Arthur D. Robbins's Blog
January 24, 2015
Free Today
"Democracy Denied: The Untold Story" is a history of #democracy in the United States prior to the signing of the Constitution. It blows the whistle on two hundred years of myth and mystification.
Today and tomorrow only, e-book, "Democracy Denied" is #FREE for your Kindle. Do not hesitate! Rush to Amazon this instant! Don't miss the opportunity to enlighten your weekend reading. You’ll be glad you did.
Today and tomorrow only, e-book, "Democracy Denied" is #FREE for your Kindle. Do not hesitate! Rush to Amazon this instant! Don't miss the opportunity to enlighten your weekend reading. You’ll be glad you did.
January 9, 2015
What Would It Be Like?
by Arthur D. Robbins
What would it be like if we really lived in a democracy? These days just about everybody seems to be enjoying the benefits democratic government, that is if you believe government propaganda and you are one of the credulous many who are eager for a sense of well being at any price. But what is usually called #democracy is in fact an oligarchy of elected representatives responsible to the business interests who bankrolled their campaign. If people were actually given the opportunity to choose democracy, they might do so, provided they understood what the word actually means. Our one uncontested example is #ancientAthens.
Ancient Athens was a citizen-state. It was the political center for the larger landmass known as Attica, a peninsula extending southward into the Aegean Sea. At 9,000-10000 square miles Attica is roughly the size of the state of Rhode Island. Attica’s population during the height of Athenian democracy in the fifth century B.C. was between 300,000-350,000. Of that number some 30,000-40,000, or about ten percent, were citizens. Only adult males over the age of eighteen years who served in the military qualified for citizenship. Women were denied political rights as were slaves, about 20,000 of them, and metics, or foreigners.
What made ancient Athens a citizen-state? It was self-governing. That is to say the citizens themselves ran the government on a day-to-day basis. The citizens—not their representatives— gathered in the Assembly at least once a month and more frequently as required. There, citizens debated and voted on the issues that affected their community and their nation as a whole. By a show of hands and sometimes by casting a black (no) or white (yes) ball into a clay jar, they voted to go to war or not, to receive ambassadors or not, to grant a certain individual citizenship or not.
Athenians voted on which projects to fund and which not to fund. They voted on laws regulating the exportation of grain, which was in short supply. They decided how much should be charged for leasing a temple’s land. They decided how many and who should be the envoys representing Athens in foreign lands. The week-by-week conduct of a war had to go before the Assembly week by week.
The Ekklesia (Assembly) met at the Pnyx, an amphitheater located about one half mile outside of Athens, itself. At the front end of the Pnyx was the bema, or stepping stone, where a citizen would rise to address the Assembly. As many as six thousand would be in attendance on a given day. The presiding officer would begin each session with the question, “Who wishes to speak?” Any one in attendance had the right to address the assembly.
The bema was the material embodiment of “equal speech” — isēgoría —i.e. the equal right of every Athenian citizen to debate matters of policy. Note the difference between “equal speech,” or “political speech,” the right to debate and legislate, and what today we call “free speech,” the prohibition against being denied the right to speak. We could be speaking on a street corner or marching in a protest. “Free speech” says we have the right to do that. It says the right cannot be taken away. “Free speech” has no particular context. We are granted the right to say what we want, provided, it turns out, we do not threaten the governing powers. “Free speech” is a civil right. It is not a political right. It does not give us the right to set national policy. “Equal speech” in ancient Athens did.
Haranguing some passerby to vote for a certain candidate is not political speech nor is voting in an election. “What about writing a letter to my congressman? Isn’t that political speech?” No. It is complaining or pleading. Most of the time it changes nothing. It has no real power. It is not constitutive. It does not have the power to bring something into existence. Only political speech does.
In 1789, the year the Constitution was ratified, the United States covered a landmass of over 500,000 square miles and had a population in excess of 3,000,000. As was the case in ancient Athens, women and slaves, about 200,000 were denied political rights. In the House of Representatives, made up of sixty-five members, thirty-three individuals would constitute a quorum. Of these, seventeen would constitute a majority, the sense of the House.
There were twenty-six members of the Senate, two for each state, of which fourteen would constitute a quorum, eight of whom would make a majority, or the sense of the Senate. Seventeen in the House plus eight in the Senate equals twenty-five. Thus it appears that the liberties, happiness, interests, and great concerns of the whole United States were dependent upon the integrity, virtue, wisdom, and knowledge of 25 or 26 men.
If one rounds off the numbers and does a comparison, ancient Athens with a population of 300,000, was governed by 30,000 men. The United States in 1790 with a population ten times that of ancient Athens or 3,000,000 was governed by 91 men. 30,000 vs. 91 describes the difference, numerically speaking, between a democracy and an oligarchy.
In the year 2015, combining the Senate and the House, there is a governing body comprised of 535 men and women for a country with a population in excess of 300,000, 000, or 10,000 times that of ancient Athens. Thus there is roughly one voice for every 600, 000 Americans, hardly what one would call a democracy.
Can we even conceive of transposing the benefits of ancient Athenian democracy onto the United States of America, a country covering a landmass of approximately 3,500,000 million square miles, with a population of over 300,000,000? If we start on a small scale and use our imagination, perhaps we can.
If we return to the concept of “equal speech,” “political speech” or isēgoría, and apply it to our current situation in the year 2015, we realize that, in the United States, political speech is reserved for the governing oligarchy. The 435 men and women who sit on the floor of the House of Representatives have the right to speak. They can debate and legislate, set policy. 623 of us sit in the gallery observing and listening to what takes place on the floor. We cannot speak. We can only listen and observe. We are politically powerless. We lack political speech. We are “speechless.”
Well just suppose that the 623 of us in the gallery decide to descend on to the House floor and enter the debate. We now have a political voice. We are no longer “speechless.” There are now 1058 of us on the floor, instead of 435. 623, the majority of us, are free spirits. We didn’t get to the floor by soliciting millions from corporate donors to whom we then owe our allegiance. We are “walk-ons,” “free agents” with a political voice. We simply speak our minds and vote what makes sense to us based on our various backgrounds and interests. Such an assemblage is a lot more likely to speak for the common good than Lockheed Martin.
Let us imagine that as citizens with political speech, on the floor of the House of Representatives, in the year 2015, we have the same rights as the ancient Athenians gathered in the Pnyx, in the 5th century B. C. , more the 2,500 years ago. In ancient Athens anyone could declare before the assembly that a law was unconstitutional or at odds with the common good. If a majority agreed, the law was null and void and the proposer of said law was penalized This right was known as graphe paranomon. Now we have that right, those of us on the floor of the House of Representatives in the year 2015. Anyone one of us can declare a law unconstitutional or at odds with the common good. If a majority of us on the House floor agree, that law is null and void. We could start with the “Patriot Act” and then pass on to the “National Defense Authorization Act of 2014,” both of which violate the Constitution. Now they are out the door.
And further we have the right of eisangelia or denunciation. Anyone of us can charge a citizen with treason, the attempt to overthrow our democracy, or corruption, taking payment to make a proposal before the Assembly, in this case the House of Representatives. What is jubilantly known as “Obamacare” was proposed by the insurance companies who stand to gain the most from its enactment and dutifully inscribed by the congressmen who, undoubtedly were duly rewarded for their efforts. Once again, out the door, if a majority of us are convinced of the justice of the accusation. Anyone of us can charge an office holder with malfeasance or incompetence. If the majority agrees that individual is removed from office.
In ancient Athens there was a monthly inspection of those magistrates who were entrusted with public funds. Also, on a monthly basis, the assembly would call a vote on the magistrates. At this time any government official could receive a vote of no confidence and be dismissed. Such accusations were not uncommon. “Ancient democracy was as a rule characterized by frequency of political prosecutions, whereas oligarchies suffered from the opposite defect, that leaders hardly ever called to account at all.” (Hansen, 218) Wouldn’t it be nice if we in the 21st century had that same power? If only we could weed our garden, we could make room for healthy growth.
In ancient Athens, in the 5th century, B.C., there was no written constitution. There were no written laws. There was no codification of the laws. The ekklesia in session was the government. It evolved organically over the generations in response to changing conditions and the emotional and intellectual makeup of those who attended. In the United States we have a written Constitution. Fifty-five men — landed aristocrats, speculators, merchants, attorneys — now dead for more than two hundred years, determine the government we live under. In ancient Athens the living governed themselves.
In addition to participating in the debates occurring in the Assembly, the Athenian citizen might serve on the Council of five hundred (the boule). The boule was responsible for drafting preparatory legislation for consideration by the Assembly, overseeing the meetings of the Assembly, and in certain cases executing legislation as directed by the Assembly.
The members of the boule were selected by a lottery held each year among male citizens over thirty years of age. Fifty men would be chosen from each of the ten Athenian tribes, with service limited to twice in a lifetime. There were ten months in the Athenian calendar, and one of the ten tribes was in ascendancy each month.
