Democracy against Democracy

In ancient times and up to the era in which the United States was founded, a representative democracy was a very powerful and effective tool. However, modern technology has created the ability to easily allow every citizens voice to be heard. When America was founded, a representative democracy was used because it would otherwise be too difficult to have people’s voices heard. The elected representative would travel to the voting location and essentially cast a vote for each person he represented. Unfortunately, in more recent times, these representatives cast the votes more in favor of their own ideals, not necessarily aligned with the beliefs of those they represent.

It has become common practice for officials to run their campaigns solely on what they believe their constituents want to hear and will therefore be more likely to get them voted into office. A prominent example of this is President Trump and his border wall. In 2017, 61% of the population was opposed to a border wall (Cato). Basic math would say that 39% is then in support of it. We would expect to see a similar percentage of support in Congress, given that they are supposed to represent the people. However, the same year, only 25% of Congress was in support of a border wall (USA Today). This simple statistic shows that the people are not truly being represented by those that they elected to do just that.

People may argue that the Athenian democracy was not a true democracy given that women and slaves were not allowed to vote on any of the issues. Using this same idea, it could be argued that the American democracy is not a democracy either due to the fact the not all people are being represented with what they would like. The only way to truly hear everyone’s voice and opinion is by giving everyone the opportunity to have their voice heard. It is very easy to see this when presidential elections occur. With the current Electoral College system used by America, the president that the people really want elected may not be the winner of the election. This can once again be seen with President Trump and his election. The current president lost the popular vote, the true democratic vote of the people, by over 2.8 million people (Independent). There have been five times throughout history in which the elected president lost the popular vote, but President Trump was defeated in the popular vote by the largest difference in American history. This may perhaps show that America is on a downward trend of the effectiveness of a representative democracy, and it may be time to try a different form of democracy.

-Brett Eckert

Word Count: 456

Citations

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/americans-used-support-border-wall-what-changed-their-minds

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/20/trump-border-wall-survey-congress-republicans-billions/640196001/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-lost-popular-vote-hillary-clinton-us-election-president-history-a7470116.html

Evolution of Democracy

In 2019 it is simple to criticize the ancient Greek democracy that was established over 2,400 years ago. It is a bit more challenging to obtain the perspective of the ancient Greeks and their creation of the first democracy. Society back then was a lot different, to include their views on women’s roles in society along with the slaves. We can critique them for not including women in their assembly but there is no value in that from a 2019 perspective because that is just the way that society was and how it evolved to the way that is now. With the evolution of democracy and the law-making criteria, it is obvious that today’s representative model of democracy is a better way to govern than the original and direct Athenian model.

People will argue that today’s democracy is not a true democracy because not every citizen have a say in every proposed law and decision in the government. This is true but does not make our democracy an inferior system. A true democracy where every citizen has a say in the decisions made, would be far too inefficient. One major difference between current democracy and ancient Greek’s was that they had citizens selected at random to sit in an assembly and vote on the topics that day. The major flaws in this method are that it is inefficient and allows some uneducated people to vote while the educated do not. This led to illogical and harsh decisions that can truly effect ones’ life, for example, in their direct democracy they “voted on whether or not they believed there was someone in the city who was becoming so popular as to threaten the democracy… they selected one man to exile from the city for ten years” (27)[1] With only a limited amount of people voting on this cause, one uneducated person has a significant influence of the outcome. In today’s democracy, we elect representatives to make decisions for us. This is efficient because it saves time for our citizens and allows law-making decisions faster and smoother of a process. There are, just like any other form of governments, its flaws. “Since the 1970s, voter participation in the United States has been around only 50 to 60 percent. Voter participation from households earning $30,000 or less has been even lower, at about 30 percent”[2]. These statistics show that the citizens are not as involved in the government as today’s democracy was meant to be. The poor are not voting, most likely because they are not educated enough to vote. Therefore, the rich are benefiting from democracy because they are voting more due to their education level. This is something that the ancient Greeks were attempting to fix by creating a democracy, and we in America after all these years have still not figured out.

