"It was the Greeks who discovered not only democracy but also politics, the art of reaching decisions through public discussion, and to obey those decisions as a necessary condition for existence of a social civilization." Posed between paying homage to the great Hellenic legacy and its criticism, the eminent scholar of ancient history, Moses I. Finley (1912-1986), examines two experiments of democracies which existed twenty-five centuries apart. The work of the US-British historian M. Finley, 'Democracy Ancient and Modern' is a classic piece in political science and political philosophy. Through three main sections, the author presents problems, challenges assumptions and traces the line of ruptures and continuity between ancient and modern democracies. Mr. Finley, who said that "any controversy is a way forward", believes that this book is an apt response to a stream of "elitist" thinkers who claim that apathy and disinterest are good for democracy; nevertheless, these authors fear what they call "extremism", i.e., individuals who wish to participate more actively in the political decision making. The US-British historian violently opposed these ideas and attempts to show, in light of Athenian democracy, how these ideas are false and dangerous. Mr. Finley also responds to these same authors who believe that ancient Greece is not a valid example to understand contemporary democracies. This work is a synthesis and summary of the book 'Democracy Ancient and Modern' and also relies on external references to further criticize materials developed by Moses Finley.
[...] This expedition was not worried about the compromise with Sparta [37]. The Athenian demos also showed great tolerance vis-à-vis the oligarchs responsible for the coup in 411 BC. Athenians found this tolerance expensive a few years later when Sparta won the war in 404 BC and imposed a military junta in Athens, called the Thirty Tyrants. These are the most prominent characters to the coup of 411 BC who were in power. Yet again, when the Democrats overthrew them, they chastised a few and then proclaimed a general amnesty. [...]
[...] However, it should be noted that the author disposes of some aspects and does not dwell enough on the specifics of ancient democracy. We would have liked a broader and more accurate perspective on issues such as the role of edema in the whole of Greece and character of both centralized and decentralized power. In addition, the comparison between ancient democracy and modern democracy is not sufficiently supported. For example, the crucial difference between these two types of democracy is based on the method of selecting rulers - drawn for the ancients to the moderns in election - is not really addressed. [...]
[...] The Greek world was basically a world of speech and not writing. The information on public affairs was mainly released by the Herald, the display, the gossip and rumors table, oral reports and discussions in the various committees and meetings that constituted the machinery of government. It was not only a world without mass media, but without media at all, meaning we give to the word. Political leaders, in the absence of documents that can be kept secret in the absence of media they can control, were necessarily led to a direct and immediate relationship with their constituents and, therefore, they were monitored in a more direct and immediate way ."Thus, the difference between ancient and modern democracy is tenuous when we recontextualize and replace these experiences in a given historical and technological world. [...]
[...] This idea was quite foreign to Athens. The triumph of the election was based on the paradoxical nature of modern democracies that oscillates between aristocratic and democratic. Election necessarily selects the elite, but it is ordinary citizens who define what constitutes an elite and who belongs to it. More authors such as Cornelius Castoriadis and Takis Fotopoulos, consider that the current democracy is democracy in name only. Its true essence is under oligarchic concentration of the levers of power by the elite. [...]
[...] This is the first time we see any being to explicitly issue and change by explicit action, the law of its existence. There may be alterations of the institution of society, in any society, but not in this way: as an absolute monarch succeeded another and changed some laws, or, with time the company slowly altered its customs. But in both cases mentioned, the situation is different, changing laws consciously, and asking questions openly: is it that our laws are fair, is that our gods are true, is it that our representation of the world is true? [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
