To what level have the Athenian democracy live up to its ideology of being a meritocracy, and also to what scope was electricity still in the hands of the prosperous?
Athenian democracy was an evolving process in the 5th century B. C. The attentiveness of electricity in the political establishment would change significantly from when the first seeds were planted before voting citizenship was extended and new leaders emerged towards the finish of the century. Democracy had not been instituted in the name of human being rights but also for pragmatic purposes and it is necessary that people consider it in this light when contemplating whether Athens was a meritocracy and whether the wealthy still placed considerable ability in Democratic Athens. That is definitely true that Athenian Democracy, like all systems, in some recoverable format differed significantly to how it was implemented.
In this essay I will dispute that Athenian Democracy was basically successful in applying a state democracy where, to a huge extent, there were no obvious discrepancies over who was simply favoured in issues of society and their state. I'll show that the Athenian constitution largely kept the town as a meritocracy, making its residents equal before the state in concerns of legality and politics power. However, I will also consider the constraints of Athenian Democracy also to what magnitude certain functions may have limited its success. I will argue that the power of the prosperous was in most respects limited by the structure of the state of hawaii but happened back to some extent by the unavoidable advantages which come from wealth. I am going to mainly be arguing that whatever constraints there were, these were not enough to truly have a damaging influence on democracy all together.
The Athenian Democracy allowed that only males of Athenian ancestry were part of the democratic system, which overall comprised around 10-20% of the demos. Slaves, freed slaves, children, women and metics (foreigners in Athens) were excluded. It is obvious out of this that to label Athens as a meritocracy in the modern sense is absurd. In this article, I'll consider Athens as a meritocracy in terms of the protection under the law and opportunities of these who are citizens, not from those who aren't and will therefore consider from what level Athenian Democracy functioned the way it was supposed to.
The wealthy did not hold capacity to the extent that it harmed the democratic process. The rich certainly did have many advantages set alongside the poor, but this is not always any comment after Athenian democracy simply an inevitability that those with wealth will be able to achieve more than those without. The prosperous had power but not to an level that was greatly detrimental to the state of hawaii.
When defining prosperity, I will consider Aristotle's definition as including money, land, real estate, furniture, livestock and a high quality and quantity of slaves (Rhet. 1361a12-16). There is most definitely a significant wealth inequality between Athens's citizens whereby the leisure category (those who didn't need to work because of this of family fortunes, nobility etc. ) made-up around 5-10% of the populace. This course barrier was certainly realised by the low classes who often showed their resentment at the prosperous. However not surprisingly inequality, they didn't see this as particularly impacting when it arrived right down to the politics and legal forces of people, as this inequality was grudgingly accepted. Prosperity discrepancies weren't viewed as unjust as potential legal or political barriers that could have affected the residents. (see Ober ch. 5)
Politically, riches as an instrument was restricted because of this of the many stipulations in the constitution. There is no longer any property certification for the academy or for voting and the holding of political office buildings as well as juries received payment for these services, meaning that the democratic or legal process was not hinged on the use of riches to buy politics office or to serve as part of the legal jurisdiction. The constitution minimised any overt legal or politics control by the wealthy, who still got economic electric power but this reality is merely to be expected in a society such as Athens which thrived on the control of goods and services.
This idea of the accepted parting of prosperity inequality with legal and political affairs is seen with the orator Demosthenes:
"The abundant have great riches which no person retains them from enjoying though they need to not keep us from enjoying the security which is our most popular possession - the laws"
(Demosthenes, Against Meidias, (22. 25-27))
Therefore, the wealth inequality had not been viewed by the people as un-democratic or harmful to their political power and protection under the law (Ober 199. )
The riches even often acquired a positive effect on the democratic process, benefiting even the poor. The various fees enforced on the rich (liturgies, war fees and fines given out by the courts) was often redistributed in a manner that greatly benefitted the poorer in population, such as status projects, the upkeep of the city, the academy and also security from outdoors threats. Therefore, often the wealthy experienced a positive influence on both metropolis and the poor, with the money often performing as subsidies for the less wealthy instead of them exploiting the indegent for his or her own gain. (Ober 202)
However, it is true that there were indeed many situations where the wealth could actually use their money as leverages and to exert a certain amount of power over the lower classes. In legal issues, the wealthier would often get less punitive punishments for certain crimes such as robbery. The wealthy may possibly also dominate proceeding through the use of bribes - they might use money to buy silence from witnesses or make them lie, they could also try and bribe prosecutors and use their wealth to buy support from the public.