It is clear that both ancient Greek’s direct democracy and our current representative democracy have their flaws. With the context of today’s society versus the Greek’s, it is apparent that their government was more corrupt. We have allowed all of our legal and of-age citizens the ability to vote regardless of their ethnicity or education level. Although the Greeks had more flaws, they are still the government that shaped ours today. It was due to their failures that allowed our government to be more successful although there is still room for improvement.

-Kevin Semma

Word count: 494

[1] Ober, Josiah, et al. “The Threshold of Democracy: Athens in 403 BCE (4th Edition).” Reacting to the Past, reacting.barnard.edu/curriculum/published-games/athens.

[2] Moyo, Dambisa. “America’s Decaying Democracy.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 7 June 2018, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/06/07/american-democracy/?utm_term=.e128d14381d7.

Is Voting Really A Right?

As much as most Americans want to deny it, the history of the United States was seldom democratic at all. Even though the current system closely resembles the Roman Republican system of government, the first few centuries of existence for the United States hardly represented a majority of the population. In the same way as Athens in the fifth century, the United States restricted voting to white males for nearly a century and women for another fifty years after that.

Until very recently, the United States electorate was very similar to the Athenian system. In ancient Athens, only free males with citizenship could vote[1], much like the initial voting rights granted in the U.S. Constitution. Although the United States’ political system has evolved dramatically over the past four centuries, it is important to realize the roots of the system were inherently unequal and served to represent the few, rather than the many. In the same way, the restriction of voting rights to male citizens in Athens restricted political positions to this population of people, effectively establishing an oligarchy containing all of the power.

Some of the founding principles of the United States, as found in the Declaration of Independence, are that “all Men are created equal…[and] governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.”[2] However, no matter how hard we try to believe that, this was simply not true in the U.S. with the electorate and politicians until very recently. Much like the Athenian system, white, landowning males were the predominant force within government and the political system in the United States. That remained the case in the United States until 1870 when the Fifteenth Amendment of the constitution granted voting rights to African-American men.[3] Similarly, the right to vote for women deferred even further until 1920, with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment.[4] Based off the 242 year history of the United States and the reality that women have not even been able to vote for one hundred of those years exposes the historic inequality of the system.

There is no denying the deep-rooted similarities between the United States and Ancient Athens concerning voting rights and representation in government. At the core, the systems are inherently identical, and severely restricted those who could actually participate in these so-called free systems of government. Thankfully, the United States was able to mend the shortcomings of the Athenian system, and currently offers no restrictions in voting practices. However, without Athens, it is unclear whether the practices of voting and representative politics in the U.S. would even exist.

-Griffin Hamilton

Word Count: 454

[1] Aristotle. Athenian Constitution, Section 2, Part 42

[2] Declaration of Independence, 1776

[3] United States Constitution, Amendment 15, 1870

[4] United States Constitution, Amendment 19, 1920

Similarity in the American and Athenian Court Systems

The American democracy has created one of the most powerful hegemons ever seen, maintaining power over the world for the last 120 years. Modeled after the Athenian democratic system, the United States has improved and altered their way of government to fit the changing time and values of society. Differences between the American and Athenian governments are obvious and abundant, especially considering the 2,500 years that separate them and the fact that they ran a direct democracy rather than a representative. That being said, however, there are many foundational similarities between our democracy and theirs, with the most prevalent being the implementation and use of the court systems to decide on both public and private affairs.

When the United States Constitution is examined, most namely the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, many of the most fundamental rules that govern the country deal with trials and juries. The Fifth Amendment lays out rules that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,” and further goes to ensure that no person will testify against themselves.[1] The Seventh Amendment preserves the right of trial by jury “where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars.”[2] Even more legislation beyond the Amendments has been passed in order to maintain the jury a court systems in the United States. Its main purpose is that it allows the people to be fairly judged by an impartial group of their peers that have been randomly selected. It has been effective and maintained order in the country for centuries, save the times before during slavery and segregation.

