The development of democracy

The Development of Democracy

Herodotus entertained no scintilla of doubt that Cleisthenes was indeed the founder of Athenian democracy, notwithstanding his being the grandson of a tyrant:

Herodotus 6.131.1

However, as Herodotus was composing his history in the third quarter of the fifth century (449–425), at a time when 'radical' democracy had become entrenched following the reforms of Ephialtes in 462/1, his judgement regarding Cleisthenes appears anachronistic, as he hath conflated consequences with motive. The influential events spanning 511/0 to 508/7, culminating in his reform programme, reveal that his impetus lay not in a profound and longstanding political tenet advocating the full devolution of Athenian governance to the common populace, but rather in a desire to eradicate the root causes of aristocratic factionalism, which had precipitated the tyranny and his clash with Isagoras. His commission was to discover a means of dismantling this destabilising political potency of the factions, yet without subverting the political leadership of the aristocracy (inclusive of his kin), whose expertise was indispensable for the conduct of public affairs and the army.

His solution was of a twofold nature: first, to 'mix up' the populace, thus attenuating the control of the old aristocratic families and clans over their dependants; and second, to institute a balanced constitution wherein the amplified power of the people in the Ecclesia (Assembly) and the Boule of 500 would serve as a check and counterbalance to the upper-class public officials, such as the nine archons, and the council of the Areopagus. This policy of 'mixing-up', predicated upon the reform of the tribes and the demes, underpinned his institutional reforms. The supplanting of the four (allegedly) kinship tribes by ten artificial tribes, of the twelve old trittyes by thirty new ones, of the phratries by the demes as the principal unit of local government, and of kinship by locality as the criterion for citizenship, bore far-reaching political and social consequences, for it undermined the regional power-bases and the consequent political dominance of the aristocratic clans. Nevertheless, his creation of the City as one of the three regional areas with ten trittyes, wherein the foremost aristocratic families maintained their headquarters, assured that aristocratic influence in all ten tribes would be substantial, albeit not overwhelming, given its limitation by other tribal members hailing from two disparate regions of Attica, save, of course, in the instance of his own family.

His reformation of the political institutions, harmonising aristocratic and democratic elements within the governance of the state, engendered a moderate democracy wherein power was shared between the aristocracy and the common people. High office remained the preserve of the upper classes, the economic élite, given his non-abolition of the Solonian property qualifications. Furthermore, he did not diminish the power of the archonship, which had been reinstated to its former eminence upon the fall of the tyranny, and whose authority and prestige were further augmented by the restoration of direct election by the people and the removal of interference by the tyrants (Thucydides 6.54.6). The eponymous (chief) archon remained the most potent public official in the management of civil affairs; the 'polemarch' retained the position of commander-in-chief of the army; the 'basileus' continued in charge of state religion; and all nine archons presumably regained the judicial powers bestowed upon them by Solon. All archons, subsequent to their year of office, became life-long members of the council of the Areopagus, whose religious and judicial powers appear to have been untouched by Cleisthenes – scarcely surprising, given his membership of that influential body.

Notwithstanding, Cleisthenes balanced the power of the archons and the Areopagus by augmenting the power and authority of the Boule of 500 and the Ecclesia. The evidence pertaining to the powers of the new Boule, which replaced Solon’s Boule of 400, and the method of appointment is exceedingly scanty; hence, inferences must be drawn from knowledge of its later and better-documented history. Each tribe furnished 50 councillors, with every deme supplying its quota to the tribal contingent according to its size (Ath. Pol. 43.2, 62.1). These tribal councillors were either directly elected by the demes or, following a preliminary selection, chosen by the drawing of lots. It remaineth unknown whether the 'thetes' were eligible to stand for the Boule of 500, but the absence of state pay would have ensured the smallness of their numbers; it was the middle class who supplied the majority of the councillors, and which was the dominant force within this institution.