Also, the dependence of their state on the amount of money received from the rich could have damaging effects. The wealthy may try to hide their prosperity from their state or even refuse to pay certain taxes that are voluntary. Additionally it is true that the allegiance of the rich to the Athenian express had not been as sound as the poorer individuals as these were less reliant on the state framework that was very beneficial towards the indegent. These activities of the rich could potentially have very negative results in situations where the state were looking for the riches of the rich. Finally, in times of conflict the rich certainly had an easier time, whereby the high could use their profit order to buy positions as horsemen which were less mixed up in fighting than the frontline soldiers who had been often composed of those troops who could not find the money for as expensive equipment as those less prosperous.
The wealthy were limited in the power they could maintain. While they kept economic electricity, this did not have much of an impact upon the legal and political protection under the law of Athenian citizens as financial inequality had not been seen as having as important a role in democracy as other egalitarian guidelines - they was accepted. The occurrences of violations of democracy by the wealthy will not show the weakness of the state of hawaii as a whole only the weaknesses of people in certain cases and the inevitability of those with wealth having certain advantages over others - these shouldn't be seen as any substantial disadvantage to the ideals of meritocracy in the Athenian condition.
The Athenian Constitution essentially justifies talking about Athens as a meritocracy. It allowed for legal and political rights to be universal for those Athenian citizens where each man was considered justly under the sight of the polis. Athenian Democracy had not been perfect. Like all systems there were areas which were vulnerable to problem and that have been arguably bad for a healthy condition. There definitely was a selection of the wealthy top notch who often use their prosperity for self-aggrandisement alternatively than supporting the state of hawaii - but this must be expected in all societies. On the whole, the Democracy of Athens was generally egalitarian in politics and legal concerns where those who had been citizens were cured with the same eye. The rich in culture were, to a large scope, prohibited from using their prosperity to defile the workings of their state. The times in which the wealthy were able to exert a certain degree of power were inevitable blowbacks to a world where there is a competition for the money and a competition for ability. The energy that the prosperous had and used was not enough to taint a relatively sophisticated politics system and where corruptions of that system happened, personal power-grabbing was often shrouded in popular support and the use of riches for personal gain was seen as an inevitable circumstances of self-preservation.
Bibliography
M. I. Finley (1962) 'Athenian Demagogues' Former & Present 21: 3-24
Ober, J. Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens: rhetoric, ideology, and the energy of
the people, (Princeton School Press; US; 1989. )
Ober, J. 'Consumer Speech and the Power of individuals in Democratic Athens' in The
Athenian Revolution. Essays on Ancient Greek democracy and political theory, (Princeton
University Press; US; 1996)
Raaflaub, K. A. 'Equalities and Inequalities in Athenian Democracy' in Ober, J. and
Hedrick, C. (eds. ) Demokratia. A discussion on Democracies, historic and modern,
(Princeton University or college Press; US; 1996)
Hansen, M. H. 'The Political Market leaders' within the Athenian Democracy in the Age of
Demosthenes (Blackwell; UK; 1991)
Davies, J. K. Prosperity and the energy of Riches in Classical Athens, (Ayer Co; NY; 1981. )
Sinclair, R. K. Democracy and Involvement in Athens, (Cambridge College or university Press; Cambridge; 1988. )
Aristotle - The Fine art of Rhetoric (Penguin; UK; 1991)
Demosthenes - Politics Speeches (Oxford University or college Press; London; 2014)
