

George Williams

01MAR19

After the death of Alexander the vast empire was split into a series of smaller kingdoms which were ruled by each of Alexanders generals. They then proceeded to fight against each other until an outside power came in and took over in setting up a singular power. The closest regime change to this was the Syrian revolution as there was a similar splitting of powers with several factions trying to gain control of the whole region until outside powers stepped in and decided a victor. When the revolution began there were several different factions including some questionable fighters who were tolerated as the greater evil needed to be destroyed. This evil was the president of Syria who was responsible for various human rights violations. This fight would lead to the Syrian Civil war which is still on going. As more territory was taken by the different fighters from the Syrian government, the different factions began infighting as well as continuing to fight the government. This is very similar to the splitting of the empire of Alexander with infighting erupting between former allies. From there the Russians and Iranians began to back the government forces. The strong foreign backing helped to the loyalist forces push back the “freedom fighters” who included the volatile ISIS or ISIL. With the loyalist forces hanging on to a sliver of what was their territory, the Russians began to pour in aid. This is similar to the gifting of the kingdom of kingdom of Attalus III from which the Romans took over the east. The Russian aid and outside help from other nations allowed for the destruction of the largest faction, ISIS. With the Russians helping the loyalist troops, they attacked and took back much of the land that they had lost to ISIS. This is similar to the complete taking of the other kingdoms but particularly Ptolemaic Egypt which was one of the larger and more powerful of the kingdoms. The current situation leaves the loyalist forces holding much of the territory with a few of the other factions holding significantly smaller plots of land. If the comparison holds then the Syrians, with the support of the Russian juggernaut, should push the rest of the freedom fighters out of the country and re-establish the sovereignty of the nation. The other possibility would be that the freedom fighters would get a significant of amount of foreign aid probably in the form of US aid. This would most likely only succeed if the Russian support also pulled out.

word count 421

Democracy after a Regime Harrison Goodrich

The role-playing lesson in class gave us a first hand perspective about how difficult it is to establish and structure a democracy after overthrowing an authoritarian regime. The opposing factions and different values led to arguing and a slow decision making process and without a clear leader there was no progress. The difficult part of restoring democracy in Athens was not the removal of the 30 Tyrants, who were in power for less than a year. All it took were concerned citizens and a powerful leader to overthrow the 30 Tyrants. “They were overthrown by an army of exiled Athenian democrats led by the Athenian general, Thrasybulus.” A comparable issue in the modern world is establishing democracy in Iraq after the overthrowing of the dictator Saddam Hussein. Like the Athenian’s under the 30 Tyrants, Iraqis were under the thumb of an oppressive, tyrannical ruler.

In 2003 the United States invaded Iraq to controversially search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that were allegedly in the possession of a ruthless dictator. After Saddam Hussein was taken out of power came the challenge of establishing democracy in a country with no history of it. The major difference between post-Saddam Hussein Iraq and post-30 Tyrant Athens, is that the Athenian people wanted to establish democracy. “Athens fostered its democratic growth by overthrowing the social and political restraints associated with a monarchical system, in exchange for a system that nurtured individuality.” Athenians knew that establishing democracy was essential to the growth and sustainability. The situation in modern Iraq is a different story entirely. “The inability of a government to be formed after the March 7, 2010, parliamentary elections bodes ill, not just for the prospects for democracy, but even for stability in Iraq.” Saddam Hussein was executed in 2006 and Iraq still does not have a strong government nor democracy. Without heavy intervention from concerned countries it is unlikely that Iraq will establish a lasting democracy in the future.

We learned from the Athenians that establishing democracy is not an easy task after taking out an authoritarian regime. The ability to remove oppressive rulers is up to the will of the people. Establishing democracy can also be linked to the will of the people. The Athenians had a history of democracy and knew they needed to re-establish it to create a lasting Athens. Whereas,  in the case of Iraq, there was no history of democracy and the citizens didn’t show a strong enough desire to pursue it. To attain democracy the citizens have to pursue it.

LeCaire, Lucas D., “Tyranny and terror: the failure of Athenian democracy and the reign of the Thirty Tyrants” (2013). EWU Masters Thesis Collection. 179

.J. Peter Euben, John Wallach, and Josiah Ober, eds., Athenian Political Thought and the Reconstruction of American Democracy ( Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994), 5-19.

 Kantz, Mark. The U.S. and Democratization in Iraq. Middle East Policy Council

Word Count: 428

Cameron Douglas

Blog #2 – Prompt #2

Since the birth of democracy in Ancient Greece, governments have sought to execute the will of the people in the most efficient way possible. The ideal of democracy has progressed to its modern form of elected representation which is now prevalent across the world. However, some still assert that democracy in its truest form directly connects the people to legislation, as it was in Ancient Athens. This form of direct democracy is near impossible to attain and it does not always promote the best interest of the people.