The Boule of 500’s chief function was probouleutic, to wit, to prepare the agenda for the Ecclesia by holding a preliminary discussion of all proposed legislation and policies, and then submitting them as motions for decision by the people. This control over the agenda afforded the middle classes the opportunity to influence and shape the direction of Athenian policy. Albeit Solon’s Boule of 400 had possessed this selfsame function, the infrequent meetings and the very modest status of the Ecclesia in the first half of the sixth century and under the tyranny furnished little scope for the Boule to develop into an institution of genuine import. However, the increase in the authority of the Ecclesia under Cleisthenes directly affected the power and prestige of the Boule of 500, which co-operated with the top public officials in the running of the state. It may also, under Cleisthenes’ reforms, have gained the power to receive foreign embassies in order to ascertain their reasons for coming to Athens (Herodotus 9.5.1); and to conduct the 'dokimasia' of the newly chosen councillors (a preliminary investigation to confirm their legal right to hold office).

Solon had opened up membership of the Ecclesia (Assembly) to the thetes, the lowest class of Athenians, and had probably confirmed its legal right to elect all the important public officials and to make the final decision on important issues such as war, peace and alliances. However, there was scant scope for the Ecclesia (Assembly) to become an effective legislative body, with full sovereignty, whilst the aristocratic public officials and the tyrants consulted it only as a last resort. It is important to note that Aristotle did not include the control of legislation by the common people as one of Solon’s three most democratic reforms (Ath. Pol. 9.1). Cleisthenes altered all that when he took the people into partnership and 'handed over the control of the state to the common people' (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 20.2). His decision to present his proposed reforms to the Ecclesia (Assembly) for ratification via the Boule, thus directly involving the common people in the legislative process, established a precedent that henceforth all legislation would be legally valid only if approved and passed by these two institutions. It was this radical step and its political consequences for the future government of Athens, should it be permitted to become the dominant principle of political life, that compelled Isagoras to summon the Spartans.

It was about the time of Cleisthenes that the new political concept of 'isonomia' (political equality) made its appearance, continuing until its replacement in the fifth century by 'democratia' (the power of the people). There existeth good reason to believe that Cleisthenes employed this term to define the essence of his new constitution and as a political propaganda slogan under which the Athenian people could unite in order to secure constitutional reform. To achieve isonomia, Cleisthenes increased the legislative authority of the people: as a result, there was an equal balance of power, a 'political equality', between the aristocratic public officials, who initiated policy and carried it out, if approved, and the Ecclesia and the Boule, which had the sovereign authority to pass or reject all such proposals. It is probable that Cleisthenes was also responsible for the new formal Athenian word for a statute, namely 'nomos' in place of the older 'thesmos'. The latter term was used to describe laws that had been imposed upon the people by the ruling aristocracy (or by the gods); whereas nomos refers to laws that became 'the norm' or 'the custom' after their agreement by the people in their democratic Ecclesia. The increased participation of the common people in political decision-making must have led Cleisthenes to provide for regular meetings of the Ecclesia, likely ten per year, in addition to the annual electoral assembly and the special meetings, summoned by the public officials.

Cleisthenes, intentionally or not, was the 'father of democracy'. His reforms were primarily designed to fragment the power of the aristocratic-led factions that had plagued Athenian public life throughout the sixth century, and to end the political monopoly of the upper classes in the passing of legislation. If Aristotle is correct in assigning to Cleisthenes the introduction of the law of ostracism (Ath. Pol. 22.1), whereby an Athenian could be exiled for ten years upon the vote of his fellow citizens, then this measure was likewise inspired by the desire for political stability and by isonomia: the people would have the opportunity to judge between the conflicting policies of aristocratic leaders, and possess the power to remove the less or least favoured politician before the issue at stake spilled over into civil strife, as transpired in the case of Cleisthenes and Isagoras, or even tyranny.

However, the wide-ranging powers of the archons and other public officials, the restriction of these offices to wealthy citizens of the two top classes, and the retention by the aristocratic Areopagus, consisting of ex-archons with membership for life, of jurisdiction over crimes against the state and of conducting the public officials’ 'euthuna' (an official review of their year in office) were considerable impediments to the realisation of full democracy. Genuine 'political equality', as understood by the Athenians who voted for the reforms of Ephialtes in 462/1 and by their descendants, existed not only when all citizens, rich or poor, could participate on an equal footing with each other in deciding public policy and passing legislation, but also when they possessed the equal right and opportunity to hold public office themselves and to conduct the euthuna of public officials, to make them accountable to the people as a whole for their official actions. Cleisthenes furnished the means for the Athenians to gain the requisite political maturity over the ensuing half century to remove these constraints in 462/1, and thus he established the foundations for the later reforms of Ephialtes and Pericles that completed the development of full democracy.