PDA

View Full Version : Democracy: ancient versus modern



Mister D
04-16-2014, 05:46 PM
We touched on this recently (I forget where). We tend to see the democracies of the ancient world as less democratic than modern liberal democracies. The differences are definitely substantial. Perhaps the greatest difference is that the former was social and the latter individualistic. Question: don't we moderns have this backwards? The ancients invented democracy. They gave democracy its original meaning. If our ways do not conform to theirs whose political system is less democratic? Would it not be our own?

KC
04-16-2014, 05:49 PM
We touched on this recently (I forget where). We tend to see the democracies of the ancient world as less democratic than modern liberal democracies. The differences are definitely substantial. Perhaps the greatest difference is that the former was social and the latter individualistic. Question: don't we moderns have this backwards? The ancients invented democracy. They gave democracy its original meaning. If our ways do not conform to theirs whose political system is less democratic? Would it not be our own?

Awesome topic. My first response would be you're right, it makes us less democratic. We're less democratic in more ways than that, though.

My second response would be that that is a good thing.

Chris
04-16-2014, 05:56 PM
I'd said something about the corrupting nature of democracy, having to do with the fact politicians have no stake in wealth, only power, something like that, and you'd commented true for modern but not ancient democracy, giving Greek, Roman and, I forget third, maybe Britain?

The distinction between being more social vs more individualistic is an interesting one to consider.

Plato sure didn't like democracy, but he was a statist.

Peter1469
04-16-2014, 06:02 PM
The ancient concept of democracy would have a select group of citizens who debate and vote on everything. The rest of the people are something less than citizens. And do most of the work.

I prefer the Roman Republic.

Mister D
04-16-2014, 06:06 PM
Awesome topic. My first response would be you're right, it makes us less democratic. We're less democratic in more ways than that, though.

My second response would be that that is a good thing.

Thanks!

I agree. We haven't improved on democracy. It's just that the modern conception developed in accord with modern values which resulted in systems that are in some ways very different from their ancient counterparts.

Why do you feel that way?

Chris
04-16-2014, 06:20 PM
The ancient concept of democracy would have a select group of citizens who debate and vote on everything. The rest of the people are something less than citizens. And do most of the work.

I prefer the Roman Republic.


What, generally, in ancient Greece, in the Roman Republic, qualified one to be such a citizen?

Mister D
04-16-2014, 06:36 PM
I'd said something about the corrupting nature of democracy, having to do with the fact politicians have no stake in wealth, only power, something like that, and you'd commented true for modern but not ancient democracy, giving Greek, Roman and, I forget third, maybe Britain?

The distinction between being more social vs more individualistic is an interesting one to consider.

Plato sure didn't like democracy, but he was a statist.

That's right. I remember now. I think I said German. Tacitus remarked on the democratic customs of the ancient Germans in his Germania but it's possible his information was second hand.

In Greece, for example, liberty and freedom were inseparably linked to citizenship all of which were meaningless outside of a social context. In the ancient world,
liberty meant the right to participate in public affairs. That's different than the modern conception where the individual is thought to be pre-social, his freedom intrinsic, and liberty perceived as protection from the state rather than as membership therein. Hope that makes sense. Reading a brief but fascinating book on democracy now.

Mister D
04-16-2014, 06:39 PM
What, generally, in ancient Greece, in the Roman Republic, qualified one to be such a citizen?

In Greece, origin and heritage. There were some exceptions but one is typically born a citizen. He does not become a citizen.

Chris
04-16-2014, 07:29 PM
I mention England because I'm perhaps more familiar with it. I think the classical liberal tradition there, represented by the old Whigs--Hume, Smith, especially Burke, but many others--conceived of liberty and rights as social and not individual. They were concerned with the rights of the people, and the representatives generally the landed and not always heritary citizens who had a stake in society. It was the continental, the French tradition that gave us the individualistic democracy that has become so prevalent.

Mister D
04-16-2014, 09:03 PM
I mention England because I'm perhaps more familiar with it. I think the classical liberal tradition there, represented by the old Whigs--Hume, Smith, especially Burke, but many others--conceived of liberty and rights as social and not individual. They were concerned with the rights of the people, and the representatives generally the landed and not always heritary citizens who had a stake in society. It was the continental, the French tradition that gave us the individualistic democracy that has become so prevalent.