The American model of Representative Democracy has been surprisingly successful in that it has allowed the form of government to experience a longevity unheard of in other parts of the world. Although it has gone through civil wars and foreign conflicts, our government has made it through the past two and a half centuries with little to no reforms. However, people tend to hold negative beliefs toward Congress and our system of democratic representation. American citizens elect individuals to secure their interests in the legislature, without having any direct say in laws themselves. If our system of representation was accurate and delegates promoted their constituents’ interests, this would not be a problem. The issue comes when representatives do not vote how their constituents would. This is uncommon because they would want to be re-elected.

The Athenian model for democracy is democracy in its purest form. It is effective in theory, yet near impossible to perfectly attain. The idea of a direct democracy existing in a country like the US in modern times would be utterly absurd. There is no way to efficiently gather the opinions and political views of every individual in the country on each specific issue. The total political participation, although optimal and desired, would be hard to enforce and extremely difficult to maintain. Simply gathering every individual to a public assembly area in order to discuss and vote on issues was a struggle in ancient times. Shortly following the Peloponnesian wars, Athens was experiencing a phase of rebuilding and restoration. During this time, assembly meetings were held to discuss topics at hand, such as the reconciliation of supporters of the Thirty Tyrants and the militarization of Athens. Conscientious Athenians would walk great distances just to have a voice in this direct democracy.

Although a direct democracy is near impossible to enforce and can be more drastic than other forms of government, it is the inspiration for the form of representative democracy that we know today in modern American society.

420 Words

The American government is very different than the Athenian democracy, despite the fact that the Framer’s used the Athenian democracy as a model to shape the American government of today.  There is one significant thing that separates the American government from the Athenian democracy and that is the creation of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is a document that essential distributes the power of the government into three different branches. The U.S. Constitution also establishes rules that limit each branch of power. Each branch also has powers to prevent the other two branches from being corrupt or too powerful. The U.S. Constitution also gives power to the people. If the people United States do not agree with the government, then they have an obligation to replace it. For example in 1974, the newly elected president of the United States, Richard Nixon, was caught in the now famous Watergate scandal. The people of the United States petitioned to impeach President Nixon. However, President Nixon was found guilty by the Supreme Court, and left office before the petition for impeachment was successful. “The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege“(Oyez). Even the President of the United States has limits to his or her power. The judicial system and the people can ensure that the president does not make himself an absolute monarch due to the Constitution. The Athenian democracy did not have something like this in their government. Anyone who was a citizen was granted the ability to speak in the Assembly. People like Pericles, who were very talented public speakers, had the ability to swing the Assemblymen in favor of what Pericles wanted. This unchecked power allowed Pericles to rise to power. In Thucydides, “Funeral Oration”, it depicts Pericles giving a speech to all the men who died in the past years. “The greatness of our city has caused all things from all parts of the Earth to be imported here, so that we enjoy the products of other nations…” (Thucydides 38). All these things were possible in Pericles’ case, but anyone who excelled at public speaking could essential ascend to the throne. Athens would then be at the mercy of whoever that public speaker is. The U.S. Constitution prevents this by distributing power to three different branches, and adding different checks and balances to ensure no one branch can overthrow the others.  

            The Athenian democracy and the U.S. government are conducted in drastically different in terms of how they are run. The Athenian democracy is run by the people who can speak and make a direct attempt to change laws as long as they are citizens, but the Assembly can be swayed by well versed public speakers like Pericles. The U.S, government has the U.S. Constitution which allows the people to hire representative that speak on behalf of the people, but have a vast array of checks and balances so that it is very hard for one person or party to gain complete control of the government.

~Vincent Potente

519 words

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/73-1766

There are numerous fundamental differences between the American representative democracy and the Athenian democracy which it was based off of. The founders were heavily inspired by the Greek system, but they make the executive decision to make American democracy representative instead of direct. Because of the volatile nature of democracy, this decision was the result of the conflicting nature of efficiency and representation, with representative democracy being perceived to be the more effective of the two. The primary differences between the Athenian direct democracy and America’s representative democracy are diversity of the electorate and the mitigation of the role of factions.

While representative democracy is generally a more effective form of government, it is not always perfect. Because of faithless electors, members of the Electoral College who do not vote for the presidential candidate that they pledge to vote for, four different presidents have been elected despite not winning the popular vote. This happened most recently in the race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, where Clinton lost to her opponent despite winning the popular vote by nearly one million popular ballots. Because Athenian democracy was direct and they did not vote through someone like we do now, this issue was avoided in its entirety.

Contrastingly, representative democracy is superior because it allows for more perspectives to be heard, safeguarding the electorate from factions. Despite the disconnect between the Electoral College and its constituents, the American people are gaining more representation through the increased representation of minority groups on Congress. The 116th Congress is the most diverse representation the United States has had in it history, with record numbers of religious diversity and LGBTQ representation. A diverse electorate results in an increased likelihood for the passage of legislation that would empower historically disenfranchised groups.