In ancient Athens, the court systems were the backbone of society. Similar to the United States, their “juries for the law-courts [were] chosen by lot.”[3] This was done so that each tribe would have an equal say in the proceedings, instead of just a random group of peers; but we cannot judge this based on our own current perception. Everyone recieved “pay for service in the law-courts,” a major reason that it was so popular for participation, but that and other differences must be overlooked.[4] What does matter is that representation was not held by one person or group, it was spread to ensure that equal views across Athens were represented and judged. It would take agreement from the majority of factions that a choice was correct for it to be a punishable offense. It is obvious that this never worked perfectly, as the Athenian society was rife with corruption and impartiality. In theory, this is how the court systems would have been run. Every person being judged equally across the board.

It is difficult to compare two societies that are separated so significantly by time and ideals, and it is almost impossible to look back through the lenses of the present and see things as our ancestors did. It is easy, however, to see how the American and Athenian governments differed and where they remain similar. There are many pieces that fit into both categories, but the importance behind trial by a jury cannot be overlooked as the most crucial and striking similarity. The American’s use of this piece of democracy has allowed the nation to remain strong and maintain its power across the world.

– Cyrus Malek-Madani

Word Count: 533

[1] U.S. Constitution Amend. 5.

[2] U.S. Constitution Amend. 7.

[3] Aristotle. The Athenian Constitution. Section 3. Part 62.

[4] Aristotle. The Athenian Constitution. Section 2. Part 27.

Tyranny in the Islamic State

In ancient Greece, political institutions were seen as a means of ensuring a society based in a religious and ethical code [2]. In this context, a tyrant was simply an individual who assumed political power through a means other than hereditary claim. Many of these individuals, solved the strasis, or civil strife, that plagued the city-state they took charge of. It was often this state of strasis itself that formed the crucible for tyranny and the eventual foundation of democracy to be built. A democracy was deemed “good” if the system ensured the advantage of all citizens— a standard of political success coined by Aristotle [2].

Today, tyranny is a term with a definitively negative connotation to it, synonymous with oppression, militancy, and cruelty. Tyranny in the modern context as the antithesis of democracy is a far cry from its beginnings over two millennia ago with Peisistratus as the first Greek tyrant in 546 BCE. In the modern context, the rise of political Islam can be seen as a potent example of the perversion of democracy. Through his article “The Crisis of Political Islam,” Chief Foreign-Affairs Correspondent of The Wall Street Journal, Yarislav Trofimov, provides a comprehensive synthesis of the conflict between democracy and the “theocratic tyranny” characteristic of political Islam. This conflict is prevalent not only in the Middle East but also in other predominantly Muslim regions, such as Indonesia and West Africa [1].

Trofimov traces the usage of democracy as a “vehicle” for the instillation of an Islamic state and explores instances of religiously motivated violence when democracy fails as a successful means of furthering political Islam. He describes the corruption of democracy by political Islam as “tyranny,” citing instanced such as the Assad regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the dictatorial regime of Syria. In regards to the modern definition of “tyranny,” one rooted in the all too frequent instances of militarisitic and “religiously motivated” seizures of government described by Trofimov, this article uses the term “tyranny” correctly. However, this does not fall in line with the description of tyranny as a means of solving strasis as it was interpreted in ancient Greece.

Despite great differences in the outcomes of political tyranny between ancient Greece and modern Islamic states, both have commonalities in their philosophical approach to governing. Interestingly, both Muslim and ancient Greek governments are rooted deeply in religious doctrine, as opposed to the secular approach of many modern democracies. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, religion was a major component of the civic identity of Greeks in the ancient world, particularly in relation to the individual deities as the patron of each polis.

