16
May

The Paradox of Elections in Democracy

   Posted by: zlrstavis   in Uncategorized

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

Thomas Jefferson

When defining democracy, and even when defining what type of government we have, people tend to get a little confused. I’ve been plenty of posters striving to find connections between our American system and that of and the Athenian democracy, and coming up bitter when they cast out their nets and catch nothing. This is not so much foolishness as a lack of knowledge that is available to you, with the advent of the mechanism by which we are speaking now. Contrary to popular belief the United States was not founded to be a democracy, but a republic.

Like Plato and Aristotle before him, Polybius, and his acquaintance, the great republican statesman Cicero, describe the Republic as the most evolved and ideal form of western government - not democracy. The system in Cicero’s Res publica (a work often considered derivative of Plato’s) explains the concept very well. Cicero’s Republic gives the most astounding example of the mixed constitutional system because it is actually the first example of a constitution. It demonstrates the same agreement between the three branches of government as did the Magna Carta and our own constitution.

Yes, our system is based on the Roman Republican system, and not Athenian democracy. In Athens, which remains the ideal example of a democratic city [(besides Rouseau’s mountaintop villages, and cockaroach hives, both of which fail to be cities) http://www.answers.com/topic/election], they considered elections a quality of oligarchy, not democracy. A number of notable Greeks, including philosophers like Socrates, who disagreed with the Athenian system, proponed a republic as more ideal.

Greeks like Polybius thought that it was the Roman system that made her superior enough to take over the Mediterranean. It was the Romans who had elections for important public offices, and theirs were notoriously stacked. Held only once a year, so that people from the countryside wouldn’t come in, even though their vote comprised the largest percentage of the comitia. The 51 states are divided unevenly in the senate, like the comita.

“In ancient democracy, as now, wealth made a difference to elections; people without money or family connections almost never won elective office in Athens. Because the Atheinas wanteed to curb the power of wealth, they severely restricted the powers of those who held elected office. So the representative bodies in Athens were filled not by elections, but by a lottery that drew from a large panel of citizens who had met certain conditions, and were drawn equally from the ten tribes (Paul Woodruff. First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea. Oxford UP: New York, 2005.).”

Your president wears the face for country to the world. although bush represents the interests of a group of oligarchical men, he nonetheless is the figurehead selected by them either for the most mass appeal. At a certain point one of the children of a former Republican president would be eligible for office, so in a way the mistakes of the previous decades are responsible for the mistakes of the current administration. Famous names like Regan, Schwarzenegger, Kennedy, Bush or Clinton and fat pockets win elections far faster than the merit of an enlightened mind.

Even as our collective consciousness continues to evolve, we have hardly begun to comprehend our own systems. “It is her spirit, customs and constitution that we are bound first to learn, both because she is the motherland of all of us, and because we must needs hold that wisdom as perfect went to the estabishment of her laws as to the acquisition of the vast might of her empire.” -De Oratore, I. xliv. 196If we’re going to have a democracy (which people seem to be clamouring for) then we’re going to have to do away with some aspects of our republic, like elections. If we’re going to have a republic, it should be recognized as such, and the newfound democratic power of the people (united at last by the internet) means democracy could finally take it’s part.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 16th, 2007 at 12:18 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

One comment

amicus
 1 

Your point that the US is a republic more on the model of Rome than a democracy more on the model of Athens is well taken. But this was not the case at the inception of the revolution in 1775 nor at the promulgation of independence a year later. The original United States was more liken to Greece than to Rome. The diverse communities that fought the revolution had formed a confederation in order to foster a cohesive struggle against the Crown. It was not, I believe, their original intention to submerge their sovereignty under a unitary authority to replace the Crown, though it was undoubtedly the intention of some of the citizenry.

The long war against the British ended in 1781; a treaty of peace was signed in 1783; The constitution was not ratified until 1787; the government operating under that constitution, did not sit until 1789 and the last of the original colonies did not ratify it until more than a year later. George Washington, who was not the first president of the United States but was first president of the American republic, did not take office until 1789, 13 years after independence was declared.

For well over a decade, the country had been governed under the Articles of Confederation, a plan of governance that gave more power to the states than to a central authority. The struggle between the federalists, who supported a strong central government, and the anti-federalists, who supported strong local governments can be looked at as a struggle between those who wanted a Roman model and those who wanted a Greek one.

The Roman model won out. The upper branch of the new legislature was called the senate. Senators under the original constitution were not elected by the citizenry but appointed; a system that stayed in place until the early twentieth century. The official seal of the US Senate bears a pair of crossed fasces lictoriae, symbols of Roman Imperium. Those are indications that it was the Roman Republic and not Athenian democracy that the formers of the new government saw as their historical antecedent.

I believe that with the advent of the US Constitution, the US became a republic and any talk of democracy entered the realm of platitude to be rolled out like its gaudy national banner at pompous patriotic events. Thomas Paine, theoretician of the American revolution whose inflammatory pamphlet, Common Sense sold 120,000 copies in the colonies, said of George Washington, “I do not know whether you have lost your principles or that you never had any” when he realized that the American revolution had been hijacked by an elite.

Parallels between Rome and the US are not new. From early days through nineteenth century territorial expansion into the current time, I believe you will find more academic discussion about a Rome-like republic devolving into an empire than you will about the US as an Athenian-like democracy. And those discussions often seem to revolve about the romanticization of New England town meetings.

And even more ominous for the future, with the rise of the christian right, the US may be doomed to follow the Roman model even further. As it dissolved from an empire into the roman catholic church, will the US become a theocracy spreading its gospel by the sword as it attempts to subjugate the heretics?

May 31st, 2007 at 3:11 pm

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment