After reorganising political constituencies, I made several changes to the structures of government. Though I left Solon’s reforms largely untouched, I did make significant alterations to a few parts of the system. Firstly, a Council of 500 was introduced, where 50 men from each tribe would be chosen to prepare business for the Assembly. Before and during my time, the Assembly didn’t have many formal powers, but I did make them hold regular meetings once a month in order to grasp a better idea of how things were running. Thirdly, I made selection by lot the usual process of selection for official posts (apart from archon and general, that is), as I thought this was the most just and democratic way to choose a government. Finally, from the year 501 BC onwards, a board of 10 generals or Strategoi was elected, one from each tribe, thus meaning that the office of the Polemarch became more or less useless as these new Strategoi commanded popular support.
My last main area of change, as Aristotle will tell you, was the introduction of Ostracism to prevent further tyranny from taking place. Under the rules of this system, each year the assembly was allowed to banish one public figure for a period of 10 years, thus meaning that if someone was feared to be growing too powerful or posing a threat to the democratic government, they could be ejected from the city. However, ostracism’s purpose wasn’t to effectively convict someone as a criminal, but rather, offer a break which aimed to prevent civil unrest and a return to tyranny. An ostracised citizen did not lose any of his property, and his family had full rights to remain in Attica. When the ten years were up, they could return and claim full citizenship once again. To prevent abuse of this system, citizens were asked to write their nomination for ostracism upon an ostrakon (a broken piece of pottery). A quorum (the minimum number of votes required) of 6,000 was required for the important assembly decisions such as ostracism, while other minor issues could be settled by a lower turnout.
And that, your highness, is my contribution to the Athenian Constitution. Thank you for listening, and I hope I have helped resolve your dispute.
Pericles:
Your Highness, thank you for summoning me up from that accursed place. I shall now tell you what my contributions were to Athenian Democracy, and I hope you find the tale enjoyable.
I came into power after the death of Ephialtes, and introduced a series of reforms, the aim of which were to produce radical democracy. Firstly, in 457 BC, I opened up archonships to all classes of society and introduced payments to citizens for taking part in the Council, the Law Courts, the Magistracies and the archons, the aim of which was to allow poorer citizens to play a fuller role in the democracy.
Also, because Athenian citizenship was highly valued, in 451 BC I tightened up the citizenship laws, confining it only to the legitimate sons of an Athenian mother and an Athenian father, thus hoping to prevent foreigners from easily gaining citizenship.
Finally, I used the contributions of the Delian League (several countries paying Athens to build a navy for everyone’s protection from the Persians) to build public buildings within Athens, including the restoration of the Acropolis, and maintained these buildings using profits made by Athens by forcing members of the Delian league to use Athenian law and make their commercial and business transactions through the Athenian courts.
Having heard the speeches from the four Shades, Zeus and Athena continue arguing about which Athenian contributed the most to the constitution. Athena then rises and uses her powers of wisdom to analyse the motives and effects of the leaders’ reforms, and whether they were a good contribution to democracy or not.
Solon:
Solon’s first reform within Seisachtheia abolished the practice of having to pay 1/6th of one’s produce to one’s landowner, thus allowing farmers to fully own the land on which they worked on. The prospect of slavery to repay debts previously only served to broaden the gap between the rich and the poor, and Solon’s eradication of this system should be praised as it helped bring about fairness between the classes. Finally, it became forbidden to export all agricultural products (apart from Olive Oil), the advantage of which was that the Athenian people wouldn’t starve and would be able to afford food. Overall, Seisachtheia was rather successful in lessening the poverty of the farmers and peasants, and set the basis for a fairer society.
Analysing his reorganisation of the social classes within Athens, Solon seems to have been successful in breaking the power of the well-fathered Eupatridae. His new system classified people by wealth rather than birth, which allowed people to make themselves rich and powerful without relying on or needing the help of their fathers. Looking at this more closely, Solon allowed the top two classes to become archons, thus effectively converting the aristocracy into a meritocracy where rulers were chosen for their own abilities rather than their birth – this was a fundamental step forward in the creation of a democratic state. Also, he allowed the third class (Zeugitai) into lesser offices of state, which encouraged them to become educated and take part within their community, an obvious plus for the Athenian people. Finally, the thêtes, as well as everyone else, were allowed to become a part of the Assembly, which was great because it gave every citizen the right to take part in society, and without it, democracy would never have been created.
On an unrelated but nonetheless relevant note, Solon encouraged skilled people to move to Athens by offering citizenship to skilled craftsmen immigrants and allowing those who learned new trades to benefit from new laws. Though this might have been discriminatory, it did improve the economy and increased trade with other Mediterranean people, which contributed to the constitution in the sense that Athens could use the additional assets in the economy to fund new reforms for democracy.
Moving on to legal reforms, before 594 BC, power and justice were in the hands of the Eupatridae, who could rig laws in their favour. This was blatantly corrupt, and Solon’s measured finally put an end to this, by introducing right of appeal to a jury. The archon’s decisions could be questioned by a jury of ordinary citizens, who could objectively decide who was right, without being biased to anyone in general. This effectively broke the rich’s hold on the law system, as they could no longer do whatever they wanted, which was a definite improvement. Secondly, Solon introduced public lawsuits, which gave any citizen the right to prosecute against an offence, not just the injured party. This was excellent for the community because it encouraged citizens to identify with the rights of others, and was thus another step towards a peaceful, democratic society.
In addition to reforms to courts, Solon created an entirely new law code to replace Draco’s. The previous one was extremely harsh and made things like stealing punishable by death, and although this was useful in bringing Athens out of decline and anarchy, it was not a feasible measure in the long term. Solon offered legislation on various things from the planting of trees to the location of public wells, and his new system set the foundation for the courts and the law. Every law was inscribed on wooden tablets and placed in the centre of Athens so that any and every literate citizen could consult them to avoid confusion. This was an excellent measure, as it created a less harsh and oppressive society which Athenians could be proud to live in.
To end with, Solon made the Athenians swear a solemn oath not to change his reforms for at least ten years. This was a remarkably clever idea, as it gave his changes time to sink in and implement themselves correctly within society.
Peisistratos:
Our second citizen, Peisistratos, didn’t really make many contributions to the Athenian Constitution, to be perfectly honest. However, his main advantage to the people was that he consolidated the reforms of Solon, which allowed them time to bed down and for the people to become familiar with them. On the other, he did ensure that his own supporters took the highest posts of power (archonships), which was undoubtedly corrupt and went against the principles of democracy (turning it instead into a tyranny). In actual fact though, his method of rule did nothing to stop the growth of democracy – in fact, it can be argued that his tyrannical leadership actually benefited the people because it eased them into Solon’s changes.
Peisistratos made some of his own changes which can be praised, such as offering loans to impoverished farmers, which allowed them to diversify and lead better lives. This was beneficial for the constitution because it meant that he got the support of the lower classes, which allowed him to keep power through popularity, thus having more time to create a democratic state.
He also introduced the City Dionysia and the Great Panathenaia to Athens. These festivals (the Dionysia in particular) helped ease new towns into Attica, as they incorporated the worship of gods which were revered within them. The judging of the Dionysia was done in a very fair and democratic way, which nearly fully prevented any sort of corruption or bribery from taking place, in that judges were selected randomly from a pool of hundreds, and only random votes were counted.
Also, Peisistratos created a system where the extremely rich had to use vast amounts of money for the good of society, through a “liturgy”. This was where the pentacosiomedemnoi would pay for parts of the Dionysia with their own money, and was a great idea because it kept their wealth limited so they couldn’t pay for a huge army to overthrow the ruler, and thus, Peisistratos’ system helped ensure that anarchy and tyranny (apart from his own) would never take over.
This brings me on to one of the not-so-good aspects of Peisistratos’ rule - that he was a tyrant, and ensured that his own people took the highest posts, such as Archonship. This was undoubtedly corrupt and went against the principles of democracy, but if we take a closer look, it didn’t really decelerate the growth of democracy in any way – Solon’s structures and systems remained, which were really all that was needed for democracy at that time.
Finally, he transformed the Acropolis into a great cult site for religious worship. My affection for this has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the centrepiece worship stone was in my honour, but with the fact that the presence of a magnificent worship ground united the people and would have allowed them to accept reforms with a better will.
Cleisthenes:
Cleisthenes probably shares the stage with Solon as the most important ruler in terms of contributions to the constitution. His rise to power illustrates this as he led the Athenians in a revolution against Isagoras and the Spartans, and inflicted a crushing defeat upon them, thus bringing the people together and proving that democracy will always triumph over dictatorship.
His first reforms were to the structures of government, the first of these being that the Council of 500 was created, with 50 men from each tribe – this was democratic as everyone theoretically had a say. The way this worked was that a selection of men were nominated from each of the ten tribes, and a random sample of 50 was chosen from each. These men had the obligation to be a part of the Boule, and thus have a say in democratic matters. The system meant that everyone and anyone could take part (provided they were male and over the age of 30), and thus helped create a democracy.
He also ran assembly meetings regularly (once a month), and although they didn’t do much, they encouraged communication between the people and their parliament. Lastly and most importantly, Cleisthenes introduced the system of selection by lot, which was used from then on to full most public office positions (apart from archons and generals). The random choosing of government was the most democratic option open at the time, and prevented bribery and corruption from taking place.
Cleisthenes also reorganised the village and tribal system of Attica. Firstly, he split it up into 139 Demes (villages) each of which had their own assembly, officers, treasurers and an annually elected leader called the demarch. The advantages of this were that it encouraged the Athenians to involve themselves in local community affairs, and also gave citizens experience of democratic government, which they could use if called up for central government.
Each citizen had to register in their deme, and this became hereditary and kept numbers relatively even, and allowed officials to easily check which deme a man belonged to easily. Citizens also began to associate themselves with their deme rather than their father – previously, one’s name showed how high up one was in society, but the new naming system was classless and therefore fair.
Thirdly, Cleisthenes reorganised the tribal system by dissolving the four ancient original tribes. Previously, the system allowed the wealthy to retain power by influencing the choosing of the next tribal leaders, but under the new system, power was not in the hands of the rich – another advance towards democracy. Moreover, Attica was split up into 30 regions, and each of the ten new tribes was given one region from each category: inland, coastal and city. This was great because it ended regional rivalries and gave an equal number of men to each tribe, thus making things democratic. Within the assembly, a minimum of 6000 citizens had to present for major decisions to take place, which was great for democracy and ensured public approval of actions.
Finally, Aristotle credits Cleisthenes with the invention of Ostracism, whereby each year, citizens could vote on who should be exiled for 10 years. This was a huge safeguard against tyranny, as anyone thought to be becoming overly powerful would simply be ostracised, preventing social unrest and maintaining stability for democracy. This was especially useful when the Athenians ostracised two prominent relatives of Peisistratos, fearing they wanted to restore tyranny. However, the system did have its drawbacks, firstly as the system of voting was written and most citizens were illiterate. This led to situations where peasants would unknowingly ask their candidate for ostracism to write their own name down, as was the case with Aristides. Also, as in the case of Themistocles, people could be ostracised by their opponents simply writing their name down on hundreds of different ostrakons, which obviously wasn’t fair. However, overall ostracism was a major success, as it helped keep the peace and democracy stable.
Pericles:
Pericles, the “first citizen” is widely credited with the invention of radical democracy within Athens. His most important reform was that he opened archonships to the third class, the zeugitai, although in practice everyone could hold public office. An advantage of this was that it was very democratic, as a true democracy allows a person to rule regardless of wealth or status, but the drawback of the system was that there was always the chance that a man would take power simply because of his oratory skills and not his intellect or leadership abilities.
Pericles also introduced the system of payments for citizens who served one of the political institutions, which was fantastic for poorer citizens who were suddenly allowed to play a fuller role in democracy. Thus, it was a good contribution to the Athenian constitution.
Furthermore, using the contributions of the Delian league, the First Citizen to protect and maintain various buildings in Athens. This was beneficial for the citizens, and for democracy because it meant that Pericles seemed like a great leader, renovating and preserving the places most dear to his people. As a result, the people would be more open to change, knowing they had a leader who had their best interests at heart, and who knew what he was doing.
He also forced the members of the league to adhere to Athenian Law, as well as carry out their commercial transactions through the Athenian courts. Although this was not directly democratic (as the countries and nations did not choose to be a part of the Athenian system), it did help expand the horizons of Athenian democracy, and show the citizens of the surrounding lands that the system did work, and functioned well.