This usage of philosophical beliefs as a foundation for political beliefs is mirrored by the integration of the Quran into national law, with extremist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood going so far as to say “The Quran is our constitution” [1]. This ideology extends past the death of Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, the founding fathers of the Muslim Brootherhood nearly fifty years ago; the Islamic Republic of Iran established in the wake of the 1979 revolution directly states in its constitution that all laws “must be based on Islamic criteria,” the determination of which is left up to the religious authorities of the state to decide [1]. Through this, the differences in the outcomes of the illegitimate seizure of power through tyranny between Greece and the Islamic political machine can be seen despite their common thread of religiously motivated law.

Julia Lotterer

Word Count: 568

Sources:

[1] Trofimov, Yaroslav. “The Crisis of Political Islam,” The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-crisis-of-political-islam-1469223880

[2] Lane, Melissa. “Ancient Political Philosophy,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/ancient-political.

The Real Spartans

January 28, 2019 | Blog #1

In the 21st century, producers and authors have interpreted and created media based on the city-states of ancient Greece. An example of such a work was a film released a little more than a decade ago, 300. It portrayed the Spartan stand at the pass of Thermopylae. Ultimately, some Greeks fled while the rest were killed by the armies of vengeful Persian King Xerxes. This film provoked a considerable amount of controversy, yet drew awareness to the actual history of the Persian Wars.

300 was a film made first to awe and impress, second to inform. There are several historical inaccuracies, though the producers allege them to be deliberate. On the other hand, there are some historical accuracies, such as women being regarded as equals in Spartan society.

This blog post will examine discrepancies between what was represented in the movie and what indeed transpired based on historical records from Persian and Greek historians. Herodotus will be one of the principal primary sources on the Greek faction. His book, Histories, narrates the Persian Wars and is considered to be a biased source representing the Greeks.

In the actual Battle of Thermopylae, Spartan estimates according to Herodotus were closer to 7,000 rather than 300. What was correctly depicted by the movie was that it was a clear Greek defeat that led to succeeding battles on land and sea.

A striking attribute of the movie was the slow-motion, CGI fight scenes that occupied much of the screen time. Spartan soldiers in the movie fight with a spear and sword almost stark naked, but genuine Spartan warriors had chest plates and leather skirts. Moreover, there were little to no records on the actual combative arts used by Spartans aside from reports of formations and tactics. The action directed by combat choreographer Damon Caro was a combination of several weapon techniques with Filipino martial arts as the foundation, seen through the usage of weapons in the fights that ensued during the span of the film.

A. G. Leventis Professor of Greek Culture Paul Cartledge at Cambridge University taught filmmakers on the articulation of Greek names and said that his published trade on Sparta was “made good use.” Furthermore, Cartledge asserted that 300 accurately depicts the Spartan heroic code and influence of women in Spartan culture. He, however, was reluctant to praise the entire “‘West’ (goodies) vs ‘East’ (baddies)” complex.

In addition to the idea of the Spartans being great and Persians being wicked, we notice an encounter between King Xerxes and Leonidas. In the movie, Xerxes towers over the Spartan hero, but in real life, he (Xerxes) had a beard and was much smaller. This interpretation brings forth the review of the discrepancies between Greek and Persian values. For instance, the Persians valued items of substance and worth as well as domination over others, while the Greeks valued loyalty and freedom. These are demonstrated when Leonidas rejects King Xerxes’ offer of wealth and power over rivals by stating “the idea of kneeling […] would be hard for [him].”

All-in-all, 300 was filmed to retell the Battle of Thermopylae. Replicating imagery from the original comic book, 300 gives itself the name of historical fantasy. With the inclusion of fictitious characters and exotic creatures, the historical inaccuracy of the film draws away the legitimacy of some details included, but the fact that this movie was created to entertain allows viewers to distinguish between the truth and imagination. Despite the controversy enveloping the release of the film, we can appreciate the fact that common myths were debunked and the real history behind ancient Greece was recognized and enjoyed even more by the ordinary viewer.

