West European Studies

Democracy is the best form of government

The origins of (modern) democracy began in Ancient Greece as the city-state of Athens introduced this relatively new system which was a response to the monarchical systems of other city-states like Sparta.  Under this system, which was direct in nature, just about anyone could run for office.  At the same token, the ruler could be removed by the people who put them there in the first place in the earliest form of impeachment.  This was one of the legacies of early Greek (Athenian) democracy which is inherited by modern democracies.

Most people nowadays would say democracy is the best form of government one can ever have.  If there are at least two reasons why, it is freedom (rights) and equality.  The reason why democracy is more appealing than despotic, authoritarian or even totalitarian governments is it is not oppressive.  There is equality nobody is marginalized nor there is discrimination or exploitation.  In politics, anyone can participate or run for office.  Essentially, in a democratic society, people are free to do whatever they want and the laws ensure that their rights are protected and guaranteed and no political authority can deprive them of these rights.

However, if one were to ask Aristotle, Platos student who went on to write his own treatise titled Politics, democracy is not the best form of government.  Despite what democracy meant by  rule of the people,  Aristotle regarded democracy as the rule of the needy.  For Aristotle, like his mentor Plato, the aristocracy or monarchy, although they did not like them either, were more acceptable forms of government for them.  In closer analysis, Aristotle based it on social class.  He appeared to have a general impression of these social classes which served as his basis for arriving at his conclusion (Hill).  Aristotle believed that the lower classes did not qualify as  citizens  of his ideal society owing to the work they did as laborers.  They were so busy toiling to have any time for the affairs of the state.  For Aristotle, an ideal citizen must have time to participate in state matters to  share in the administration of justice  and  take part in the deliberative and judicial administration of any state.   It is because of this that the lower classes were  disqualified  for they did not meet this criteria.  He further added that the life of a laborer for a citizen would be beneath their dignity and inimical to virtue (Aristotle).

If one were to look at it from a modern perspective, it would be easy to say Aristotle was wrong.  (Modern) history has proven that democracy is the ideal form as this has been considered the best alternative to despotism which tend to breed tyranny and oppression.  This has been further supported by the thinkers of the Enlightenment that further gave democracy more impetus to thrive in the continually changing world.

However, if one were to look at it the way Aristotle (and Plato) saw it, they had a point.  They saw the  flaws  of democracy where the free exercise of rights would lead to chaos as individuals tend to assert their rights leading to clash with others.  It can be inferred here that Aristotle felt that while having rights would be great, they also came with responsibilities which a lot of people tend to neglect.  For Aristotle, a citizen must be altruistic and put the interests of the state above their own.  That way, (from the top-down), their interests would also be protected and promoted as well.  To do it from the bottom up would be disastrous.  This was how Aristotle saw it during his time and apparently, he had a point his argument would be validated if he were alive today and see how democracy goes.

Constitution and the Roman Republic.

The ancient Romans, prior to the creation of an empire, had established a republican form of government to replace the unpopular monarchical system.  Based on Polybius accounts, the government of the Roman Republic appeared to look like the  ancestor  of the republican form of government of the (modern) United States. There were three branches of government in the Roman Republic.  Unlike its modern descendants.  These branches were run by certain classes.  There was the monarchical form, in the form of the consuls and magistrates the Senate, made up of the aristocratic patricians and the Assembly of Tribes of the plebeians which were led by Tribunes (Halsall).

What makes this different from modern democratic or republican systems was that instead of a balance of powers, it was a balance of interests.  This was done in such a way to ensure that the interests of the patricians and plebeians did not try to dominate the other and ensure harmony.  Ideally, the check and balance here was meant to prevent one class from usurping power to dominate of marginalize the other in the sense that the interests of each party would not be threatened by the other by giving each one a chance to participate without fear of being marginalized. Consuls may have the authority to run the republic but their tenure was limited to one year and since they were two, they each could invoke the veto though not unilaterally.  The Senate may pass laws but they had no control over the army.  The Tribune and Assembly may approve or reject laws, have the authority to declare war and even veto the consuls but they could not propose laws (Polybius).

If this were to be compared with the Greek polis, it could be said that the Romans ran a more efficient government.  Not only did it have an established form of government, they created mechanisms that ensured efficiency of operations and this was further supported by laws.  There were similarities on the checks and balances.  Athenians would remove an unpopular leader through  ostrakon,  an early form of impeachment where they would write the name of the unfortunate ruler of an shell.  The Roman Republics system defined the roles of the leaders and limited them to certain offices.

Ideally, Aristotle would find the Roman system more acceptable if he were alive during this time.  The Romans also created a new set of values replacing the frivolous and decadent one of the Etruscans by promoting the values of fides or  reliability  where there existed an interdependent mutual relationship between the patricians and plebeians.  After so much conflict, they realized that they would not be without the other and they discovered that the survival of society required that they work together (Adams).
Furthermore, Aristotle would have been pleased to know the Romans took citizenship very seriously through civitas.  This was awarded to those who professed commitment to Rome, usually through military service and as Romes territory grew to the point it became an empire, the word  civitas  was a badge of honor and source of pride among Romans.  This was a testament of what altruism could do when the interests of the state were put above that of ones own.  Aristotle would have said the Romans got it right and the results spoke for themselves.  Naturally, the Roman Empire declined when civitas lost its meaning when the Romans fell victim to their own prosperity and prestige.