Finally, because Athenian citizenship was highly valued, Pericles tightened up the system so that only the legitimate sons of an Athenian mother and an Athenian father would be able to apply. This was good in the sense that only the correct people could claim citizenship, but mostly not a good idea, as it discriminated against people due to their birth, and would have excluded eminent Athenians such as Themistocles.
Now that Athena has offered her wisdom on the advantages and disadvantages of the actions of the four citizens, it is the turn of Zeus, king of the gods, to judge the victor. Using his eye of providence, he now examines the future implications of the four leaders’ reforms and sheds some light on how successful they were in the long run.
Solon:
Solon’s first reform within Seisachtheia was to encourage farmers to work their land harder by abolishing the system of paying 1/6th of the produce to the landowner. This was an excellent idea, and in foresight, systems in which farmers are forced to give up a percentage of their grain generally tend to fail. The example here is the Soviet Union in the 1930s, under the rule of Joseph Stalin. He introduced a policy of Collectivisation whereby farms would be state owned, and the workers would either give all their produce to the government and buy it back from them, or give a fixed amount as tax and keep the rest. Though the latter was more successful, neither of them really helped in the short term – from 1929 – 1950, production figures were much less than what they had been before collectivisation had been introduced. From this we can see that Solon’s decision to allow the farmers to keep all their produce was a good one, and won him the support of this class.
The second part of Seisachtheia was the end to slavery due to debt, and the freeing of anyone previously enslaved under this practice. This was good in the sense that it allowed more people to contribute to society, and obviously benefited the poor peasants as well, but in the long term the reform didn’t and couldn’t last. Slavery wasn’t abolished in the United Kingdom until the 1800s and even in the year 2010, a form of slavery still exists for people who can’t pay their debts – rather than becoming the property of another man, the person’s own property is “repossessed” and taken away, sometimes even ending in imprisonment for he who cannot repay his debts. This sort of system is necessary for a capitalist society to function properly, so although Solon’s heart was in the right place when he suggested this reform, it did not have any lasting impact.
His final economic reform was banning the export of any and all goods apart from Olive Oil. This was done to keep prices down and ensure that the poor didn’t starve, and was successful in that regard. Looking forward, a vague parallel can be drawn between Solon’s idea and the system of import tariffs in the 21st Century, which stop cheap foreign products from getting into a country by imposing taxes upon them. However, although import tariffs are good for an economy because they boost native sales, Solon’s reform created an export tariff, which, in the 21st Century, no country in their right mind would want. Yes, it did prevent the people starving, but as an economic reform, it didn’t really benefit the present economy and would not benefit that of the future.
In addition to Seisachtheia, Solon encouraged skilled craftsmen to live and work in Athens, giving them citizenship and additional perks within the law, which was an excellent idea that greatly expanded the diversity of the workforce. In the United Kingdom in the year 2010, a similar system is used in that foreigners can apply for a “Work Permit” and those who perform skilled labour get the status of “Highly Skilled Migrant”. After a period of five years, these people can apply for full British citizenship, and officially become part of the nation. This system was implemented in the 20th Century because the UK was extremely short on skilled labour, so hundreds of doctors, engineers etc were brought in from places like the Middle- and Far-East as well as parts of Europe. One downside to the future system is that migrants don’t really get any benefits during their initial five years, whereas Solon offered instant perks to skilled foreigners.
Moving on to law, Solon created a new law code to replace the extremely harsh one of Draco. Draco’s code made things like simple theft punishable by death, and in the eyes of Athena, was not feasible in the long run. However, because I know much better, I can say that the replacement of Draco’s code was a mistake. In the 21st Century, the countries with the lowest crime rates are places like Saudi Arabia, where laws benefit the society rather than the criminal. Some would say that if someone steals another man’s property, he should be let off with a warning, but the so-called “harsh” system in Saudi Arabia warrants the cutting-off of the man’s hands. This benefits society as it acts as a deterrent to the rest of the population, which keeps crime extremely low. In fact, the law is so successful that a gold merchant can leave his stall open when parting for prayers, secure in the knowledge that no one would dare steal his merchandise. Therefore, though Solon’s reform may have seemed good in the eyes of the naive and those sympathetic to the rights of criminals, it did not benefit society as a whole. Having said that however, things did become pretty prosperous in Athens, so we cannot judge Solon too harshly simply for this reform.
Also introduced during Solon’s reign was the Right of Appeal to a jury. Previously, power and justice was in the hands of the rich Eupatridae, who were fat and corrupt cats who could change laws to suit themselves. Solon’s system broke their power, and made every decision subject to appeal to a jury of ordinary people so that they could best judge whether the decision was right or wrong. This system is replicated in almost every civilised society in the year 2010. For example, in the United States, a jury is present to judge a person “guilty” or “not guilty” depending on the evidence before them. There is no doubt that the system works, as it has put many a criminal behind bars, and is largely considered fair by most of the population. However, there are a few drawbacks: for example, a good lawyer can hoodwink a jury into convicting or releasing the wrong person, and the system is sometimes subject to controversy. Another seemingly random but not unrelated point is a case which happened in and around the turn of the 3rd millennium: A man was charged for advertising his nightclub with pole-dancers outside it in broad daylight. Now, the problem was that the jury of 12 people had to decide whether this was reasonable or whether it corrupted the innocence of the young. However, each person on the jury had to consider not what they personally thought, but what a “reasonable” person would think. Therefore, each member of the jury had to place him or herself in the shoes of a “reasonable” person and judge the matter, which naturally led to discord within the case. Anyway, there have been a number of isolated incidents like this, but overall, the jury system and the right of appeal seems to work, so therefore, Solon created a good, long-lasting reform.
Solon also introduced the system of public lawsuits. From then on, any citizen could prosecute another for a crime committed against a third, so before, only the injured party or their family could prosecute someone who harmed them, but after the reform, the harm-doer could be taken to court by anyone. As Athena has just said, this was an excellent reform as it encouraged citizens to sympathise with the rights of others. According to the great Plutarch, Solon was once asked which city he considered best governed of all, to which he replied:
“The city where those who have not been wronged show themselves just as ready to punish the offender as those who have”.
This quote epitomises perfectly the new system of public lawsuits, and was enormously beneficial for Athens. Looking forward to Britain 2010 as an example again, there exists a Crown Prosecution Service which prosecutes offenders on behalf of the state. Thus, if a man is thought to be a murderer, the state will prosecute and sentence him accordingly, regardless of who the victim was. This was another of Solon’s long lasting contributions to law, and he should be praised accordingly.
Another of his fundamental reforms to society was the reorganisation of classes based on wealth rather than birth. This broke the power of the Eupatridae and was successful in creating a fairer society where citizens could rise above others because of their own work, rather than that of their ancestors. This system is more-or-less is basis for capitalism in the 21st Century – that anyone can make themselves millionaires and thus increase their status in society from their wealth. The difference between Solon’s reform and the future functions is that in Athens, only the highest classes could qualify for the positions of power (such as archons and generals) and the lowest classes were not eligible for these offices, whereas in the 21st Century, anyone can theoretically rise to a position of wealth and power if they’re good at what they do. For example, a household name in 2010, Alan Sugar left school at the age of 16 from the slums of London and created a business empire (from scratch) worth over £800 million, became a knight and then received a Lordship. This sort of story is an example of “rags to riches” and how anyone can be successful if they have what it takes. However, in the case of positions of absolute power (such as the President of the United States), generally speaking only the upper classes get to achieve this position, mainly due to the enormous amount of money needed to run an electoral campaign. This means that although the “American Dream” and everything else says that a peasant can achieve the status of Archon, in practise this is not usually the case. So to end with, Solon created a great new system which functioned well in Athens and continues to function in 2010.
Peisistratos:
Peisistratos didn’t offer as much as Solon to the Athenian Constitution, but his reforms are nonetheless worthy of mention. Firstly, he governed as a tyrant but consolidated Solon’s laws which, as have already been decided, were largely brilliant in starting democracy off. A future example of a tyranny is that of the Soviet Union, where Joseph Stalin was in power from 1922 until his death in 1953. Stalin ruled as a tyrant, a dictator with absolute power, and under his reign, the Soviet Union was able to bridge the distance between itself and the West in terms of economy and technology. True, this did come at the cost of around 20 million lives, but overall, the sacrifice was probably worth it. Anyway, Peisistratos ruled in a similar fashion to Stalin (without the brutal killings though), in that he kept himself and his supporters in power. He got overthrown twice but each time came back even stronger. Peisistratos can be commended for keeping Solon’s reforms, and his ruling tyranny allowed them to settle down easier.