The fifty citizen councilors (prytanies) of the dominant tribe each month served in an executive function over the boule and the ekklesia. From that group of fifty, one individual (the epistates) would be selected each day to preside over the boule and, if it met in session that day, the ekklesia. The epistates held the keys to the treasury and the seal to the city, and he welcomed foreign ambassadors. It has been calculated that one-quarter of all citizens must at one time in their lives have held the post, which could be held only once in a lifetime. Meetings of the boule might occur on as many as 260 days in the course of a year.
Suppose we wanted to set up a democracy in the United States. It would be easy enough to do so by simply multiplying sufficiently the number of assemblies. How does the number 18,000 sound? Sounds like a lot? That is the number of school districts in the United States. Each school district could have an assembly that debated and voted on national legislation and policy. Votes could be tabulated on a national basis and thus would the citizens govern themselves. Extrapolating somewhat to the larger scale, we could have a boule of 2,000 selected by lot from around the country. This council of 2,000 would set the agenda for the various local assemblies.
Let us imagine that the assemblies meet forty times a year as they did in Athens and that they are sitting three or four days a week. Let us imagine that some meetings are held in the evenings and over the weekends. Maybe 500 citizens would attend a given assembly, with different citizens in attendance from one session to the next based on interest and availability. If you do the arithmetic you will learn that on a given day 9,000,000 Americans are actively involved in governing themselves, determining how monies should be spent, whether or not to wage war or peace. That is democracy at work.
Yes, you might lose some television time but just think, you and your friends and neighbors would be running the show. You wouldn’t have to sit by, leading a life of quiet desperation, passively enduring the depredation of the economy, the ecology, foreign lands and cultures all to serve the predator class in control. Such participation would be uplifting and invigorating. Yes there would be the stress of disagreement and debate and division of opinion. But you would get better at expressing your thoughts and winning others to your side. And you, yourself, might grow and learn from what others have to say. You might find yourself with a sense of pride for being an American.
The third element of the #AthenianDemocracy — the Ekklesia and the boule are the first two — was the system of jury courts known as the dikasteria. Jurors were selected by lot from an annual pool of 6,000 citizens (600 from each of the ten tribes) over the age of thirty. There were both private suits and public suits. For private suits the minimum jury size was 201; it was increased to 401 if a sum of more than 1,000 drachmas was at issue.
For public suits there was a jury of 501. On occasion a jury of 1,001 or 1,501 would be selected. Rarely, the entire pool of 6,000 would be put on a case. No Athenian juror was ever subjected to compulsory empanelment, voir dire, or sequestration, nor was any magistrate empowered to decide what evidence the jury could or could not be allowed to see. It was forbidden by law to pay anyone to represent you in court.
Jurors could not be penalized for their vote—unless it could be shown that they had accepted bribes. But the practice of selecting juries randomly on the morning of the trial and the sheer size of the juries served to limit the effectiveness of bribery. The Athenian court system did not operate according to precedent. No jury was bound by the decisions of previous juries in previous cases. This is a striking difference between Athenian law and more familiar systems such as Roman law or English common law. The Athenian system of justice was consistent with the prevailing opposition to elitism and the oppressive effects of received wisdom in matters of justice. Each citizen used his own common sense to make judgments based on personal belief and prevailing mores.
Private cases were put forward by the litigants themselves, and single speeches on each side were timed by water clock. In a public suit the litigants each had three hours to speak. Much less time was allotted in private suits, the time proportional to the amount of money at stake. Justice was rapid, because a case could last no longer than one day. There were no lawyers. There were no judges, only juries of the litigants’ peers. This was amateur justice—perhaps the best kind.
There were about eleven hundred magistrates or administrators in Athens whose job it was to oversee the day-to-day responsibilities of a complex communal life. There was water supply and grain supply to attend to. There were building projects. There were issues of trade. There were religious festivals to organize and oversee. Of these eleven hundred administrators, all but one hundred were chosen by allotment. An individual would put his name forward to hold a certain office in the year prior to his desired tenure. He had to be at least thirty years of age, or in some cases forty. His name was chosen at random from the pool of nominees, and he held office for a year. Generals and those in charge of large sums of money were elected.
It was assumed that magistrates had no special expertise. The lack of expertise was mitigated by the fact that magistrates served as part of a panel overseeing a certain function, and that what one lacked in knowledge another might have. A magistrate could hold his position only once in a lifetime, another way of minimizing the amount of harm any individual could cause. As a further precaution, all magistrates were subject to a review beforehand that might disqualify them for office. Any citizen could challenge a magistrate for his conduct, leading to a trial that could result in his being removed from office and possibly penalized. Thus, accountability
to the citizenry was built into the system at the most fundamental level. Even Pericles, the most esteemed figure in Athenian life, could be chastised and fined for his conduct of the war with Sparta.
If we consider broadly the form of government in ancient Athens and its system of justice, one overriding dynamic becomes evident: fear of power, fear of the concentration of power, fear of the abuse of power. This was reflected in the use of large juries (thus making bribery and manipulation more difficult), the absence of lawyers, the absence of a police force, the wide use of arbitration, reliance on current values and common sense for passing judgment (rather than the intricacies of common law), the use of a citizen army rather than a standing professional army controlled by the state, and the use of sortition (lottery) rather than election as a means of choosing magistrates and members of the boule, brief tenure in office.
Ancient Athens was not a perfect government, but it was a functioning political democracy. The people of Attica governed themselves. The wealthiest aristocrat and the humblest artisan stood on equal footing in meetings of the Assembly, as participants in the Council, as jurors, and as magistrates. There were no representatives. There was no monarch. There were no oligarchs.
Athenians of all classes were the state. They debated on equal footing the issues of the day, passed laws, ran the city on a day-to-day basis, filled the juries, and held all magistrates and even generals accountable for their conduct. There was no privileged class safe from public scrutiny and accountability.
These were a dynamic and self-confident people. Their intellectual and artistic achievements provide the foundation for Western civilization. Basically, they invented democracy. They were our first and remain our enduring philosophers, many of whose ideas are as valid today as when they were uttered some twenty-five hundred years ago. Greek architecture inspires us still. The vibrancy and richness of Greek dramatic writing from this era have yet to be equaled.
It is highly unlikely that a different form of government could ever have produced such riches, certainly not the one proposed by Plato in his Republic or the one that existed in Sparta. It was the democratic governing process itself—the pride it inspired, the intellectual and oratorical skills it required—that produced a public capable of creating and appreciating such a rich cultural life. One can wonder what America might become under similar circumstances.
Recommended reading:
There are many excellent sources on the subject of ancient Athens. I recommend as a starting point: H.D.F. Kitto, “The Greeks;” R.K. Sinclair, “Democracy and Participation in Athens;” I. F. Stone, “The Trial of Socrates;” and Mogens Herman Hansen, “The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes.” Hansen’s is the definitive text. It is comprehensive. It is detailed. Its only drawback is that it covers 4th century Athens when Athenian society was depleted by the war with Sparta and democracy was in decline.
Arthur D. Robbins is the author of “Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained: The True Meaning of Democracy,” referred to by Ralph Nader as “An eye-opening, earth-shaking book . . . a fresh, torrential shower of revealing insights and vibrant lessons . . .” and the e-book based on Part II of “Paradise Lost” entitled, “Democracy Denied: The Untold Story.” Visit http://www.acropolis-newyork.com to learn more.
What would it be like if we really lived in a democracy? These days just about everybody seems to be enjoying the benefits democratic government, that is if you believe government propaganda and you are one of the credulous many who are eager for a sense of well being at any price. But what is usually called #democracy is in fact an oligarchy of elected representatives responsible to the business interests who bankrolled their campaign. If people were actually given the opportunity to choose democracy, they might do so, provided they understood what the word actually means. Our one uncontested example is #ancientAthens.
Ancient Athens was a citizen-state. It was the political center for the larger landmass known as Attica, a peninsula extending southward into the Aegean Sea. At 9,000-10000 square miles Attica is roughly the size of the state of Rhode Island. Attica’s population during the height of Athenian democracy in the fifth century B.C. was between 300,000-350,000. Of that number some 30,000-40,000, or about ten percent, were citizens. Only adult males over the age of eighteen years who served in the military qualified for citizenship. Women were denied political rights as were slaves, about 20,000 of them, and metics, or foreigners.
What made ancient Athens a citizen-state? It was self-governing. That is to say the citizens themselves ran the government on a day-to-day basis. The citizens—not their representatives— gathered in the Assembly at least once a month and more frequently as required. There, citizens debated and voted on the issues that affected their community and their nation as a whole. By a show of hands and sometimes by casting a black (no) or white (yes) ball into a clay jar, they voted to go to war or not, to receive ambassadors or not, to grant a certain individual citizenship or not.
Athenians voted on which projects to fund and which not to fund. They voted on laws regulating the exportation of grain, which was in short supply. They decided how much should be charged for leasing a temple’s land. They decided how many and who should be the envoys representing Athens in foreign lands. The week-by-week conduct of a war had to go before the Assembly week by week.