— Cameron Guan

Word Count: 591

Sources:

Histories by Herodotus (c. 440 BC)

USA TODAY interview of Paul Cartledge, author of Thermopylae: The Battle that Changed the World; Link: https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2007-03-05-300-history_N.htm

Blog #1: Tyranny

Tyranny of Today

Tyranny, in the Greek tense of the word, means the rule of any individual who is not rightfully an heir to the throne through bloodline, or some other form of righteous means. Today, and in recent history, the word takes on a new meaning. The most famous to most Americans would be King George, the tyrant whom the colonist revolted under and fought to establish this fine nation. He was a rightful heir, but his rule was merciless. This is the tyrant we know in today’s world: one who is unfair in ruling, ruthless, corrupt, militaristic, and all of the other trigger words that the free world knows today as a threat to democracy and freedom around the world.

New York Post’s Ralph Peters claims that the world is “descending into tyranny”, and in today’s definition of the word, I would have to agree. Although the modern day definition is not the same that the Greeks would have used, there are some parallels to the roots of the word. Putin and Xi Jinping have both essentially secured their power for the rest of their lives, violating the constitutions of their nations. Although they may have been voted or selected through legal means, the way in which they plan to keep that power is not so. Much like the rulers of old, these modern day tyrants do not plan to give up their power. Human nature is just that, natural, and greed and corruption are no different. To me it makes sense that a man with enough power is bound to become corrupt. The people of China and Russia face the same difficulties as the Greeks did while under the rule of corrupt, tyrannical rulers.

Peters speaks to the dangers of new tyrants, and why they have gained traction in recent times. A post Soviet Union world looked bright and hopeful for the world of Democracies. Democracy carries burdens with it, and the process to initialize into democracy is a quite painful one. Tyrannical governments and leaders give a scapegoat and an easy out for people. There is no thinking involved, but rather simply following. The transgressions experienced are not the fault of the people, but rather that of an outside force. This is contrasted from the definition of the Ancient Greeks, because often times, the leaders were foreign. However it is translated or analyzed, tyranny is no longer a word without a negative connotation, but rather, one that has cost millions of lives.

-Austin LaRue: 413

https://nypost.com/2018/03/20/the-world-is-descending-into-tyranny/

Trujillo: A Modern ‘Tyrant’

In his article, “A Museum of Repression Aims to Shock the Conscience”, Randal Archibold secedes that Rafael Trujillo, formal dictator of the Dominican Republic in the 20th century, has earned his place in “tyranny hall of fame” as determined by historians. Archibold cites ‘El Jefe’s’ crimes against common humanity during over 30 years of dictator rule, disclosing details of horrible suffering, widespread use of torture, and repressive authority which have ingrained upon the hearts of those who endured the Trujillo era bloodstained memories. Trujillo, the ‘Feasting Goat’, was undoubtedly a nefarious, corrupt ruler, capitalizing on the anguish of his citizens, and by common understanding of the word ‘tyrant’, would absolutely fall under such a category. However, while Trujillo represents modern understanding of the word ‘tyrant’, his rein does not coincide with ancient conceptions of tyranny.

The pejorative connotation of ‘tyranny’ conceptually has not always been true. Trujillo was oppressive, corrupt and in place of power, fulfilling modern definitions and schemas of a tyrant. Correctly fulfilling the modern definition nonetheless does not fulfill ancient perceptions of the accepted exemplification of a tyrant. Historians have identified ‘tyrants’ of thousands of years ago, yet these ancients tyrants are not comparable with the tyranny of ‘El Jefe’. Ancient tyrants did not bear such misgivings about their rein as do modern tyrants. This primarily could be a consequence in the amount of innocent blood spilt in order to acquiesce power. Ancient tyrants were at some points appointed their positions; modern tyrants illegitimately abduct power from others. The purpose of such regime types in ancient and modern history differ as well. Ancient tyrants were expected to improve the standard of living of the populus, which had slipped due to, as often believed, decaying morality of previous rulers. Modern tyrants are self-serving, claiming to represent the people as means to make profit. Another pointed difference of ancient and modern tyrants is the level of violence evoked and practiced by the regime. As ancient tyrants were appointed willingly by the populus, their rein had little need for the use of violence and faced little violence in return. Modern tyrants typically gain power with blood on their hands, and must use violence to maintain repression of any insurgency.

One might argue that modern and ancient tyrants do have some similarities, therefore allowing Trujillo the same tyrannical legacy as that of ancient rulers. An argument could be made that suggested that both modern and ancient tyrants exercise an unlimited degree of power within their respective states, and therefore, are the same. However, this argument falls short if one were to consider the legitimacy of such power as deemed by the people and outside states. In ancient times, it was accepted that tyrants possessed such powers. In modern times, the opposite is true.

Therefore, Archibold’s conclusion that Rafael Trujillo belongs in the category of tyrants maintains insofar that the author is referring the modern day paradigm of a ‘tyrant’. Archibold’s conclusion becomes inaccurate if one were to consider ancient standards of a tyrant.

-Meagan Stevenson

Word Count: 506

Work Cited

Trujillo: A Modern ‘Tyrant’

-Meagan Stevenson

Word Count: 506

Work Cited

Tyrants Before and After

When the average person hears the word tyrant or tyranny, they think that the person in charge of the country is conducting themselves in a way that is oppressive and cruel to their people. This ruler could be a president, chancellor, or even a monarch. This current definition of tyrant and tyranny was not always the case, and has changed dramatically since the beginning of time.

A recent post by the Washington Post on November 1st 2018, talks about how tyrannical the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua are. Especially in Venezuela, President Madura has gone to great lengths to keep his power from opposing leader Juan Guiado. Madura bribes the military by giving them very high paying businesses in return for support. President Madura has also bypassed the country’s Constitution by creating another legislative body and gave the new legislative body the ability to rewrite a whole new Constitution. President Trump in one of his speeches relates to President Madura’s unethical and cruel actions as tyrannical and unethical.

The term tyrant was not always defined by the effect the ruler’s actions have on their people. In ancient times, a tyrant simply meant a person that wanted to overthrow the ruler to gain power, an opposing party. An excerpt from the script, Herodotus on Athenian Tyrants , takes on the perspective of a man named Pisistratus, and his multiple attempts to become ruler in Athens. Pisistratus was known by the Athenians for his achievements, “as a military commander during the campaign against Megara,…”. Pisistratus uses this military standing as leverage to persuade the Athenians to give him a group of guards as he claims that someone is after him. He uses these guards to stage a coup on the Athenian government, but he failed. He attempts to overthrow the government again by marrying the daughter of one of rich and powerful families in Athens. The idea is that both the daughter’s family and Pisistratus can bear children which would elevate the family’s social standing as heirs to the throne, but Pisistratus only wants power for himself and divorces his wife. His final attempt was that he conscripted a whole bunch of mercenaries, and overthrew the governing party by military coup. The script describes Pisistratus as the first tyrant in Athens, leading to believe that a tyrant is just someone fighting for a spot at the throne.

The Washington Post’s use of the word tyrant is a huge difference in how the ancient Athenians use the word. The Washington Post coins the term tyrant when the ruler behaves in a cruel, and oppressive manner. For example, when President Madura disagrees with the Venezuelan Constitution, he creates a new legislative branch and proceeds to create a new Constitution violates the very rights the people of Venezuela the Constitution was to protect. This definition is a stark contrast to the ancient understanding of the word tyrant, which a revolutionary, someone who wants to overthrow the government and be the new ruler . If the ancient definition were to be used in today’s world, then people like Hillary Clinton, or any other presidential candidate would be considered a tyrant. She would be considered a tyrant because she is trying to take the power of the country. The definition of tyrant as drastically changed throughout time.

– Vincent Potente

Word Count: 549

Link to the article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/bolton-promises-to-confront-latin-americas-troika-of-tyranny/2018/11/01/df57d3d2-ddf5-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d540dcc5208d