Secondly, Peisistratos offered loans to impoverished farmers. This was good because it showed that farmers were valued members of society and therefore contributed to social cohesion and unity. It also allowed him to win the support of lower classes, which, as Cleisthenes later showed, was paramount to becoming a respected leader. Offering help to farmers was one of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s many ideas to lift the USA out of depression in the 1930s. He created the alphabetic agency TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority), which aided farmers in a variety of ways: it developed fertilisers, taught farmers how to increase crop yield, etc. It also helped electrify the region, providing 95% of the farms with hydroelectric power. Though the TVA didn’t directly give money to farmers, its gesture is similar to that of Peisistratos, and both schemes worked marvellously.
Peisistratos also introduced the City Dionysia in order to ease new towns into Attica where the god Dionysos was particularly valued. This was a great decision, as it made the newcomers feel as though they really belonged to society. It also encouraged the people to unite, be merry and feel a part of a common cause. The Dionysia is similar to the celebration of Christmas in the 21st Century, in that both are supposed to be religious festivals but neither are celebrated in a devoutly religious manner. The Dionysia involved a lot of dancing, acting and the parading of a giant phallus around the streets, and Christmas involves giving and receiving gifts, and getting drunk until New Year’s Eve. Both festivals however, greatly promote community spirit, so are good in that regard.
Another one of his reforms (with regards to the Dionysia) was the imposing of a liturgy upon the rich. As Athena said, this was an excellent idea because it kept the money of the rich at a manageable level, and thus prevented them from raising an army to overthrow the leader. The liturgy functions similarly to income tax in the United Kingdom in 2010. The future system imposes a tax on working citizens, which is relative to their earnings. Those earning over £40,000 per annum pay 40% income tax on every penny after that number, and 20% before it, and the super-rich with salaries of £150,000 or more pay 45%. This money is given to the government to help run services such as education, health etc, and is what keeps modern society running effectively. Therefore, a liturgy is one of Peisistratos’ lasting reforms.
The Dionysia also contributed to democracy because it was judged in an extremely democratic way. As Peisistratos’ shade and Athena have explained, the judges were randomly selected from a pool of hundreds to prevent bribery and at the end of the day, only half of the votes were randomly counted. This system doesn’t really have any parallel in modern society, which goes to show that even though it helps avoid corruption and bribery, overall it’s not very fair. If only half the votes get counted, the play which isn’t the best could well win the competition, and although this may have been acceptable in Peisistratos’ time, it certainly isn’t in the 21st Century.
Cleisthenes:
Cleisthenes was a figure whose contribution to the Athenian Constitution is as vast as Solon’s was. His first reform was the reorganisation of governmental structures and the setting up of the Council of 500, or the Boule. This had 50 members from each of the ten tribes (mentioned a little later), and prepared business for the Assembly. This council functioned very similarly to how the House of Commons functions in the United Kingdom in 2010, in that the members represent different tribes or constituencies in the government. The difference however, is that the Boule itself did not vote on legislations (as the House of Commons does), but rather, they decided what was to be discussed and the Assembly would then vote on it. In creating the Boule, Cleisthenes created an extremely democratic body of representatives which would survive for millennia to come.
Secondly, he made assembly meetings more regular – they became held once a month. As Athena said, this was good because it encouraged citizens to take a more active role in the assembly and for matters to be discussed on a more regular basis. A parallel can be drawn between the Assembly in Cleisthenes’ time and the 2010 United States Congress, in the sense that both bodies pass legislation and are central to the democracies of their respective nations.