The Ekklesia (Assembly) met at the Pnyx, an amphitheater located about one half mile outside of Athens, itself. At the front end of the Pnyx was the bema, or stepping stone, where a citizen would rise to address the Assembly. As many as six thousand would be in attendance on a given day. The presiding officer would begin each session with the question, “Who wishes to speak?” Any one in attendance had the right to address the assembly.
The bema was the material embodiment of “equal speech” — isēgoría —i.e. the equal right of every Athenian citizen to debate matters of policy. Note the difference between “equal speech,” or “political speech,” the right to debate and legislate, and what today we call “free speech,” the prohibition against being denied the right to speak. We could be speaking on a street corner or marching in a protest. “Free speech” says we have the right to do that. It says the right cannot be taken away. “Free speech” has no particular context. We are granted the right to say what we want, provided, it turns out, we do not threaten the governing powers. “Free speech” is a civil right. It is not a political right. It does not give us the right to set national policy. “Equal speech” in ancient Athens did.
Haranguing some passerby to vote for a certain candidate is not political speech nor is voting in an election. “What about writing a letter to my congressman? Isn’t that political speech?” No. It is complaining or pleading. Most of the time it changes nothing. It has no real power. It is not constitutive. It does not have the power to bring something into existence. Only political speech does.
In 1789, the year the Constitution was ratified, the United States covered a landmass of over 500,000 square miles and had a population in excess of 3,000,000. As was the case in ancient Athens, women and slaves, about 200,000 were denied political rights. In the House of Representatives, made up of sixty-five members, thirty-three individuals would constitute a quorum. Of these, seventeen would constitute a majority, the sense of the House.
There were twenty-six members of the Senate, two for each state, of which fourteen would constitute a quorum, eight of whom would make a majority, or the sense of the Senate. Seventeen in the House plus eight in the Senate equals twenty-five. Thus it appears that the liberties, happiness, interests, and great concerns of the whole United States were dependent upon the integrity, virtue, wisdom, and knowledge of 25 or 26 men.
If one rounds off the numbers and does a comparison, ancient Athens with a population of 300,000, was governed by 30,000 men. The United States in 1790 with a population ten times that of ancient Athens or 3,000,000 was governed by 91 men. 30,000 vs. 91 describes the difference, numerically speaking, between a democracy and an oligarchy.
In the year 2015, combining the Senate and the House, there is a governing body comprised of 535 men and women for a country with a population in excess of 300,000, 000, or 10,000 times that of ancient Athens. Thus there is roughly one voice for every 600, 000 Americans, hardly what one would call a democracy.
Can we even conceive of transposing the benefits of ancient Athenian democracy onto the United States of America, a country covering a landmass of approximately 3,500,000 million square miles, with a population of over 300,000,000? If we start on a small scale and use our imagination, perhaps we can.
If we return to the concept of “equal speech,” “political speech” or isēgoría, and apply it to our current situation in the year 2015, we realize that, in the United States, political speech is reserved for the governing oligarchy. The 435 men and women who sit on the floor of the House of Representatives have the right to speak. They can debate and legislate, set policy. 623 of us sit in the gallery observing and listening to what takes place on the floor. We cannot speak. We can only listen and observe. We are politically powerless. We lack political speech. We are “speechless.”
Well just suppose that the 623 of us in the gallery decide to descend on to the House floor and enter the debate. We now have a political voice. We are no longer “speechless.” There are now 1058 of us on the floor, instead of 435. 623, the majority of us, are free spirits. We didn’t get to the floor by soliciting millions from corporate donors to whom we then owe our allegiance. We are “walk-ons,” “free agents” with a political voice. We simply speak our minds and vote what makes sense to us based on our various backgrounds and interests. Such an assemblage is a lot more likely to speak for the common good than Lockheed Martin.
Let us imagine that as citizens with political speech, on the floor of the House of Representatives, in the year 2015, we have the same rights as the ancient Athenians gathered in the Pnyx, in the 5th century B. C. , more the 2,500 years ago. In ancient Athens anyone could declare before the assembly that a law was unconstitutional or at odds with the common good. If a majority agreed, the law was null and void and the proposer of said law was penalized This right was known as graphe paranomon. Now we have that right, those of us on the floor of the House of Representatives in the year 2015. Anyone one of us can declare a law unconstitutional or at odds with the common good. If a majority of us on the House floor agree, that law is null and void. We could start with the “Patriot Act” and then pass on to the “National Defense Authorization Act of 2014,” both of which violate the Constitution. Now they are out the door.
And further we have the right of eisangelia or denunciation. Anyone of us can charge a citizen with treason, the attempt to overthrow our democracy, or corruption, taking payment to make a proposal before the Assembly, in this case the House of Representatives. What is jubilantly known as “Obamacare” was proposed by the insurance companies who stand to gain the most from its enactment and dutifully inscribed by the congressmen who, undoubtedly were duly rewarded for their efforts. Once again, out the door, if a majority of us are convinced of the justice of the accusation. Anyone of us can charge an office holder with malfeasance or incompetence. If the majority agrees that individual is removed from office.
In ancient Athens there was a monthly inspection of those magistrates who were entrusted with public funds. Also, on a monthly basis, the assembly would call a vote on the magistrates. At this time any government official could receive a vote of no confidence and be dismissed. Such accusations were not uncommon. “Ancient democracy was as a rule characterized by frequency of political prosecutions, whereas oligarchies suffered from the opposite defect, that leaders hardly ever called to account at all.” (Hansen, 218) Wouldn’t it be nice if we in the 21st century had that same power? If only we could weed our garden, we could make room for healthy growth.
In ancient Athens, in the 5th century, B.C., there was no written constitution. There were no written laws. There was no codification of the laws. The ekklesia in session was the government. It evolved organically over the generations in response to changing conditions and the emotional and intellectual makeup of those who attended. In the United States we have a written Constitution. Fifty-five men — landed aristocrats, speculators, merchants, attorneys — now dead for more than two hundred years, determine the government we live under. In ancient Athens the living governed themselves.
In addition to participating in the debates occurring in the Assembly, the Athenian citizen might serve on the Council of five hundred (the boule). The boule was responsible for drafting preparatory legislation for consideration by the Assembly, overseeing the meetings of the Assembly, and in certain cases executing legislation as directed by the Assembly.
The members of the boule were selected by a lottery held each year among male citizens over thirty years of age. Fifty men would be chosen from each of the ten Athenian tribes, with service limited to twice in a lifetime. There were ten months in the Athenian calendar, and one of the ten tribes was in ascendancy each month.
The fifty citizen councilors (prytanies) of the dominant tribe each month served in an executive function over the boule and the ekklesia. From that group of fifty, one individual (the epistates) would be selected each day to preside over the boule and, if it met in session that day, the ekklesia. The epistates held the keys to the treasury and the seal to the city, and he welcomed foreign ambassadors. It has been calculated that one-quarter of all citizens must at one time in their lives have held the post, which could be held only once in a lifetime. Meetings of the boule might occur on as many as 260 days in the course of a year.
Suppose we wanted to set up a democracy in the United States. It would be easy enough to do so by simply multiplying sufficiently the number of assemblies. How does the number 18,000 sound? Sounds like a lot? That is the number of school districts in the United States. Each school district could have an assembly that debated and voted on national legislation and policy. Votes could be tabulated on a national basis and thus would the citizens govern themselves. Extrapolating somewhat to the larger scale, we could have a boule of 2,000 selected by lot from around the country. This council of 2,000 would set the agenda for the various local assemblies.
Let us imagine that the assemblies meet forty times a year as they did in Athens and that they are sitting three or four days a week. Let us imagine that some meetings are held in the evenings and over the weekends. Maybe 500 citizens would attend a given assembly, with different citizens in attendance from one session to the next based on interest and availability. If you do the arithmetic you will learn that on a given day 9,000,000 Americans are actively involved in governing themselves, determining how monies should be spent, whether or not to wage war or peace. That is democracy at work.
Yes, you might lose some television time but just think, you and your friends and neighbors would be running the show. You wouldn’t have to sit by, leading a life of quiet desperation, passively enduring the depredation of the economy, the ecology, foreign lands and cultures all to serve the predator class in control. Such participation would be uplifting and invigorating. Yes there would be the stress of disagreement and debate and division of opinion. But you would get better at expressing your thoughts and winning others to your side. And you, yourself, might grow and learn from what others have to say. You might find yourself with a sense of pride for being an American.
The third element of the #AthenianDemocracy — the Ekklesia and the boule are the first two — was the system of jury courts known as the dikasteria. Jurors were selected by lot from an annual pool of 6,000 citizens (600 from each of the ten tribes) over the age of thirty. There were both private suits and public suits. For private suits the minimum jury size was 201; it was increased to 401 if a sum of more than 1,000 drachmas was at issue.
For public suits there was a jury of 501. On occasion a jury of 1,001 or 1,501 would be selected. Rarely, the entire pool of 6,000 would be put on a case. No Athenian juror was ever subjected to compulsory empanelment, voir dire, or sequestration, nor was any magistrate empowered to decide what evidence the jury could or could not be allowed to see. It was forbidden by law to pay anyone to represent you in court.