Despite my anti-liberalism I readily concede that liberal philosophers, theoreticians etc. were concerned with society and the good of mankind. I think that's true of all liberals regardless of the tradition or school. I try to focus on where ideas have led historically regardless of the original intent. For example, I suspect that many of our founders would in some respects be horrified by what American democracy has become. At the same time, I tend to think it was at least in part their own ideas which led here especially ill-conceived remarks like "all men are created equal".

I also agree that there are clear differences between the Anglo-Saxon and Continental traditions despite some broad agreement in other respects. Burke is a interesting liberal. Any suggestions when I visit Amazon.com?

Chris
04-16-2014, 09:29 PM
Besides Burke, I'm just starting the read Bullock & Shock, eds, The Liberal Tradition from Fox to Keynes, a collection of speeches and essays by British liberals. So far, so good.

KC
04-16-2014, 09:47 PM
Thanks!

I agree. We haven't improved on democracy. It's just that the modern conception developed in accord with modern values which resulted in systems that are in some ways very different from their ancient counterparts.

Why do you feel that way?

Actually, in a few ways we've improved it, chiefly by limiting it more than the ancients did.

Democracy, generally speaking, isn't a good system, it's just better than other systems tried thus far because, in the words of De Tocqueville, it allows us to "make retrievable mistakes." I interpret that quote more broadly than it was probably intended to mean, that the mistakes are not just policies but also the politicians.

Also, I think our individualism isn't the result of our democratic values but a product of enlightenment thought. Today, I think, individualism has been twisted in a way that is more or less incompatible with democracy.

Mister D
04-17-2014, 08:51 AM
Actually, in a few ways we've improved it, chiefly by limiting it more than the ancients did.

Democracy, generally speaking, isn't a good system, it's just better than other systems tried thus far because, in the words of De Tocqueville, it allows us to "make retrievable mistakes." I interpret that quote more broadly than it was probably intended to mean, that the mistakes are not just policies but also the politicians.

Also, I think our individualism isn't the result of our democratic values but a product of enlightenment thought. Today, I think, individualism has been twisted in a way that is more or less incompatible with democracy.

By limiting it I assume you mean limiting the sovereignty of ‘the people’ and their participation in the political process. Ifthat is the case, I see it more as a departure from democratic theory than an improvement upon it. Yet rare is the modern politician who would dare not refer to himself a democrat. Why do we cloak ourselves in this language if in fact there really isn’t anything particularly democratic about our political system? We always talk about “the people” but we routinely surrender our sovereignty to elected representatives who, ironically, are almost never held in high esteem. We have a strange political culture.

Democracy as the least of a host of evils is hardly an argument for democracy. I also think it’s impossible to prove the assertion that democracy is a better system or that it won’t lead to despotism, brutality etc. Clearly we see that it can and has.

I agree that modern individualism is a product of the Enlightenment. Our democratic values are, IMO, primordial. We see democratic practices throughout European history. What do you mean when you say “individualism has been twisted in a way that is more or less incompatible with democracy”? I think that’s true in the sense that modern individualism results in atomization whereas the concept of “citizen” in the ancient world implied belonging and was linked to social life.

Chris
04-17-2014, 08:56 AM
Actually, in a few ways we've improved it, chiefly by limiting it more than the ancients did.

Democracy, generally speaking, isn't a good system, it's just better than other systems tried thus far because, in the words of De Tocqueville, it allows us to "make retrievable mistakes." I interpret that quote more broadly than it was probably intended to mean, that the mistakes are not just policies but also the politicians.

Also, I think our individualism isn't the result of our democratic values but a product of enlightenment thought. Today, I think, individualism has been twisted in a way that is more or less incompatible with democracy.


That sounds like Churchill: "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."



I would agree, Enlightened individualism changed the nature of democracy.

Chris
04-22-2014, 07:30 PM
...Burke is a interesting liberal. Any suggestions when I visit Amazon.com?


Besides Burke, I'm just starting the read Bullock & Shock, eds, The Liberal Tradition from Fox to Keynes, a collection of speeches and essays by British liberals. So far, so good.

Here's a passage from that book (http://books.google.com/books?id=Z-boDV0wWTcC&pg=PR35&lpg=PR35&dq=it+is+this+belief,+crystallised+in+his+demand&source=bl&ots=r4dSXtTjGr&sig=os9YNmdvs7D4jKqyGruoa9XUQms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ywdXU6-TEefZ2wXW5YGABg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) that touches on two other conservative liberals, let us call them, the first, John Stuart Mill, surprising even, the second, John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, not, for he was similar to Burke:

http://i.snag.gy/tOyPx.jpg


Mister D