Marathon or the strength of democracy

It is nearly a common place by now to talk about the strength of democracy when it comes to facing the military threat from an authoritarian regime. The authors of this documentary use this very same idea when explaining the battle of Marathon, and how the Athenians managed to stop the advance of the Persians in spite of their initial military disadvantage. We are told how their joy while fighting for freedom as well as their more dynamic and open way to debate ideas led to their victory over Darius' troops. After the victory of the Allies in World War II, this theory has become an unchallenged theory in the Western world: authoritarian regimes appear to be strong and monolithic, but it is democracies that end up seizing the final triumph precisely due to their open ways and hetereogeneity.

Is this true though? Or are we just eternally reproducing a myth here? In other words, are we coming to an objective conclusion or perhaps we are simply viewing the Greeks through our own tinted glasses? While it is possible to come up with historical examples where democracy ended up winning over dictatorial regimes, it is not less true that one can find examples of the opposite: the end of the Roman Republic at the hands of Caesar and Augustus, the crisis of the urban republics in Northern Italy during the Renaissance as well as the Hanseatic League, even the defeat of the Western European democracies at the hands of Communism, Nazism and Fascism before the Americans came to the rescue.

The unfortunate truth is that no matter how hard we want to believe in the concept of an ever triumphant democracy, reality tells us otherwise. The Athenians did not win against the superior military power of the Persians because they believed in freedom, but rather due to their superior tactics, better equipment and the determination of fighting to defend their own land. Let us not forget that the Athenians were then precisely at the beginning of an incredible period of political, cultural and military expansion. It is this, I believe, that explains their victory more than any wishful thinking in the virtues of democracy on the battleground. These are also, incidentally, the same reasons that can explain the American victory during World War II.

Ostracism and the defense of democracy

The very concept of ostracism is strange to us in modern times. One would think that sending someone to exile simply because the majority of the citizens consider that he may pose a danger to democracy is, in and by itself, intolerant and "anti-democratic". Of course, this would ignore that the idea of democracy only prescribes the rule of the majority, and not whether or not the rights of the minority should be respected. This is precisely the way the ancient Greeks thought of their own political system, and this is precisely the price that Themistocles paid for been too charismatic and powerful. As soon as the battle against the Persians was over, the Athenians immediately turned to their leader. He had become so popular, powerful and charismatic that it was he who now posed a threat to their democracy. There was certainly a danger that Themistocles might become a military dictator, something similar to what Napoleon would become many centuries later. In order to avoid this scenario, the Athenians decided to send him into exile and therefore put an end to his political career.

As I said, ostracism sounds cruel and intrinsically unjust to a modern ear. Yet, to some extent, our contemporary democracies inherited similar traditions from this ancient Athenian custom. For starters, we discuss the idea of term limits every now and then as a way to make sure that our statesmen do not gain excessive power. So popular is the idea that there are those who would like to see it extended to our representatives in Congress too. Not only that though. We also cherish those institutions and traditions that help us undermine the power of our politicians, including the freedom of expression and freedom of press as well as something as apparently toothless as the resort to political humor. It all contributes to undermining the figure of those in power, providing one more mechanism to check their honesty. Finally, we should not forget how even Presidents and Prime Ministers who led their nations to victories over their enemies ended up losing at the ballot box almost immediately after peace was achieved. Winston Churchill is perhaps the best of such examples, but George H. Bush also had to suffer a similar fate after the Gulf War.

In conclusion then, even though the idea of ostracism might sound quite foreign to us, we do have other political practices that are not so dissimilar and could actually be traced back to that old Athenian institution. Let us just say that modern democracies prefer to implement a mild form of ostracism.

Pericles, public works and the arts

Pericles has come to symbolize in modern times the very concept of Athenian democracy. Sure, the birth of democracy owes more to Cleisthenes, but it reached its maturity under Pericles (or did it perhaps reach its own limits? See below for more on this other thread of thought). He is the man who led Athens' expansion throughout the Mediterranean world, promoted the arts, argued in favor of an ambitious policy of public works and contributed the most to create the very identity of classical Athens. To this day, we associate Pericles' name with Aeschylus, Socrates, and the artistic and philosophic renaissance that took place during the 5th century BC. But, above all, we associate him to the Parthenon.

The Parthenon costed the equivalent of about $3 billion in today's money, which brings to mind an interesting question: would we allow this in our time? For better or for worse, we have grown used to view huge public works with no apparent immediate use as something more akin to dictatorial regimes than to modern democracies. As a matter of fact, we tend to use the adjective pharaonic when referring to this type of works. And yet, the Athenians, the very fathers of classical democracy, supported and financed the construction of a very expensive building with the sole purpose of sitting atop the city and host their matron goddess. How to understand this? Is it that Athens' democracy was more authoritarian than we ever thought, or perhaps that the fact of promoting public works actually has no relation whatsoever to the nature of the political regime under which it is built? Actually, I would rather believe the second. What we call "pharaonic" public works have nothing to do with an authoritarian mindset, although it is true that spending large sums of money on something that provides only an aesthetic pleasure is politically unacceptable these days. As a matter of fact, François Mitterrand is about the only case of a statesman in modern times who could afford this, and was attacked mercilessly as a clear example of "syndrome of Versailles". One would have to conclude that what changed was not so much the nature of our political regimes, as the overall mentality of the times. While back in the 5th century BC (and actually until very recently in our History) most people thought about the long term (even the eternity), our contemporary society has decided to live in the here and now. The material price the Athenians paid for building the Parthenon was very high to be sure, but what did we build these days that can compete with it? While we pay attention to the here and now, the ancient Greeks erected a building that has served as a symbol of national identity for centuries. In the end, it has more than paid off for the its cost, albeit down the generations. This, of course, brings up yet another related and not very popular concept, that of personal sacrifice.

Aspasia and the birth of the political scandal

Aspasia may be one of those little dirty secrets of classical Greece that is either forgotten or purposedly hidden during History class, together with their active engagement in homosexual practices. To be fair, it is not a matter of censorship, but simple avoidance. We would much better believe in and teach the idealized picture of the ancient Greeks as semi-saints who spent the day in civilized debates at the agora. In the meantime, topics like the practice of slavery, the widespread acceptance of homosexual relationships as a natural thing and, of course, Aspasia, are simply sidestepped. They are just little black spots that come to destroy the whole discourse we had prepared on the benevolence and morality of those who, after all, founded our Western civilization.

For starters, Aspasia was not married to Pericles, who had divorced his previous wife and left her alone with two sons. They just lived together in sin, as some people would say today. But that is not all. She was also a hetaira, which could be translated as a courtesan or, in Japanese, a geisha. Still, some people would rather refer to her as an expensive companion, not to say prostitute. Finally, all records we have of her seem to point out that she was quite intelligent, well educated and independent. All this in a society that did not have women in high regard. As we can see, the idea that great statesmen in the past used to be morally strict is utter nonsense, at least if we reduce our moral judgment to their personal relationships. This is one of those instances where we like to think that any time in the past was better, but I am afraid this is only wishful thinking. Pericles came to prove that a politician's work and his personal life are two completely different things.

Culture as the building block of democracy

Watching this or any other documentary on the ancient Greeks one comes to realize that culture, and the world of the arts in general, appeared to be held in high regard by the free citizens. Let us keep in mind that democratic Athens is precisely the one that gave us some of the highest minds of the ancient times in fields such as philosophy, drama, poetry, arithmetic, geometry or medicine. As a matter of fact, they were the founders of some of these disciplines. A further analysis of history also comes to support the idea that a free, wealthy and thriving society and a society where culture is also lively and creative appear to go hand in hand for some reason. It is something that also happened during the days of the Roman Republic, the Renaissance in Italy or even the United States around the time of its independence. But why is this?

Democracy is based on the belief that individual citizens can take care of their own business, not only during the elections but also while carrying out their everyday activities. Without an educated and well informed citizenry, democracy simply falls apart. The institutions may still be there, but the soul has disappeared and we are left only with an empty skin. Hence the importance of promoting culture and the arts, even in our contemporary society. Promoting the concern for other people's stories, their points of view, improving one's knowledge of oneself and the world that surrounds us, the mastery of logic and language, they are all issues that end up benefiting society as a whole. The ancient Greeks knew this, but then they never viewed the individual as something completely autonomous of his own social context.

Dark Athens: mob rule and demagoguery

Precisely because ancient Greece is widely considered as the cradle of our Western civilization, we tend to idealize it quite a bit. We do know about its highs, such as the founding of democracy, the birth of philosophy, their achievements in the world of the arts, the agora, the Parthenon, a mild form of religion... but we know little about their dark side. There is a whole side of Athens that is usually ignored or left aside because it simply does not fit this neat picture of it that we have in our mind. It is the Athens that let Pericles become a nearly unchallenged ruler who led the city to its final defeat. It is the Athens that sent Pericles' opponents to their ostracism so the almighty ruler did not have to fear any serious internal opposition to his own plans. It is also the Athens that sentenced Socrates to die because he was too critical of the rule of the majority and was starting to annoy everyone with his stinging but sound criticism. It is the Athens that had thousands of people enslaved so that the citizens could afford to discuss the issues of the polis at the agora, the Athens that attempted to expand through the Mediterranean sea in a clear imperialistic manner and imposed onerous taxes on its colonies, the same Athens that resorted to wars of aggression whenever it deemed necessary. It is, finally, the Athens that went down the path of mob rule and demagoguery as soon as Pericles died and his plans to rule the entire Mediterranean failed miserably. As we see, the ancient Athenians were not as perfect as we like to think of them, and just through a falsification of the historical facts can we use them as an all good image of pure democracy after which to model our societies. Yes, there is a lot to learn from them, but without accepting this other dark side of Athens and ancient Greece, we are only fooling ourselves and building an utopian world that we will never be able to achieve.

Socrates' revolution: the principled man of ideas

Socrates marks a new beginning in our history. There is a before and after Socrates in our Western culture. Before him, we cannot say there was a modern concept of the individual as such. The singular human being was always a part of a bigger, larger entity, the polis, that subsumed him and all his meaning. Socrates, on the other hand, introduced a new and revolutionary concept in our culture: the concept of the principled man, the individual who acts not according to what society prescribes but rather according to his own convictions. This is what got him in trouble, and this is precisely what still gets quite a few people in trouble these days, although to a much lesser extent because it has become such a central part of our culture.

Socrates asked people to question absolutely everything, refusing to accept any given truth simply because it was assumed to be truth. He wanted each one of us to reach the true knowledge on our own terms and in our own way, therefore putting the first basis of our quest for scientific and philosophical knowledge. The Judeo-Christian tradition would come to build on this later, creating the modern idea of an autonomous human being, something that distinguishes our Western culture from most other cultures. It is for this reason that, to some extent, Socrates can be considered the ultimate father of modern democracy and freedom as we understand it today. Nevertheless, we should not forget that it was also Socrates who warned us about the excesses of the mob and majority's rule when he said that "the majority is always wrong".