Jurors could not be penalized for their vote—unless it could be shown that they had accepted bribes. But the practice of selecting juries randomly on the morning of the trial and the sheer size of the juries served to limit the effectiveness of bribery. The Athenian court system did not operate according to precedent. No jury was bound by the decisions of previous juries in previous cases. This is a striking difference between Athenian law and more familiar systems such as Roman law or English common law. The Athenian system of justice was consistent with the prevailing opposition to elitism and the oppressive effects of received wisdom in matters of justice. Each citizen used his own common sense to make judgments based on personal belief and prevailing mores.
Private cases were put forward by the litigants themselves, and single speeches on each side were timed by water clock. In a public suit the litigants each had three hours to speak. Much less time was allotted in private suits, the time proportional to the amount of money at stake. Justice was rapid, because a case could last no longer than one day. There were no lawyers. There were no judges, only juries of the litigants’ peers. This was amateur justice—perhaps the best kind.
There were about eleven hundred magistrates or administrators in Athens whose job it was to oversee the day-to-day responsibilities of a complex communal life. There was water supply and grain supply to attend to. There were building projects. There were issues of trade. There were religious festivals to organize and oversee. Of these eleven hundred administrators, all but one hundred were chosen by allotment. An individual would put his name forward to hold a certain office in the year prior to his desired tenure. He had to be at least thirty years of age, or in some cases forty. His name was chosen at random from the pool of nominees, and he held office for a year. Generals and those in charge of large sums of money were elected.
It was assumed that magistrates had no special expertise. The lack of expertise was mitigated by the fact that magistrates served as part of a panel overseeing a certain function, and that what one lacked in knowledge another might have. A magistrate could hold his position only once in a lifetime, another way of minimizing the amount of harm any individual could cause. As a further precaution, all magistrates were subject to a review beforehand that might disqualify them for office. Any citizen could challenge a magistrate for his conduct, leading to a trial that could result in his being removed from office and possibly penalized. Thus, accountability
to the citizenry was built into the system at the most fundamental level. Even Pericles, the most esteemed figure in Athenian life, could be chastised and fined for his conduct of the war with Sparta.
If we consider broadly the form of government in ancient Athens and its system of justice, one overriding dynamic becomes evident: fear of power, fear of the concentration of power, fear of the abuse of power. This was reflected in the use of large juries (thus making bribery and manipulation more difficult), the absence of lawyers, the absence of a police force, the wide use of arbitration, reliance on current values and common sense for passing judgment (rather than the intricacies of common law), the use of a citizen army rather than a standing professional army controlled by the state, and the use of sortition (lottery) rather than election as a means of choosing magistrates and members of the boule, brief tenure in office.
Ancient Athens was not a perfect government, but it was a functioning political democracy. The people of Attica governed themselves. The wealthiest aristocrat and the humblest artisan stood on equal footing in meetings of the Assembly, as participants in the Council, as jurors, and as magistrates. There were no representatives. There was no monarch. There were no oligarchs.
Athenians of all classes were the state. They debated on equal footing the issues of the day, passed laws, ran the city on a day-to-day basis, filled the juries, and held all magistrates and even generals accountable for their conduct. There was no privileged class safe from public scrutiny and accountability.
These were a dynamic and self-confident people. Their intellectual and artistic achievements provide the foundation for Western civilization. Basically, they invented democracy. They were our first and remain our enduring philosophers, many of whose ideas are as valid today as when they were uttered some twenty-five hundred years ago. Greek architecture inspires us still. The vibrancy and richness of Greek dramatic writing from this era have yet to be equaled.
It is highly unlikely that a different form of government could ever have produced such riches, certainly not the one proposed by Plato in his Republic or the one that existed in Sparta. It was the democratic governing process itself—the pride it inspired, the intellectual and oratorical skills it required—that produced a public capable of creating and appreciating such a rich cultural life. One can wonder what America might become under similar circumstances.
Recommended reading:
There are many excellent sources on the subject of ancient Athens. I recommend as a starting point: H.D.F. Kitto, “The Greeks;” R.K. Sinclair, “Democracy and Participation in Athens;” I. F. Stone, “The Trial of Socrates;” and Mogens Herman Hansen, “The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes.” Hansen’s is the definitive text. It is comprehensive. It is detailed. Its only drawback is that it covers 4th century Athens when Athenian society was depleted by the war with Sparta and democracy was in decline.
Arthur D. Robbins is the author of “Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained: The True Meaning of Democracy,” referred to by Ralph Nader as “An eye-opening, earth-shaking book . . . a fresh, torrential shower of revealing insights and vibrant lessons . . .” and the e-book based on Part II of “Paradise Lost” entitled, “Democracy Denied: The Untold Story.” Visit http://www.acropolis-newyork.com to learn more.
December 20, 2014
Which Democracy?
Which Democracy?
By Arthur D. Robbins
Which #Democracy? There are so many to choose from: Rhetorical Democracy (R.D.), Civic Democracy (C.D.), Economic Democracy (E.D.), Political Democracy (P.D.), Social Democracy (S.D.). Let’s start with rhetorical democracy.
It was only after the drafting of the U.S. Constitution that the word “democracy” entered the political dialogue. Once it came, it would not leave. For two centuries since, anyone who wishes to be elected to higher office in America must proclaim himself a friend of democracy. And so Rhetorical Democracy (R.D.) was born, the form of democracy that prevails in the United States as of this writing.
This particular kind of democracy has no form, has no program, has no content. It stands for nothing. It is a sentiment, akin to a belief in God. It is like a potion or incantation that when uttered will magically cure what is ill.
Rhetorical democracy came into play around 1800, when politicians belonging to the “Quid” party were seeking to promote a program of economic development but could not do so without winning over those who were agitating in favor of democracy. Their sleight of hand was to make it appear as if the words “republic” and “democracy” were one and the same and that a “republican” form of government, in which a relative handful of men determine economic policy on the state and national level, is, in fact, democratic.
The Quids established a political tradition in which personal appearance and manner are all that matters, in which discussion of specific issues and policies that might be of concern to voters is explicitly eliminated from the debate, and in which attacks on one’s opponent are the most efficient way of making oneself visible and electable. What the Quids were “offering” was “equal opportunity” to succeed economically, which is about as good an offer as saying that anyone in the United States has an “equal opportunity” to run a four-minute mile—true but meaningless, since most of us lack the means for doing so.
Democracy became a “cultural style.” A “true” democratic leader will talk and act in a folksy, anti-elitist way, creating an atmosphere of wellbeing but standing for nothing in particular that he is willing to openly advocate that is truly democratic. He will speak of “prosperity” and “liberty” but will offer no concrete proposals. This is what rhetorical democracy is all about—appearance, sleight of hand, empty promises. It is one of the reasons democracy —“a form of government whose citizens have complete freedom to choose which candidate they prefer to mess things up for them,” “a form of government in which the people often vote for someone different but seldom get something different” — has such bad standing and is so often the object of ridicule.
Sometime in the eighteenth century, in reaction to the abuses of power exercised by the church and hereditary monarchs, democracy took on another meaning. It became equated with freedom—freedom from arbitrary constraint. Citizens wished to be able to move about without fear of being imprisoned for expressing their opposition to their government. They wanted to be able to choose their own religion without fear of prosecution for their beliefs. They wanted to be able to publish their thoughts, free of censorship. They wanted to own property without having to worry about its being confiscated.
These and like concerns have imbued the word “democracy” with a great deal of passion and allegiance for many different people from around the world over the past two hundred years. But this version is not the meaning of the word in its origins. This kind of democracy is not a form of government. It is a negative concept in that it incorporates the wish to be free from something, to be left alone, to not be bothered. I refer to such democracy as civic democracy (C.D.). Though civic democracy is not a form of government, it might well be argued that political democracy without civic democracy will not long endure.
In the nineteenth century, largely as a consequence of the exploitation and economic inequalities brought on by the Industrial Revolution, the word “democracy” took on yet another meaning. If we are, all of us, to be free from want, to be able to lead comfortable and fulfilling lives, we need to live in a society where there is a relatively equal distribution of wealth, a society that for the most part does not know the meaning of the word “class.” Such concerns usually fall under the heading of social democracy (S.D.). Social democracy concerns itself with the distribution of wealth, political democracy with the distribution of power.
Social democracy has various shades of meaning depending on the context. In America, it means “equality” in a very general, social sense. “You are no better than I. You are not my superior. I am as good as you. We are all equals.” This kind of sentiment is in direct response to the European tradition of class differences, which Americans were determined to eliminate from their culture. In fact, there were economic and social differences in many sections of early America, differences that have become only more pronounced with the passing of the years. However, the belief, not the fact, of social equality prevails as a founding and sustaining myth and in many ways is a key belief in holding American society together.
In Europe, social democracy has more a explicit meaning. It means some form of government, not necessarily democratic, in which the government makes fundamental economic decisions and has direct control of some of the primary resources, with the ultimate purpose of establishing, in fact, the very social and economic equality that exists only as belief in the United States. This meaning of the word “democracy” is inconsistent with the original meaning of the word for two reasons.
In its original meaning, democracy pertains to a form of government in which the citizens govern themselves, not an economic program. And, secondly, any form of government in which a small number of governors dictate economic and social policy is clearly not a democracy.
There are those who would argue that political democracy (P.D.) is impossible without social democracy (S.D.). I would argue the contrary—that, based on examples drawn from history and from political theory, political democracy (P.D.) cannot exist with social democracy (S.D.), where there is an oligarchic elite determining what is best for everyone else.
When local communities succeed in gaining control of local resources, establishing economic priorities and determining the way monies are spent, this is economic democracy (E.D.). Participatory budgeting is an excellent example. It began in Porto Allegre, Brazil and has since found its way to communities around the world. Monies are passed along to the community by city government. The citizenry themselves decide how that money is going to be allocated. Such procedures have been in place in Chicago and in New York City for the past several years. Millions of dollars have been spent in accordance with the wishes of those who will share in the benefits.
As people become empowered and educated on the subject of government, self-governance is liable to spread to higher levels and become more all encompassing. However, as long as it remains only a local phenomenon, as long as it is dependent on the reigning oligarchy for its source of funds, it will not alter the existing power dynamics. Nor will it mitigate the horrors and waste of wars of aggression.
Political democracy (P.D.) establishes political equality. Power is distributed evenly throughout the body politic. Everyone has equal say as to how monies are spent on the national level, as to whether or not the country should go to war. Issues are debated in thousands of local assemblies. Votes are taken and counted nationally. Legislation is passed. Policy is set. Budget priorities are established. Everyone has an equal say.
Such self-governance is synonymous with self-development. We are emotional adults only once we have the opportunity for genuine political participation. We become whole as human beings. We no longer live under the shadow of the government, a government that is beyond our control, a government that is indifferent to our welfare. In a citizen-state, individual and collective needs merge.
As the current oligarchic form of government unravels, as local communities start taking the initiative where national government is found wanting, political democracy is the next logical step. It is not sudden. Nor is it violent. It takes its time. It includes all of us. We all lead and we all follow. Such a government is not one and the same for all time. It is constantly changing in response to changing conditions. But its primary purpose remains the same: to serve the common good.
Arthur D. Robbins is the author of, Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained: The True Meaning of Democracy, referred to by Ralph Nader as, “An eye- opening, earth-shaking book . . . a fresh, torrential shower of revealing insights and vibrant lessons . . .” and the recently released e-book based on Part II of Paradise Lost entitled, Democracy Denied: The Untold Story. To learn more visit acropolis-newyork.com
By Arthur D. Robbins
Which #Democracy? There are so many to choose from: Rhetorical Democracy (R.D.), Civic Democracy (C.D.), Economic Democracy (E.D.), Political Democracy (P.D.), Social Democracy (S.D.). Let’s start with rhetorical democracy.
It was only after the drafting of the U.S. Constitution that the word “democracy” entered the political dialogue. Once it came, it would not leave. For two centuries since, anyone who wishes to be elected to higher office in America must proclaim himself a friend of democracy. And so Rhetorical Democracy (R.D.) was born, the form of democracy that prevails in the United States as of this writing.
This particular kind of democracy has no form, has no program, has no content. It stands for nothing. It is a sentiment, akin to a belief in God. It is like a potion or incantation that when uttered will magically cure what is ill.
Rhetorical democracy came into play around 1800, when politicians belonging to the “Quid” party were seeking to promote a program of economic development but could not do so without winning over those who were agitating in favor of democracy. Their sleight of hand was to make it appear as if the words “republic” and “democracy” were one and the same and that a “republican” form of government, in which a relative handful of men determine economic policy on the state and national level, is, in fact, democratic.
The Quids established a political tradition in which personal appearance and manner are all that matters, in which discussion of specific issues and policies that might be of concern to voters is explicitly eliminated from the debate, and in which attacks on one’s opponent are the most efficient way of making oneself visible and electable. What the Quids were “offering” was “equal opportunity” to succeed economically, which is about as good an offer as saying that anyone in the United States has an “equal opportunity” to run a four-minute mile—true but meaningless, since most of us lack the means for doing so.
Democracy became a “cultural style.” A “true” democratic leader will talk and act in a folksy, anti-elitist way, creating an atmosphere of wellbeing but standing for nothing in particular that he is willing to openly advocate that is truly democratic. He will speak of “prosperity” and “liberty” but will offer no concrete proposals. This is what rhetorical democracy is all about—appearance, sleight of hand, empty promises. It is one of the reasons democracy —“a form of government whose citizens have complete freedom to choose which candidate they prefer to mess things up for them,” “a form of government in which the people often vote for someone different but seldom get something different” — has such bad standing and is so often the object of ridicule.
Sometime in the eighteenth century, in reaction to the abuses of power exercised by the church and hereditary monarchs, democracy took on another meaning. It became equated with freedom—freedom from arbitrary constraint. Citizens wished to be able to move about without fear of being imprisoned for expressing their opposition to their government. They wanted to be able to choose their own religion without fear of prosecution for their beliefs. They wanted to be able to publish their thoughts, free of censorship. They wanted to own property without having to worry about its being confiscated.
These and like concerns have imbued the word “democracy” with a great deal of passion and allegiance for many different people from around the world over the past two hundred years. But this version is not the meaning of the word in its origins. This kind of democracy is not a form of government. It is a negative concept in that it incorporates the wish to be free from something, to be left alone, to not be bothered. I refer to such democracy as civic democracy (C.D.). Though civic democracy is not a form of government, it might well be argued that political democracy without civic democracy will not long endure.
In the nineteenth century, largely as a consequence of the exploitation and economic inequalities brought on by the Industrial Revolution, the word “democracy” took on yet another meaning. If we are, all of us, to be free from want, to be able to lead comfortable and fulfilling lives, we need to live in a society where there is a relatively equal distribution of wealth, a society that for the most part does not know the meaning of the word “class.” Such concerns usually fall under the heading of social democracy (S.D.). Social democracy concerns itself with the distribution of wealth, political democracy with the distribution of power.
Social democracy has various shades of meaning depending on the context. In America, it means “equality” in a very general, social sense. “You are no better than I. You are not my superior. I am as good as you. We are all equals.” This kind of sentiment is in direct response to the European tradition of class differences, which Americans were determined to eliminate from their culture. In fact, there were economic and social differences in many sections of early America, differences that have become only more pronounced with the passing of the years. However, the belief, not the fact, of social equality prevails as a founding and sustaining myth and in many ways is a key belief in holding American society together.
In Europe, social democracy has more a explicit meaning. It means some form of government, not necessarily democratic, in which the government makes fundamental economic decisions and has direct control of some of the primary resources, with the ultimate purpose of establishing, in fact, the very social and economic equality that exists only as belief in the United States. This meaning of the word “democracy” is inconsistent with the original meaning of the word for two reasons.
In its original meaning, democracy pertains to a form of government in which the citizens govern themselves, not an economic program. And, secondly, any form of government in which a small number of governors dictate economic and social policy is clearly not a democracy.
There are those who would argue that political democracy (P.D.) is impossible without social democracy (S.D.). I would argue the contrary—that, based on examples drawn from history and from political theory, political democracy (P.D.) cannot exist with social democracy (S.D.), where there is an oligarchic elite determining what is best for everyone else.
When local communities succeed in gaining control of local resources, establishing economic priorities and determining the way monies are spent, this is economic democracy (E.D.). Participatory budgeting is an excellent example. It began in Porto Allegre, Brazil and has since found its way to communities around the world. Monies are passed along to the community by city government. The citizenry themselves decide how that money is going to be allocated. Such procedures have been in place in Chicago and in New York City for the past several years. Millions of dollars have been spent in accordance with the wishes of those who will share in the benefits.
As people become empowered and educated on the subject of government, self-governance is liable to spread to higher levels and become more all encompassing. However, as long as it remains only a local phenomenon, as long as it is dependent on the reigning oligarchy for its source of funds, it will not alter the existing power dynamics. Nor will it mitigate the horrors and waste of wars of aggression.
Political democracy (P.D.) establishes political equality. Power is distributed evenly throughout the body politic. Everyone has equal say as to how monies are spent on the national level, as to whether or not the country should go to war. Issues are debated in thousands of local assemblies. Votes are taken and counted nationally. Legislation is passed. Policy is set. Budget priorities are established. Everyone has an equal say.
Such self-governance is synonymous with self-development. We are emotional adults only once we have the opportunity for genuine political participation. We become whole as human beings. We no longer live under the shadow of the government, a government that is beyond our control, a government that is indifferent to our welfare. In a citizen-state, individual and collective needs merge.
As the current oligarchic form of government unravels, as local communities start taking the initiative where national government is found wanting, political democracy is the next logical step. It is not sudden. Nor is it violent. It takes its time. It includes all of us. We all lead and we all follow. Such a government is not one and the same for all time. It is constantly changing in response to changing conditions. But its primary purpose remains the same: to serve the common good.
