What's left today ofthe speaker's platform at the Pnyx, the hillside site of the Athenian public assembly. The Athenian assembly gathered around 40 times a year, attended by as much as 1/4 of the city’s population. They were an experienced, politically active group, rich farmer and poor peasant citizens alike. When Theophratus criticizes peasants, he complains that they inappropriately provide too much detail of assembly meetings to neighbors in the countryside who didn't make the gathering. We'd praise this today as healthy grassroots communications. A staggering number of Athenian residents were involved in running the city and debating its future. It is difficult to compare its level of participatory democracy to any city of its size since. From the beginning of the 6th century B.C. for some two centuries, keen attendance at the open assembly, selection by lot of 500 new people every year to serve on the council, juries of up to 1,000 people, and scores of official posts rotating regularly, point to a depth of citizen participation at odds with modem ideas of politics. Citizens participated broadly not only in decisionmaking, but in carrying out policy as well. When a decision to go to war was made, it was often a reluctant one since many of the people voting would themselves have to go to battle. Assemblies meeting to choose among such serious options were especially well attended. The close connection between decision and implementation gave demagogues a very difficult time in Athens - no matter how well someone’s speeches roused the crowd, if their policies did not work their influence quickly dissolved. The citizens participated broadly not only in decision-making, but in carrying out policy as well. Freedom of speech in Athens meant the freedom to speak and be heard by the entire assembly. It meant the freedom to present legislation and participate in the discussion prior to making decisions. The open public assembly then had full power to act - the assembly even structurally dissolved itself for a short time in 411 BC. Of course, the bulk of public debate took place outside of the formal meetings, where even non-citizens must have contributed. A smaller council of 500 did what the full public assembly decided they should do, and these duties changed constantly. This holds a very important lesson: in responsible government, representatives shouldn’t be given blanket power; instead, the full body politic must actively and regularly decide the limits of the officials’ powers, to allow for changing circumstances. These specific limits must be determined in person, constraining somewhat the scale at which this kind of assembly system can be used. Athens was a very large body politic, perhaps a hundred thousand citizens, so various mechanisms were found to ensure that officials would not abuse their positions. Most offices lasted for one year, could not be held twice, and were followed by a public review of behavior in office. Influence mongering was difficult since most offices were filled by a random drawing from among all citizens, i.e. sortition, rather than through campaigning. Not only did this prevent the buying of votes, but culturally it required a deep commitment to educating everyone well enough to be loyal, competent and principled public servants. Followers add less to the strength of a community than independent, cooperative individuals. Athenians were, in a sense, extremely well educated. This does not mean that they were literate, for this was mostly a verbal, interactive age. For these Greeks, education was not a systematic program of lectures and exams leading to certification, but rather the regular lessons and tests of daily life. In such an active political community no one could be shut out of unofficial discussion, since the future responsibilities of the average citizen would be very great. This immersion into the community was what developed the distinctive individual. Rather than mold the citizen through the homogenization of formal education, as Sparta did, the Athenians felt that original individual character and opinion must develop in order to best serve the city. A follower adds less than an independent, thinking individual enlivening important discussions on community direction. This was the purpose of education, or paideia. Nietzche’s complaint that genius can develop only against the community doesn’t take into account Atlienian ideals of personal development, and instead reflects his generation’s fear of the emerging impersonal era of mass politics. Athenians not only encouraged individual ability - laws often required paid officials or jurors to take some stand in a debate - they also fought the creation of state structures that would limit the citizen. Athens had no bureaucracy to .speak of, making the phrase “city-state” now applied to it seem inappropriate. The small administration changed every year. The judicial system was not run by judges, but by juries that were extremely large, discouraging bribery, and which were paid by tlie city and selected by lot. They were diversely Page 34 Rain Winter/Spring 1992 Volume XIV, Number 2
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz