The Ancient Athenians and Modern Democracy

Did you know that Benjamin Harrison, loser of the popular vote in the1888 presidential election, won his office because he had more votes in the electoral college? That's right, Grover Cleveland lost his presidential re-election because the electoral college had more votes for his opponent, than for him. Even though he had won the popular vote. What does that tell you?

It is proof positive that the will of the people is not the power behind the government. It means that regardless of who you and I think should be president, ultimately it is out of our control, and in the hands of others we have no control over.

Yes, the Electoral College is made up of representative votes equivalent to the population of each state, but when such an arrangement allows for the public's voice to essentially be ignored, there is something wrong with that policy. In this year's election, it seems an unpopular president still won his re-election. Which begs the question: from whence comes their authority, and to whom do they pay tribute? Not to you or I, that much is certain. Furthermore, there is the question of 'how' such a thing is possible, without the general consent of the public. Truth be told, much of what is going on nowadays is without the general consent of the public. Truth be told, the general public doesn't have any say at all.

The whole political scene has been orchestrated to look like something it is not: a government of the people, for the people, by the people. Instead, it is more like a police state in which the people vote for the lesser of two evils, and hope that the results of the next four years are better than the last four. When you get right down to it, we the people have no control over what happens in government. Period. We're not involved in any way, unless we involve ourselves, and such endeavors can be difficult to engage in. There are many roadblocks and obstacles purposely put up to prevent public interaction, or to severely curtail it.

Did you know that to the ancient Athenians, from whom the very idea of 'democracy' hails, our 'modern' democracy 'would have seemed like tyranny to them'? Yep, so says Reader's Digest in a book they published in 1990 aptly titled 'Did You Know...?'

The answer for me to the question 'Did You Know..?' was a resounding 'no'. Knowing that the ancient Athenians developed what we would call the 'political system', along with a slew of words associated with it that are still in use today. What I did not know was that the political system of the Greeks back then was so foreign to what we understand today.

In fact, on page 220 of 'Did You Know...?' goes into detail using words and phrases like 'unrecognizable', and 'very large family', to go along with the comparison to 'tyranny' I quoted earlier. In fact, the article itself ends with the following words: "The ancient Athenians would not have known what to make of our so-called modern democracies; the idea of electing someone else to make important decisions would have seemed like tyranny to them."(Italics mine)

So what is one to make of this? When the very people upon whom the idea of 'democracy' is founded, would not know what to make of, or even recognize what we refer to as 'democracy' in this day and age? Something they evidently would recognize as 'tyranny'?

To provide an example, the 'Assembly' of Athens, amounted to better than 40,000 'qualified' citizens (remember patriarchal society). The most notable difference being that besides having a vote that counted, every individual "had the right to ask questions and raise important issues".

In fact, they had an administrative council of 500 members (just 38 shy of our 'modern' electoral college), with a limit of one year to membership. What we have here, then, is an example of how badly things have gone awry from the original standard.

If an Assembly of 40,000 could convene and affectively govern themselves without such things as the Internet, why can't we? In the age of satellites and the wireless communication, and with presidents promoting 'a computer in every home' to engender favor, why can't the voters of this age Assemble, after the same fashion of the historical Greeks, to 'ask questions and raise important issues'? Many public libraries already have computers available with access to the Internet. It is almost certain that every politician and bigwig has a computer or access to a digital device themselves. Why can't we have access to them in like fashion, besides along the campaign trail? No harm would come of it, unless one considers a potential virus a 'threat'.

People, there is no reason the government could not reform to accommodate an inquiring public. If such a thing were instituted, there wouldn't be such things happening as are happening now. It is doubtful that 'we the people' would have given the go-ahead to invade Iraq and bomb Afghanistan. Cooler heads would have prevailed. In fact, it is likely the event never would have happened in the first place. Had 'we the people' any say where foreign policy is concerned, there would probably be a 'fewer overseas troops' policy in place. Or at the very least, those deployed outside of the country would have the full support of the majority of the people, because 'we the people' would be the ones actually responsible for sending them to war, being fully cognizant of the details and circumstances. Bye-bye Vietnam. No more soldiers welcomed home to spit in their faces.

But what can we do? Our hands seem to be firmly tied behind our backs. Unless there is open rebellion, but such activities would be more harmful than helpful. It would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater or responding with a 'cure' that is worse than the disease. Speaking of which, AZT. anyone? But that is another subject for another day.

But concerning a 'cure', one might petition the government. It is our right. For, as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, the people have the right alter or abolish the government that becomes destructive in the process of governing those consenting to be govern. By the way, when was the last time a 'consensus' was taken? Not a number count, but a true 'yay' or 'nay' count to determine the number of individuals consenting to be governed by current governing body. There should be such a consensus at least once a generation. Giving the young as well as the old a stake in the organization of the government.

The last four generations of Americans have had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the modern institution of government. The public at large-the working stiffs-are too busy, and get lost in the process. Their voices drowned out by the elected officials shouting over them, claiming them as constituents.

Claiming to be serving their best interests. Claiming to because the average general citizen has never added his vote to a 'pork barrel'. At least not very often.

Those are private industry interests being served, and not the nation or the public at large. They may say 'farmers' need this or that, but ever since 1985 the family farmer has been complaining of being run out of house and home. They are being ushered off their homesteaded lands so large corporations can move in to operate at higher profit to cost ratios. They are not serving the interests of the people, but the interest of those who line their pockets with campaign funds.

The family farmer was the staple of this country, but politics and policy have made them practically a thing of the past because most can't compete at the million dollar level, let alone internationally, so the family has to sell or see it taken away. So much for government for the people, by the people.

But do we have reason to complain though? Did we do it to ourselves? Or did they do it for 'us'? I don't recall ever being asked if I approved of the way our government was being handled, and if I would vote to allow it to continue, unaltered. I am also sure, that if given the chance, I would change some things, or demand those things be changed. Given the choice. But I wasn't, and I very likely won't be.