Arthur D. Robbins is the author of, Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained: The True Meaning of Democracy, referred to by Ralph Nader as, “An eye- opening, earth-shaking book . . . a fresh, torrential shower of revealing insights and vibrant lessons . . .” and the recently released e-book based on Part II of Paradise Lost entitled, Democracy Denied: The Untold Story. To learn more visit acropolis-newyork.com
December 6, 2014
"DEMOCRACY DENIED" Now Available At Amazon
"Democracy Denied: The Untold Story" is a history of democracy in the United States prior to the signing of the Constitution. It blows the whistle on two hundred years of myth and mystification.
Was there a cabal? Was there a coup? If so, why? Read this democracy thriller and find out.
Was there a cabal? Was there a coup? If so, why? Read this democracy thriller and find out.
November 17, 2014
In Love With Democracy
In Love With #Democracy
by Arthur D. Robbins
Democracy, like love, is a word oft used and little understood. We have a vague sense of what love "means." We tend to apply the word indiscriminately, based on a deep need to be loved by the people who are important to us.
We like to see the word in print. We feel warm and safe when we hear it said aloud.When we are "in love" our vision is hazy. Our judgment is weak. We tend to believe what we want to believe and shunt aside any indication that what we believe may not be true.
Like love, democracy makes us feel good, feel safe and secure. It supplies us with the hope and the belief that we, and our brothers and sisters everywhere, can realize our potential to the fullest.
When we live in a democracy we can trust our government to act in our best interests because we believe we are the government. When we are told we live in a democracy we believe so because we want to.
It is disturbing to learn that in fact our government was not set up to be a democracy but an oligarchy. To understand why this is true one needs to recognize that government is a numbers game, that is to say that the number of people who rule determine the form and structure of government.
When one person rules, the government is a monarchy or autocracy. When a few people rule that government is known as an oligarchy or aristocracy. When all the citizens govern, the government is a democracy.
"But," you say, "we have elections. That is what makes us a democracy." I reply that government is what we have the day after elections.
For example, in 1804, Napoleon held a plebiscite, that is to say an election, so the French people could decide if they wanted him to be emperor for life. The election was held and Napoleon got the results he was looking for. Let us imagine that the election was scrupulously fair, that all those who could vote, did vote, that the votes were accurately counted and that the decision for Napoleon to be emperor for life was unanimous. When the French awoke the next morning, they were living under a monarchy.
Any time there is an election and the many vote, the outcome will either be a monarchy or an oligarchy. In the Middle Ages it was common to vote in a king. In the modern age, where the many choose a few to represent them, the outcome is oligarchy.
The United States has a population in excess of 300 million. In the House of Representatives there sit 435 men and women who speak for them. Let's round it up to 500. Thus it is that 600 thousand people have one voice speaking for their many, diverse and often conflicting interests. How can one possibly call that democratic?
Democracy is a word of Greek origin. Demos means people. Kratos means power. Democracy means people power, a form of government in which the citizens govern themselves. There is no one to speak for them. They speak for themselves.
Obviously, this is not the case in the United States or the other alleged “Western Democracies.”
It is often argued that democracy is suited to small city-states and that it is too cumbersome for today’s nation-state. The simple and obvious answer is to break the large nation-state into small, manageable units, establish thousands of local assemblies that debate the issues and then collect the votes nationwide.
I suspect that though democracy is feasible it would have few supporters if people understood the true meaning of the word. There is great fear of “mobocracy.” The masses will take over and crush us. It is safe to leave things as they are. Those in charge know what they are doing. We don’t. Let’s leave the business of government to the professionals.
What if those in charge don’t know what they are doing. Then what? Perhaps we need to come up with an alternative. But if we choose to embrace the current system at least we should start calling it by its proper name, oligarchy. There is good reason to be accurate in choosing one’s terms when government is the subject matter. A lot hangs in the balance.
Yet just about every American, regardless of race, color, creed, sexual and political preference seems to be in the thrall of “democracy,” a phantom, a dream, a wish, definitely not a reality. This loyalty to a myth is especially dangerous when some of the most enlightened, humane and articulate amongst us, some of our most prominent and highly regarded are infected.
Bill Moyers has been a journalist, radio and TV commentator, an outspoken critic of the status quo for decades. He is a man of courage and compassion. And yet, with the best of intentions, he is feeding us to the wolves. He is promoting the myth that elections are democracy, a myth that disempowers us and numbs our political sensibilities.
In an article entitled, “Don’t let them silence you: Vote, dammit” in which we are cajoled to vote, to exercise our “solemn right,” Mr. Moyers excoriates those who are engaged in a “nationwide effort to suppress the vote.”
These are Republicans — “the right” — who want “to make it hard for minorities, poor folks, and students, among others, to participate in democracy’s most cherished act.” Various state laws have been passed making it harder for voters to register and vote, selectively privileging those who will support the Republican agenda.
Mr. Moyers is quite right. These laws are unjust and biased. And yes they have as their sole purpose the disenfranchisement of those who are a threat to a particular political faction. “And you wonder why so many feel disconnected and disaffected?” asks Mr. Moyers rhetorically.
There is another possible explanation. Perhaps Americans are fed up with being lied to and manipulated, being the victims of the very system they are being asked to endorse by their participation. Maybe they have had enough.
And exactly who are the “good” guys and who are the “bad” guys, and how can one tell them a part? And isn’t foolish, insulting and dangerous to cajole us to vote in elections when it takes $60 million to become senator and more than a billion to become President and the real outcome represents a threat to the very survival of the planet and the species that inhabit it, the human included?
Clearly the people who run the show — the banksters, the oil magnates, the captains of the war industry, those who profit from flu scares, vaccines and etc. — have no purpose in mind other than the acquisition of ever greater wealth and power at the expense of the rest of us. The current President has done nothing to reverse the criminal behavior of his predecessor and in fact has probably outdone him. So why does it matter whom we vote for or if we vote at all?
George W. Bush certainly did his best to advance the cause of Fascism, starting with the Patriot Act of 2001, which allows for the indefinite detention, without trial of those foreigners deemed to be war combatants. Not to be outdone, President Barack Obama, flying the “liberal” flag, is right behind him with his “Defense Authorization Act of 2012,” this time casting a wider net that actually ensnares Americans as well.
President Barack Obama has added two countries to the list of those invaded by the U.S. of A. in the 21st century— Libya and Syria — and has decided to re-invade Iraq, a country he had promised to evacuate. The prison at Guantanamo continues to provide a home for innocent victims of America’s righteous war on “terrorism.”
And President Barack Obama has his very own hit list of those deemed unfit to live. Drones, remotely controlled by operators stationed thousands of miles away, carefully select their “targets” and with surgically precision excise the offending tissue. Every so often a small child, mother, grandparent is taken out by mistake: collateral damage.
And we are being asked to validate and prop up this lethally corrupt system by participating in elections, which under the best of circumstances will only serve to perpetuate the oligarchic form of government they are designed to serve.
So Mr. Moyers, I beg to differ, I think that instead of spending our time debating elections and the merits of the different candidates, waiting out in the cold, at times for hours, after a long day at work, to engage in an act that is futile at best, we should get together to talk about building the foundation for a new form of government, a government that is responsive to the needs of the citizenry, a government that has its basis in social justice because it takes its power from all of us. We should come to accept the fact that we do not now and never have lived in a democracy.
The word “democracy,” like the word “love,” soothes, blinds, hypnotizes us. Under its spell we become passive, quiescent, thoughtless. Were we to wake up to oligarchy, we would be more watchful, less trusting and possibly more motivated to reform a government that clearly was out of control. It is but a small step to call something by its proper name, but in this case the benefits for humanity could be considerable.
Arthur D. Robbins is the author of “Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained: The True Meaning of Democracy,” referred to by Ralph Nader as “An eye-opening, earth-shaking book . . . a fresh, torrential shower of revealing insights and vibrant lessons . . .” and the soon to be released e-book based on Part II of “Paradise Lost” entitled, “Democracy Denied: The Untold Story.” Visit acropolis-newyork.com to learn more.
by Arthur D. Robbins
Democracy, like love, is a word oft used and little understood. We have a vague sense of what love "means." We tend to apply the word indiscriminately, based on a deep need to be loved by the people who are important to us.
We like to see the word in print. We feel warm and safe when we hear it said aloud.When we are "in love" our vision is hazy. Our judgment is weak. We tend to believe what we want to believe and shunt aside any indication that what we believe may not be true.
Like love, democracy makes us feel good, feel safe and secure. It supplies us with the hope and the belief that we, and our brothers and sisters everywhere, can realize our potential to the fullest.
When we live in a democracy we can trust our government to act in our best interests because we believe we are the government. When we are told we live in a democracy we believe so because we want to.
It is disturbing to learn that in fact our government was not set up to be a democracy but an oligarchy. To understand why this is true one needs to recognize that government is a numbers game, that is to say that the number of people who rule determine the form and structure of government.
When one person rules, the government is a monarchy or autocracy. When a few people rule that government is known as an oligarchy or aristocracy. When all the citizens govern, the government is a democracy.
"But," you say, "we have elections. That is what makes us a democracy." I reply that government is what we have the day after elections.
For example, in 1804, Napoleon held a plebiscite, that is to say an election, so the French people could decide if they wanted him to be emperor for life. The election was held and Napoleon got the results he was looking for. Let us imagine that the election was scrupulously fair, that all those who could vote, did vote, that the votes were accurately counted and that the decision for Napoleon to be emperor for life was unanimous. When the French awoke the next morning, they were living under a monarchy.
Any time there is an election and the many vote, the outcome will either be a monarchy or an oligarchy. In the Middle Ages it was common to vote in a king. In the modern age, where the many choose a few to represent them, the outcome is oligarchy.
The United States has a population in excess of 300 million. In the House of Representatives there sit 435 men and women who speak for them. Let's round it up to 500. Thus it is that 600 thousand people have one voice speaking for their many, diverse and often conflicting interests. How can one possibly call that democratic?
Democracy is a word of Greek origin. Demos means people. Kratos means power. Democracy means people power, a form of government in which the citizens govern themselves. There is no one to speak for them. They speak for themselves.
Obviously, this is not the case in the United States or the other alleged “Western Democracies.”
It is often argued that democracy is suited to small city-states and that it is too cumbersome for today’s nation-state. The simple and obvious answer is to break the large nation-state into small, manageable units, establish thousands of local assemblies that debate the issues and then collect the votes nationwide.
I suspect that though democracy is feasible it would have few supporters if people understood the true meaning of the word. There is great fear of “mobocracy.” The masses will take over and crush us. It is safe to leave things as they are. Those in charge know what they are doing. We don’t. Let’s leave the business of government to the professionals.
What if those in charge don’t know what they are doing. Then what? Perhaps we need to come up with an alternative. But if we choose to embrace the current system at least we should start calling it by its proper name, oligarchy. There is good reason to be accurate in choosing one’s terms when government is the subject matter. A lot hangs in the balance.
Yet just about every American, regardless of race, color, creed, sexual and political preference seems to be in the thrall of “democracy,” a phantom, a dream, a wish, definitely not a reality. This loyalty to a myth is especially dangerous when some of the most enlightened, humane and articulate amongst us, some of our most prominent and highly regarded are infected.
Bill Moyers has been a journalist, radio and TV commentator, an outspoken critic of the status quo for decades. He is a man of courage and compassion. And yet, with the best of intentions, he is feeding us to the wolves. He is promoting the myth that elections are democracy, a myth that disempowers us and numbs our political sensibilities.
In an article entitled, “Don’t let them silence you: Vote, dammit” in which we are cajoled to vote, to exercise our “solemn right,” Mr. Moyers excoriates those who are engaged in a “nationwide effort to suppress the vote.”
These are Republicans — “the right” — who want “to make it hard for minorities, poor folks, and students, among others, to participate in democracy’s most cherished act.” Various state laws have been passed making it harder for voters to register and vote, selectively privileging those who will support the Republican agenda.
Mr. Moyers is quite right. These laws are unjust and biased. And yes they have as their sole purpose the disenfranchisement of those who are a threat to a particular political faction. “And you wonder why so many feel disconnected and disaffected?” asks Mr. Moyers rhetorically.
There is another possible explanation. Perhaps Americans are fed up with being lied to and manipulated, being the victims of the very system they are being asked to endorse by their participation. Maybe they have had enough.
And exactly who are the “good” guys and who are the “bad” guys, and how can one tell them a part? And isn’t foolish, insulting and dangerous to cajole us to vote in elections when it takes $60 million to become senator and more than a billion to become President and the real outcome represents a threat to the very survival of the planet and the species that inhabit it, the human included?
Clearly the people who run the show — the banksters, the oil magnates, the captains of the war industry, those who profit from flu scares, vaccines and etc. — have no purpose in mind other than the acquisition of ever greater wealth and power at the expense of the rest of us. The current President has done nothing to reverse the criminal behavior of his predecessor and in fact has probably outdone him. So why does it matter whom we vote for or if we vote at all?
George W. Bush certainly did his best to advance the cause of Fascism, starting with the Patriot Act of 2001, which allows for the indefinite detention, without trial of those foreigners deemed to be war combatants. Not to be outdone, President Barack Obama, flying the “liberal” flag, is right behind him with his “Defense Authorization Act of 2012,” this time casting a wider net that actually ensnares Americans as well.
President Barack Obama has added two countries to the list of those invaded by the U.S. of A. in the 21st century— Libya and Syria — and has decided to re-invade Iraq, a country he had promised to evacuate. The prison at Guantanamo continues to provide a home for innocent victims of America’s righteous war on “terrorism.”
And President Barack Obama has his very own hit list of those deemed unfit to live. Drones, remotely controlled by operators stationed thousands of miles away, carefully select their “targets” and with surgically precision excise the offending tissue. Every so often a small child, mother, grandparent is taken out by mistake: collateral damage.
And we are being asked to validate and prop up this lethally corrupt system by participating in elections, which under the best of circumstances will only serve to perpetuate the oligarchic form of government they are designed to serve.
So Mr. Moyers, I beg to differ, I think that instead of spending our time debating elections and the merits of the different candidates, waiting out in the cold, at times for hours, after a long day at work, to engage in an act that is futile at best, we should get together to talk about building the foundation for a new form of government, a government that is responsive to the needs of the citizenry, a government that has its basis in social justice because it takes its power from all of us. We should come to accept the fact that we do not now and never have lived in a democracy.
The word “democracy,” like the word “love,” soothes, blinds, hypnotizes us. Under its spell we become passive, quiescent, thoughtless. Were we to wake up to oligarchy, we would be more watchful, less trusting and possibly more motivated to reform a government that clearly was out of control. It is but a small step to call something by its proper name, but in this case the benefits for humanity could be considerable.
Arthur D. Robbins is the author of “Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained: The True Meaning of Democracy,” referred to by Ralph Nader as “An eye-opening, earth-shaking book . . . a fresh, torrential shower of revealing insights and vibrant lessons . . .” and the soon to be released e-book based on Part II of “Paradise Lost” entitled, “Democracy Denied: The Untold Story.” Visit acropolis-newyork.com to learn more.
November 27, 2013
Representative Democracy: An Oxymoron
What is there about democracy that makes it so special, so important, so universally desired? The answer to this question is multi-faceted and complex, complex because most people who use the word “democracy” are actually referring to existing constitutional oligarchies.
#RepresentativeDemocracy is an oxymoron. The two words “representative” and “democracy” contradict each other. Where a handful of representatives speak for the vast numbers of people who put them in office, they have assumed the role of oligarchs. In a true democracy citizens speaks for themselves.
Ancient Athens was a true democracy. Why would it be beneficial to live under such a government? It was Aristotle who said that he who is not involved in the life of the polis, i.e. city-state, is either a god or a beast. There are few gods amongst us.
True adulthood entails a dynamic political life. Voting in staged elections every so often certainly does not constitute a dynamic political life. Entering into debate on vital issues like war vs. peace, making fundamental budgetary decisions, these are the experiences that ripen the individual and integrate him into the larger community.
Government serves to shape the character of those who live under its sway. It can have a crushing effect or a liberating effect. In the United States, there is a looming behemoth, the central government that overshadows and represses us individually and collectively.
Ancient Athens, where the people were the government, produced a society whose like has yet to be replicated. Athenians were a robust, confident, independent, courageous lot. Their playwrights and philosophers, their architecture and statuary continue to inspire us. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of American society in the 21st century. There is very little that is exemplary in American character or culture under the present form of government.
#RepresentativeDemocracy is an oxymoron. The two words “representative” and “democracy” contradict each other. Where a handful of representatives speak for the vast numbers of people who put them in office, they have assumed the role of oligarchs. In a true democracy citizens speaks for themselves.
Ancient Athens was a true democracy. Why would it be beneficial to live under such a government? It was Aristotle who said that he who is not involved in the life of the polis, i.e. city-state, is either a god or a beast. There are few gods amongst us.
True adulthood entails a dynamic political life. Voting in staged elections every so often certainly does not constitute a dynamic political life. Entering into debate on vital issues like war vs. peace, making fundamental budgetary decisions, these are the experiences that ripen the individual and integrate him into the larger community.
Government serves to shape the character of those who live under its sway. It can have a crushing effect or a liberating effect. In the United States, there is a looming behemoth, the central government that overshadows and represses us individually and collectively.
Ancient Athens, where the people were the government, produced a society whose like has yet to be replicated. Athenians were a robust, confident, independent, courageous lot. Their playwrights and philosophers, their architecture and statuary continue to inspire us. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of American society in the 21st century. There is very little that is exemplary in American character or culture under the present form of government.
November 25, 2013
Are we gods or beasts?
What is there about #democracy that makes it so special, so important, so universally desired? The answer to this question is multi-faceted and complex, complex because most people who use the word “democracy” are actually referring to existing constitutional oligarchies.
“Representative democracy” is an oxymoron. The two words “representative” and “democracy” contradict each other. Where a handful of representatives speak for the vast numbers of people who put them in office, they have assumed the role of oligarchs. In a true democracy citizens speaks for themselves.
Ancient Athens was a true democracy. Why would it be beneficial to live under such a government? It was Aristotle who said that he who is not involved in the life of the polis, i.e. city-state, is either a god or a beast. There are few gods amongst us.
True adulthood entails a dynamic political life. Voting in staged elections every so often certainly does not constitute a dynamic political life. Entering into debate on vital issues like war vs. peace, making fundamental budgetary decisions, these are the experiences that ripen the individual and integrate him into the larger community.
Government serves to shape the character of those who live under its sway. It can have a crushing effect or a liberating effect. In the United States, there is a looming behemoth, the central government that overshadows and represses us individually and collectively.
Ancient Athens, where the people were the government, produced a society whose like has yet to be replicated. Athenians were a robust, confident, independent, courageous lot. Their playwrights and philosophers, their architecture and statuary continue to inspire us.
Unfortunately the same cannot be said of American society in the 21st century. There is very little that is exemplary in American character or culture under the present form of government.
“Representative democracy” is an oxymoron. The two words “representative” and “democracy” contradict each other. Where a handful of representatives speak for the vast numbers of people who put them in office, they have assumed the role of oligarchs. In a true democracy citizens speaks for themselves.
Ancient Athens was a true democracy. Why would it be beneficial to live under such a government? It was Aristotle who said that he who is not involved in the life of the polis, i.e. city-state, is either a god or a beast. There are few gods amongst us.
True adulthood entails a dynamic political life. Voting in staged elections every so often certainly does not constitute a dynamic political life. Entering into debate on vital issues like war vs. peace, making fundamental budgetary decisions, these are the experiences that ripen the individual and integrate him into the larger community.
Government serves to shape the character of those who live under its sway. It can have a crushing effect or a liberating effect. In the United States, there is a looming behemoth, the central government that overshadows and represses us individually and collectively.
Ancient Athens, where the people were the government, produced a society whose like has yet to be replicated. Athenians were a robust, confident, independent, courageous lot. Their playwrights and philosophers, their architecture and statuary continue to inspire us.
Unfortunately the same cannot be said of American society in the 21st century. There is very little that is exemplary in American character or culture under the present form of government.
November 16, 2013
Ralph Nader and Paradise Lost
Here is what #RalphNader had to say about PARADISE LOST, PARADISE REGAINED: THE TRUE MEANING OF #DEMOCRACY:
"This eye-opening, earth-shaking book takes us on an engrossing trip through ancient, medieval and modern history. We see how 21st century oligarchs, in their quest for power, have taken an important concept like democracy and emptied it of its true meaning.
Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained by Arthur Robbins is a fresh, torrential shower of revealing insights and vibrant lessons we can use to pursue the blessings and pleasures of a just society through civic efforts that are not as difficult as we have been led to believe.”
Mr. Nader chose PARADISE LOST as his favorite book for 2012 (The Week, October 6, 2012)
"This eye-opening, earth-shaking book takes us on an engrossing trip through ancient, medieval and modern history. We see how 21st century oligarchs, in their quest for power, have taken an important concept like democracy and emptied it of its true meaning.
Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained by Arthur Robbins is a fresh, torrential shower of revealing insights and vibrant lessons we can use to pursue the blessings and pleasures of a just society through civic efforts that are not as difficult as we have been led to believe.”
Mr. Nader chose PARADISE LOST as his favorite book for 2012 (The Week, October 6, 2012)
November 13, 2013
What is democracy?
What is #democracy? It is a form of government in which the citizens govern themselves. No one speaks for them. They speak for themselves. In ancient Athens between 30,000-40,000 citizens were the government. As many as 6,000 would gather at the Pnyx, the amphitheater where the Assembly met to debate and vote on policy and legislation.
By a show of hands and sometimes by casting a black (no) or white (yes) ball into a clay jar, Athenians voted to go to war or not, to receive ambassadors or not, to grant a certain individual citizenship or not.
They voted on what projects to fund and what not to fund. They voted on laws regulating the exportation of grain. They decided how much should be charged for leasing a temple’s land. They decided how many and who should be the envoys representing Athens in foreign lands. The week-by-week conduct of a war had to go before the Assembly week by week.
Among the citizens were the most exalted, aristocrats like Alcibiades and Pericles, and the most humble, landless laborer. Any and all had the right to mount the "Bema," a raised platform made of stone, at the front the amphitheater, and address the assembly in support of or against a particular piece of legislation.
Obviously, the United States, where there is one voice per 600,000 souls, is not a democracy. It is an oligarchy. "Representative democracy" is an oxymoron. When the many select the few to speak for them, the outcome will never be democracy. It will always be oligarchy, by definition.
By a show of hands and sometimes by casting a black (no) or white (yes) ball into a clay jar, Athenians voted to go to war or not, to receive ambassadors or not, to grant a certain individual citizenship or not.
They voted on what projects to fund and what not to fund. They voted on laws regulating the exportation of grain. They decided how much should be charged for leasing a temple’s land. They decided how many and who should be the envoys representing Athens in foreign lands. The week-by-week conduct of a war had to go before the Assembly week by week.
Among the citizens were the most exalted, aristocrats like Alcibiades and Pericles, and the most humble, landless laborer. Any and all had the right to mount the "Bema," a raised platform made of stone, at the front the amphitheater, and address the assembly in support of or against a particular piece of legislation.
Obviously, the United States, where there is one voice per 600,000 souls, is not a democracy. It is an oligarchy. "Representative democracy" is an oxymoron. When the many select the few to speak for them, the outcome will never be democracy. It will always be oligarchy, by definition.
November 7, 2013
Drunk With Power
Who are these people, the ones with all the power, the chronic liars, the ones who are riding rough shod over our civil rights, our economy, our ecosystem, who are snuffing out human lives like so many candles on a birthday cake? Are they like us? Are they different? Are they human?
Maybe we should think of them as psychopaths. Psychopaths are “people” with little respect for the truth or human life. They “appear” to be just like us, friendly, likable, ingratiating, and that is what makes them so dangerous. Don’t they realize that they, their children and grandchildren will need the soil, air and water that they are despoiling? The answer is, “No they don’t.” Here is where another word comes into play: addiction.
We are being ruled by power addicts. Think for a moment about what the word addiction means and this will make sense. Here is an example. An attorney – let’s call him John -- has been given an ultimatum by the partners in his firm. Either he goes to an alcoholic rehabilitation center or the partnership will be reformed and he won’t part of it. His wife has already thrown him out. He is sleeping on a friend’s couch. He hasn’t seen his children for three weeks. His doctor has told him that his next drink will be his last. In other words, everything is on the line. John chooses rehab.
On the ride up the hill to the main residence, John notices a garage where vehicles are maintained. He registers at the lodge, finds his room, unpacks and then heads out for a brief walk down the hill to that garage. He looks around and then sees what he came for. There is a container filled with anti-freeze, which is to say, alcohol. He sits down on the concrete floor, rests his back against the wall, unscrews the plastic cap and takes a swig. His last. Doesn’t he know he is killing himself? Doesn’t he know what he is doing to his wife, his children? Doesn’t he realize that he could have a life, a wonderful life, if only he would give up alcohol? The answer to all of these questions is no. All he can think of is his next drink, his next fix, which is what makes him an addict.
Power addicts are no different. They are #DrunkWithPower. All they can think of is the next win, the next billion, the next lie, the next war, the next slaughter. They are driven for the next high, no matter what the cost to themselves or those around them, which is why such people should never be in positions of power.
Maybe we should think of them as psychopaths. Psychopaths are “people” with little respect for the truth or human life. They “appear” to be just like us, friendly, likable, ingratiating, and that is what makes them so dangerous. Don’t they realize that they, their children and grandchildren will need the soil, air and water that they are despoiling? The answer is, “No they don’t.” Here is where another word comes into play: addiction.
We are being ruled by power addicts. Think for a moment about what the word addiction means and this will make sense. Here is an example. An attorney – let’s call him John -- has been given an ultimatum by the partners in his firm. Either he goes to an alcoholic rehabilitation center or the partnership will be reformed and he won’t part of it. His wife has already thrown him out. He is sleeping on a friend’s couch. He hasn’t seen his children for three weeks. His doctor has told him that his next drink will be his last. In other words, everything is on the line. John chooses rehab.
On the ride up the hill to the main residence, John notices a garage where vehicles are maintained. He registers at the lodge, finds his room, unpacks and then heads out for a brief walk down the hill to that garage. He looks around and then sees what he came for. There is a container filled with anti-freeze, which is to say, alcohol. He sits down on the concrete floor, rests his back against the wall, unscrews the plastic cap and takes a swig. His last. Doesn’t he know he is killing himself? Doesn’t he know what he is doing to his wife, his children? Doesn’t he realize that he could have a life, a wonderful life, if only he would give up alcohol? The answer to all of these questions is no. All he can think of is his next drink, his next fix, which is what makes him an addict.
Power addicts are no different. They are #DrunkWithPower. All they can think of is the next win, the next billion, the next lie, the next war, the next slaughter. They are driven for the next high, no matter what the cost to themselves or those around them, which is why such people should never be in positions of power.
