6 ms·

"In theory every assembly represented the collective will of all the male citizens of Athens" That doesn't sound like democracy to me. An oligarchy, perhaps?

"In theory every assembly represented the collective will of all the male citizens of Athens" That doesn't sound like democracy to me. An oligarchy, perhaps? The true birth of democracy (at national level) was in New Zealand in 1893 when women were given the vote and, for the first time in history, virtually all adults were enfranchised.

throwaway7767 11y ago
Indeed. This is also the case with Iceland, where the althing is also commonly cited as the "oldest continuously functioning democratic parliament in the world". This sounds great, and does wonders for national pride. Especially since most Icelanders have an extremely rose-tinted view of their own past (thanks to propaganda during the independence campaign in the last century), and most are not aware that the only people who had voting rights were landowners, and everyone else was basically a slave. That's not really a democracy by any definition.
- tiatia 11y ago
  "he only people who had voting rights were landowners". Well, do Children in the US have voting rights? Illegal immigrants? Prisoners? There are different flavors of "democrazy". One advantage of limited voters (e.g. "landowners") is, that the system is less likely to run into an out of control socialist redistribution system. If two wolfs and one sheep having a vote on what they have for dinner. Is this democracy too?
  - throwaway7767 11y ago
    I don't know where the line is drawn. One could certainly argue by those metrics that most countries that consider themselves democracies do not fit that definition. That said, I do think that when less than 1% of the country has voting rights, it's hard to call that a democracy by any measure. Is a dictatorship a democracy if the one person in power holds a "vote" for himself? What if there are two people that split the power? > One advantage of limited voters (e.g. "landowners") is, that the system is less likely to run into an out of control socialist redistribution system. I'm not sure how to respond to that. I suggest you read up on the history of Icelandic politics, I particularly recommend reading up on "vistarband" and related concepts, if you really think that this system is somehow more fair than allowing universal suffrage. The result was that this small group of landowners passed laws making anyone who did not have land (and therefore voting power) into indentured servants.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- cjsthompson 11y ago
  Actually it's the opposite. Today's western parliamentary regimes are oligarchies and in absolutely no way democracies. Electing a bunch of assholes who then get to do whatever they wish is not and has never been democracy, it's elected oligarchy. Democracy is when all the people vote the laws. Which was the case in ancient athens and iceland. Today the only country which comes anywhere close to this is Switzerland. Western parliamentary regimes call themselves 'democracies' to look good just like soviet countries did.
  - throwaway7767 11y ago
    > Actually it's the opposite What is? I'm not really sure which part of my post you are replying to here. Can you quote a specific bit? > Democracy is when all the people vote the laws. Which was the case in ancient athens and iceland No, at least in the case of Iceland, the entire point of my post was that only a very, very tiny group of people got to vote on the laws. Kind of like representative democracy without the democracy part (because the representatives are not elected). Also known as a plutocracy.
    - cjsthompson 11y ago
      I'm not completely sure about iceland. I think I read it was one vote per family. But as far as ancient athens goes, every male regardless of wealth or status got to vote the laws and decrees. And were in fact very much encouraged to do so. The word 'idiot' actually comes from 'idiotes' which is what people who didn't debate/vote were called in ancient athens. It originally meant people who only care about their private affairs as opposed to public affairs. This made it impossible for the rich to rule, because the rich are always far fewer than the poor. So while one might be right to point out that it wasn't fair that women were left out (but women were second class citizens also in cities which weren't democracies at all like for instance Sparta), it still is very different and far more egalitarian system than what we have today.
      - dghf 11y ago
        > But as far as ancient athens goes, every male regardless of wealth or status got to vote the laws and decrees. Except for slaves and former slaves. Also a large portion of the population were resident foreigners, who didn't get the vote. Wikipedia puts the number of voters at 10% to 20% of the total population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

throwaway7767 11y ago

Indeed. This is also the case with Iceland, where the althing is also commonly cited as the "oldest continuously functioning democratic parliament in the world". This sounds great, and does wonders for national pride. Especially since most Icelanders have an extremely rose-tinted view of their own past (thanks to propaganda during the independence campaign in the last century), and most are not aware that the only people who had voting rights were landowners, and everyone else was basically a slave. That's not really a democracy by any definition.

tiatia 11y ago
"he only people who had voting rights were landowners". Well, do Children in the US have voting rights? Illegal immigrants? Prisoners? There are different flavors of "democrazy". One advantage of limited voters (e.g. "landowners") is, that the system is less likely to run into an out of control socialist redistribution system. If two wolfs and one sheep having a vote on what they have for dinner. Is this democracy too?
- throwaway7767 11y ago
  I don't know where the line is drawn. One could certainly argue by those metrics that most countries that consider themselves democracies do not fit that definition. That said, I do think that when less than 1% of the country has voting rights, it's hard to call that a democracy by any measure. Is a dictatorship a democracy if the one person in power holds a "vote" for himself? What if there are two people that split the power? > One advantage of limited voters (e.g. "landowners") is, that the system is less likely to run into an out of control socialist redistribution system. I'm not sure how to respond to that. I suggest you read up on the history of Icelandic politics, I particularly recommend reading up on "vistarband" and related concepts, if you really think that this system is somehow more fair than allowing universal suffrage. The result was that this small group of landowners passed laws making anyone who did not have land (and therefore voting power) into indentured servants.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
cjsthompson 11y ago
Actually it's the opposite. Today's western parliamentary regimes are oligarchies and in absolutely no way democracies. Electing a bunch of assholes who then get to do whatever they wish is not and has never been democracy, it's elected oligarchy. Democracy is when all the people vote the laws. Which was the case in ancient athens and iceland. Today the only country which comes anywhere close to this is Switzerland. Western parliamentary regimes call themselves 'democracies' to look good just like soviet countries did.
- throwaway7767 11y ago
  > Actually it's the opposite What is? I'm not really sure which part of my post you are replying to here. Can you quote a specific bit? > Democracy is when all the people vote the laws. Which was the case in ancient athens and iceland No, at least in the case of Iceland, the entire point of my post was that only a very, very tiny group of people got to vote on the laws. Kind of like representative democracy without the democracy part (because the representatives are not elected). Also known as a plutocracy.
  - cjsthompson 11y ago
    I'm not completely sure about iceland. I think I read it was one vote per family. But as far as ancient athens goes, every male regardless of wealth or status got to vote the laws and decrees. And were in fact very much encouraged to do so. The word 'idiot' actually comes from 'idiotes' which is what people who didn't debate/vote were called in ancient athens. It originally meant people who only care about their private affairs as opposed to public affairs. This made it impossible for the rich to rule, because the rich are always far fewer than the poor. So while one might be right to point out that it wasn't fair that women were left out (but women were second class citizens also in cities which weren't democracies at all like for instance Sparta), it still is very different and far more egalitarian system than what we have today.
    - dghf 11y ago
      > But as far as ancient athens goes, every male regardless of wealth or status got to vote the laws and decrees. Except for slaves and former slaves. Also a large portion of the population were resident foreigners, who didn't get the vote. Wikipedia puts the number of voters at 10% to 20% of the total population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy