Occasionally, there is discussion about how democratic Western governments truly are. Are they the type of democracy with which the ancient Greeks were familiar, or do they deviate from this? To determine the extent to which our modern political systems resemble democracies or republics, ancient Greek philosophy and specific philosophers’ teachings would have to be examined.
The Founding Fathers, the US Constitution, and republican influences
In a speech given in October 2016 at the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Athens at the fifth Scientific Conference of Philosophy and Cosmology, Dr. Petros Doukas, a professor of economics at New York University, spoke at length about Aristotle’s cultural contributions and philosophical teachings.
According to Doukas, Aristotle’s political philosophy was “inspired by Lycurgus, and the American Founding Fathers…[adopted] the basic elements of their culture from Aristotle.” His philosophy included such notions as equality before the law, elections, constitutional rights, and the establishment of “filters” in the form of a senate and electors, for instance.
Regarding the influence of the ancient Greeks on the creation of the American republican state, a similar view appears to have been expressed by former President of the United States Donald Trump. In 2018, at the White House, during an event in honor of the Greek national anniversary of March 25th, Trump—like numerous other US Presidents and politicians—proclaimed that “in our federal books, our founding fathers consulted the wisdom of the [ancient] Greek cities and philosophers when they were writing our own Constitution.”
The idea that ancient Greek philosophers’ teachings were characterized by significant elements of republican thought while Greek city-states were organically structured around the worship of gods seems quite paradoxical. In ancient Greek society, the individual was not perceived as an end in itself for the polity but as a small part of a greater collective body. Each individual was part of an organic state.
The Protestant-inspired idea that the individual is an end in itself both for transcendent concepts as well as for the state was objectively absent. The concept of the “individual” self possessing worth and purpose and the ideology of “natural human rights” were practically non-existent concepts.
Ancient Greek city-states: Democracies or republics?
However, Greek philosophers and legislators who shaped the ancient Greek city-state laws did lay the ground for legislators of republican political systems. Even if their goals and ideals differed from those of modern states, their faith in the organic structure of cities and the unity of all citizens towards a common purpose did inspire modern Western nation-states. Individuals were politically unified through a common language, origin, religion, and tradition.
One must examine the texts of both ancient Greek and European writers to clarify the distinction between a republic and democracy as well as identify characteristics of republican thought in ancient writers and ancient Greek philosophical teachings. This is also necessary if one is to comprehend the impact of ancient writers and teachers on philosophers of today and the formation of modern republics.
Democracies and republics—one and the same?
In the consciousness of the majority of Westerners today, democracies and republics are one and the same. For the average person, both a democracy and republic refer exclusively and only to the vague “sovereignty of the people” in respective polities.
Yet the distinction between democracies and republics has been made even by the philosophical fathers of contemporary Western republican thought. Among these philosophers is Montesquieu, who identified three types of polities: monarchic, aristocratic, and republican. According to him, the “state” (république) can be either of a democratic or aristocratic essence. Therefore, “democracy” and “republic” are not identical concepts:
“Men were free with laws; men would fain be free without them; what was a maxim is called severity; what was order is called hindrance. Formerly the welfare of individuals constituted the public wealth, but now the public wealth becomes the patrimony of individuals. The republic is spoil, and its strength is merely the power of a few citizens and the license of all…Little petty tyrants spring up who have all the vices of a single tyrant. Very soon what is left of liberty becomes untenable; a single tyrant arises, and the people loses all, even the advantages of corruption. Democracy has therefore two extremes to avoid; the extreme of the spirit of equality leads to the despotism of a single person, as the despotism of a single person leads to conquest.”
Apparently, based on the above, Montesquieu, the father of the representative parliamentary system, sympathized with the aristocratic rather than the democratic side of the polity. This was despite his support for the republic. Ηe makes it clear that the republic isn’t a form of polity defined only by democratic principles. It is also characterized by oligarchic values.
Indeed, since ancient times, voting was defined as an aristocratic institution rather than a democratic one. This is why, in his Rhetoric, Aristotle mentions: “A democratic institution is the election by lottery, [whereas] election by vote is oligarchic.”
Etymological differences: Democracies vs. republics
What are the factors that essentially differentiate between democracies and republics? One must first consider the root of the word “republic.” It is known to be of Latin origin and stems from the compound word res and publica, meaning “rule” and “plus,” respectively. Publica is the feminine form of the adjective “publicus,” meaning “common.” The word “community” derives from this.
According to the Latin dictionary of Chartlon T. Lewis, “publicus” was identical with “civitas,” which means “citizen.” In other words, it refers to a “wealth of citizens,” or a “commonwealth” in the English language. This information is significant if one is to distinguish between democracies and republics since it becomes clear that, historically, the Roman legislation would use “populus” or “civitas” to refer to the set of citizens who participated in the political rights of the state regardless of their class position.
In his work Athenian Constitution, Aristotle draws a clear distinction between the class of the “demos” and the “eupatrids.” He defines the latter as the parents of aristocratic families with wealth and of noble origin. In contrast, those belonging to the class of demos were actually the people devoted to cultivating the land. They were the poor with no wealth at their disposal.
A republic according to Aristotle
Aristotle formulated the most accurate Greek translation of the word “republic” in his Politics, Book III in which he distinguishes between the various political states. He notes:
“Of monarchies, however, we are accustomed to call that which looks to the general good, a kingdom; but we call the state which is governed by more than one person, and yet only by a few, an aristocracy , either because the most excellent men govern, or because the government is directed to that which is best for the city, and for those who partake of it. But when the multitude governs for the general good, it is called by the common name of all polities, a ‘polity.’ This, however, happens reasonably. For it is possible for one person, or a few to excel in virtue; but it is a very difficult thing for many to be eminent in every virtue, and especially in warlike virtue; for this is generated in a multitude. Hence, in this polity, the belligerent will be the most principal part, and those who carry arms will have a share in the government. But the degenerations in the above-mentioned polities are, of a kingdom, indeed, a tyranny; of an aristocracy, an oligarchy; and of a polity, a democracy. For a tyranny is a monarchy, in which the advantage of the monarch is the object of government. But in an oligarchy the advantage of the rich only is considered; and in a democracy that of the poor only. No one of these, however, has in view the general good.”
Therefore, the term “polity” is the most accurate Greek translation for the term “republic” because it is the state in which citizens of all classes participate in power. Both the public and the aristocracy benefit. Thus, this serves the common interest of all citizens with no discrimination between rich or poor.
Democracies according to Aristotle and ancient Greek philosophy
On the contrary, “democracy,” according to Aristotle, is the form of government of the people that caters to the interests of the poor over the whole.
Although Aristotle identifies democracy as the predominating principle, he nevertheless emphasizes that it is not numerical superiority that defines democracies but the economic situation of those that govern it. Aristotle believed that:
“…the first doubt, therefore, is concerning the definition. For if many who are rich should happen to be the lords of the city; but it is a democracy, when the multitude have the supreme authority; and in a similar manner again, if it should happen that the poor are fewer than the rich, but being more excellent characters, should be the lords of the polity. Reason, therefore, appears to make it evident, that it is accidental for a few or many to have the supreme authority, the former in oligarchies, but the latter in democracies, because the rich are few and the poor many everywhere. Hence, it does not happen that the before-mentioned causes produce the difference between the two polities; but that by which a democracy and an oligarchy differ from each other is poverty and wealth. And it is necessary, indeed, where the government is on account of wealth, whether those who have the supreme power are few or many, that the polity should be an oligarchy; but where the supreme authority is in the hands of the poor, that it should be a democracy. It happens, however, as we have said, that the one are few, but the other many. For the few are rich; but all partake of liberty. And from these causes, both contend with each other for the administration.”
As we see, “demos” meant to the Greeks what “plebeian” meant to the Romans. Consequently, a Roman would define a “democracy” as a “plebocracy.” The polity of the Roman Res Publica would be the rule of the citizens, both rich and poor.
The Roman polity and democracy
According to Polybius, “The Roman polity is tripartite: the two consuls, the Senate (Senatus) and the people (Populus).”
With the institution of the consuls, whose main virtue was “dignitas” (meaning “value”), it had the advantages of a monarchy. The Senate, endowed with “auctoritas” (prestige, authority), had the advantages of aristocracy. Finally, the people’s main characteristic was “libertas” (freedom). Hence, the Roman polity had the advantages of democracy.
According to Polybius, in the Roman state of his time, known as “res publica populi Romani” (“public things of the Roman people”), a perfect balance of powers was observed. The three parts of this mixed polity overlapped each other organically, complemented each other harmoniously, and even influenced each other drastically in such a way that no one could prevail over the other two. A delicate balance of power was maintained, as each part depended on the other two for the successful performance of its functions.
Aristotle’s “polity,” the correct version of the “principle of the many,” as he describes it, seems to have a mixed character of the polities. This was contrary to democracies in which the many and the poor dominate. Aristotle defines “polity” as a mixed or average polity. It is the combination of oligarchy and democracy. In his own words: “A common trait and median is to combine both institutions [fine for the rich and compensation to the poor].” According to Aristotle, it is called a polity because it in fact combines both.
Aristotle informs us that the main factor for both the rich and the poor to unite in such a polity is the legislative basis. “Taking the differences of the two classes and the traits which mainly characterize them, we will compose the state,” he said.
Republicanism and democracy in the mixed polity: Sparta, the Lacedaemonians, and ancient Greek philosophy
As an example of such a mixed polity, Aristotle points to Sparta. “In general, the whole organization (of Plato’s Laws polity) is neither a democracy nor an oligarchy, but something between the two, something called a state and made up of the hoplites,” he had said.
Some argue that the best polity would be a combination of all the polities in existence. It is for this reason that the Spartan polity is praised. Certain experts claim it to have been a combination of oligarchy, monarchy, and democracy. In other words, there were elements of all of these. For instance, there was the royal institution (monarchy) as well as the institution of the elders (oligarchy). There were also the tax collectors (democracy). Lastly, there was an element of tyranny in the ephors, but democratic principles, such as common meals, were also not an atypical part of daily life.
Laws is said to refer to the state that combines democracy and tyranny into a whole. An instance of this would be the kingdom of the Lacedaemonians. Merely because it contained democratic principles, some referred to it as a democracy. Amongst the Lacedaemonians, the children of the poor and the wealthy were nourished and educated in similar ways. This was also true of individuals of all ages. Hence, equality was the norm.
Aside from every day life, in Lacedaemonian society, people elected one of two supreme authorities and also participated in the other. They elected the senators and participated in the prefects. Yet others have identified the Lacedaemonians as oligarchic because of certain such elements within their society. For example, all offices were conferred by votes rather than lottery while the death penalty or exile could also be imposed on convicted individuals. Hence, in terms of the Laconian polity, a blended state should not, according to Aristotle and Plato’s Laws, exclusively resemble a single polity but be characterized by all types.
Nonetheless, in his Republic, Plato referred to the Lacedaemonian polity as a timocracy. According to Aristotle, a timocracy is merely another name for the polity, or a republic in Roman terms. “The polities are the kingship and the aristocracy…and based on the valuation of property, which seems that it was correct to call it timocratic, but many are used to calling it a ‘polity,” said Aristotle.
Influences on the US republican polity
Such a form of government subsisted in Rome during its republican period. It was also characteristic of the Greek cities of the archaic period. It was a government of mixed character as described by Polybius. This inspired Montesquieu to form a government of a representative system.
The Founding Fathers of the United States, imitating Montesquieu, established a separation of powers. According to M.N.S Sellers:
“Americans understood the Roman constitution primarily through the writings of Polybius, readily available in four recent printings, and after [January of] 1787 in excerpts from Spelman’s translation, reproduced in John Adam’s Defense of the Constitutions of the United States of America.”
Furthermore, in The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, Carl J. Richard writes:
“The founders had access to every level of this western tradition of mixed government theory. Hence it was only natural that, when confronted by unprecedented parliamentary taxation during the 1760s and 1770s, they should turn to the most ancient and revered of political theories to explain this perplexing phenomenon. Patriot leaders such as Richard Henry Lee, Samuel Adams, and John Adams ascribed the new tyranny to a degeneration of the mixture of the English constitution.”
Richard also notes that “after the Stamp Act of 1765, many [Bachelor’s and Master’s] theses applied the political principles of Aristotle, Cicero, and Polybius to the debates concerning independence and the Constitution.”
Conclusion
As is obvious, the republican ideal of political unification and the mixed structure of the polity was a part of ancient thought. Thinkers of antiquity believed it was the ideal form of a state. Furthermore, it became the source of inspiration for contemporary legislators of Western states and was the driving force behind the separation of powers and the formation of the contemporary parliamentary state.
Nonetheless, since in modern Western republican states practically everyone participates in these forms of government regardless of class or position, these are, rather, mixed forms of government. Namely, the governments are a blend of oligarchies and democracies. They are not, in other words, pure democracies.
As previously discussed, every form of polity represented a different class and was based on certain principles. Oligarchies catered to the wealthy. Democracies were characteristic of freedom, and aristocracies zeroed in on the value of prestige. Hence, a question that might arise would pertain to the principles of modern Western polities. What do these rely on? Since polities or republics are actually “timocracies,” as noted by both Plato and Aristotle, a term which translates to “authority of honors”, what principles do those honors incorporate?
Looking at the economic and social systems throughout the Western world, capitalism would have to be the predominant one. We see how the term “commonwealth,” a word which by definition implies the evaluation of people according to their financial status, still subsists as a way of defining many Western republics. Consequently, it becomes quite apparent that ancient Greek philosophers would most probably define our modern Western governments not as democracies but republics, or polities. To the Greeks, our current Western political systems are mixed forms of government—rather than democracies—with oligarchic tendencies.