When building the American system of government with the frame of Athenian democracy, the issue of factions surfaced and ultimately served as one of the many factors that sparks the federalist movement. In Federalist Paper 10, James Madison spoke of the dire effects of factions and the necessity for a strong federal government to mitigate their power. Ultimately, a representative democracy was the selected choice of government to limit the ‘mob rule’ that the Athens witnessed in their assembly.

The American concept of representation contrasts starkly with their Greek influence. In ancient Greek assemblies, women, slaves, and metics were band from voting. This elist perception against a majority of the Greek populous was the result of their culture values and socialization to discriminate against these groups of people. Because of the disenfranchisement of over half of the Greek population, democracy was only representative of those who had the means to qualify for a position in the electorate. The effects of barring these groups from voting is highly based on speculation, but it is implied that

Representative democracy, as the modern day translation of direct democracy, serves it purpose, despite having a variety of shortcoming. With increased diversity in the legislature and measures to limit the power of factions, representative government is the best use of governmental power granted by the people for the people.

-Mack Pearson

Word Count: 518

There is no doubt that in 2500 years, things evolve. Political climates change, challenges take different forms, times change, and in response: lessons are learned, and people adapt. Democracy is no exception. The form it takes today is much different than that of ancient Athens. Modernization Theory dictates that there is a direct tie between wealth and democratizing nations, but the wealth of Athens was more like that of a totalitarian regime. The wealth was concentrated to a select few, and there was a small middle class. The majority of people within the Empire were lower class, the rowers, the farmers, ect. Even though modern democracies do not have this wide gap, but rather a larger middle class, they have still adapted to include all classes. One of the ways the United States does this is with representation. Electing individuals to represent is effective in the modern day democracy to ensure that the government is representative of the citizens. The other way that the United States achieves this, and a way that Athens did not, was to have districts and local governments. All things that affected the Athenian Empire were voted on by those, typically wealthy, citizens who lived within the city of Athens. By opening up the boundaries in which people were allowed to vote, and even having local elections that filtered up to Athens throughout the empire, the citizens that lived within the empire would be better represented. Districts and regions all hold different ethnicities, wealth, and backgrounds. For this reason, the United States Naval Academy has a requirement that they must accept students from every congressional district in the union. This keeps diversity within the ranks, and is a good metric to use, unlike courses of action like Affirmative Action. I digress, but the moral is that the diversity of a nation can be brought out by the diversification of districts. For Athens, certain regions will have more agricultural minded individuals, while others may be more focused on the arts. The key to a successful democracy is representing each voice in the crowd. Power is derived from an active citizen base, and many of these individuals were unable to vote. Athens had strict guidelines as to who could participate, furthermore, they did not compensate those who would travel and could offer a more diverse view. The lack of local districts and diversification was one of Athens downfalls. This is one thing that I believe, in theory, the United States does well, but one thing that the Athenian Model lacked.

Austin LaRue: 422

Democracy stems all the way back to the ancient Athenians. They had a governmental structure that allowed male citizens to vote, which is their version of a direct democracy. The American public today also supports a democracy. However, the American democracy is specifically a representative democracy, which means that the general public elects people to represent them in the government. Most democracies today are representative democracies instead of direct democracies. I believe that, given our current structure and size, the American model of democracy is a better way to govern because it is more orderly, is more efficient, and does the best to represent a large country with a large population.

The Athenians believed they had a true democracy. In their own time, the people who were considered active citizens in society were allowed a vote in the democracy. With the Athenian model, it is great to have the government open to the wide variety of people, all participating directly in their government. However, it can get hectic and disorganized, with some people saying that it may turn into a frenzied mob. To solve this problem in the modern world, the American model of democracy creates a more orderly environment.

One reason that modern America does not have a direct democracy is because of the size. A direct democracy cannot work in modern societies because “they were too large—both in terms of population and geographic size” (Age of Revolutions). It would be difficult for such a large country with a large population to have an Athenian model of Democracy. It would be nearly impossible for everyone’s voice to be heard for it to function true to the model. A representative democracy creates effective passageways for representative opinions and ideas for the public to still be heard in the government.

However, this representative democracy does limit the representation of some parts of the population. There are also ways that some people can override the system and gain more  power. An example of this is gerrymandering, where you purposely manipulate the boundaries of voting areas in order to gain power for a person or party.

In both types of democracies, there is a bias towards people who have a higher status in society. In Athens, wealthy male citizens had more time and funds to spare to make trips to meetings and voice their opinion. What we see today are politicians being fueled by monetary donations from PACs and Super PACs. Political candidates need to tailor their campaigns to appease more and gain more financial support, which may lead them to stray away from the ideals of the people they are actually supposed to represent.

The definition of a democracy varies country by country and throughout time. The main types of democracy are direct and representative democracy. The ancient Athenians, or the founders of democracy, supported a direct democracy which involves all citizens. In contrast, modern America sports a representative democracy with elected people representing groups of others. Overall, the representative democracy is better suited for America’s large population and geographical size.

 

Corinne DeSpain

 

Word count: 495

https://ageofrevolutions.com/2018/07/23/the-invention-of-representative-democracy/