Finally, in terms of restructuring government, Cleisthenes introduced the process of Selection by Lot for official posts (except that of archons and generals). This was intended to be the most democratic way to choose government, and any citizen could be called upon to serve within these positions. This system hasn’t made it through the centuries to keep its place in modern society, because selection by lot is very random (obviously) and much better qualified people can be elected, and who should, in theory, do a better job – though in the case of several leaders, this is not the case. I suppose the only real example of how this system works in the 21st Century is for the selection of jurors for court cases. In the United Kingdom, selection for a jury is more-or-less the only time when the state can remove one’s freedom and force one to stand on a jury. The exceptions to this are when society suffers as a result of the person being removed from it (in the case of doctors, nurses etc), or when the person is deemed to be “unfit” to stand in a jury. In fact, some even go to huge lengths to keep themselves off a jury, for example, not washing or shaving for a week to look like a dishevelled hobo, which would inspire the lawyers to deem them “unfit”. But aside from desperate people who don’t want to serve their state, the jury system works rather well, so selection by lot is successful in that regard. It is not, however, the politically correct way to choose people for official posts.
Moving on, Cleisthenes divided Attica into 139 different demes, which were either small towns or villages. Each of these had their own council, with an assembly, treasurers and an annually elected leader. These were good for Athens because they created smaller, tight-knit communities and encouraged the citizens to participate in their local democracy. The Deme system is very similar to the 2010 county/state system used in the UK and the USA. Using the UK as an example, the country is divided into various different counties, each of which contain various towns and cities. These towns and cities are part of boroughs, and these function like the demes Cleisthenes created. Each borough has its own council and leaders, and is in charge of what goes on within them. Therefore, the deme system was largely effective within Attica and survives in 2010, albeit under a different name.
Cleisthenes also made it compulsory for all citizens to register themselves within their father’s deme when they came of age at 18. This meant that deme populations stayed relatively even, and each citizen could be looked up with ease. Athenians were also required to take a citizenship test before being able to join, which is also what has been happening in the United Kingdom since the end of the 3rd Millennium. The only difference is that foreigners are the only ones required to take the test if they want to apply for citizenship; it is not required for natives. The citizenship test is supposed to show whether an applicant has knowledge about “Life in the UK”, and is generally good for weeding out foreigners who can’t speak a word of English, but the drawback is that if you asked a native those questions, most would probably fail – this doesn’t reflect too well on the nation as a whole. Anyway, Cleisthenes’ citizenship tests were a good idea, and have continued for over 2000 years, which shows that they were a lasting contribution to the constitution.
Furthermore, with regards to the deme system, Cleisthenes encouraged Athenians to identify themselves by their deme rather than their father. Whereas previously a citizen could be called Eragon son of Garrow, after Cleisthenes’ time be would be called Eragon of Locksley or something similar. The objective of this was to break the power of the rich families, and so that one’s name did not immediately reflect upon their status simply because of the doings of their ancestors, which was obviously helpful in creating a fairer society. However, the reform hasn’t lasted through the ages, and in the 21st Century, most people identify themselves by their “surname” or father’s name. The only exception to this rule is when citizens are representing their towns/countries in competitions (such as the chess tournaments or the Olympics), but in terms of everyday life, people are no longer associated with their towns. Therefore, though Cleisthenes’ reform was beneficial for Attica, it has no real place in modern society.
Having realised that the tribal system of Athens was one area which Solon did not address, Cleisthenes set about reforming it. He dissolved the four original, ancient tribes and created ten brand new ones. Each of these tribes was named after an Athenian hero, and had to supply its own people for the council of 500, the army, the boards of officials and the law courts. Each had its own treasury, as well as elected officials and an assembly, and within festivals such as the Dionysia, competitions and contests were run on a tribal basis. As my wise daughter has said, the new system was great because it ended regional rivalries and gave each tribe a roughly equal population, thus being fair and democratic.
The new tribal system is similar to the “house” system which has been used in schools since before the 1900s, especially in places like the UK. Each house has an equal number of students, who represent their houses in academic and sporting events. Most schools have a “House Cup” at the end of the year, where the house with the most “points” is declared the victor. Aside from this, contests such as “Sports Day” and “House Drama” are run on a house basis, the latter being very similar to the Dionysia. Thus, Cleisthenes’ reform of the tribes was successful and variations of it are an integral part of education in the 21st Century.
Another important innovation introduced by Cleisthenes was the creation of a board of ten generals. Each tribe had to elect one of their members annually to serve as a general (strategos) of the army, and due to popular support, these generals soon grew more powerful than the office of Polemarch. Their position was also theoretically available to any citizen, which was much more democratic than the archonship or polemarch schemes. The best example of popular generals in modern times would be that of Winston Churchill, who was a great war leader and won the support of millions of people for his rousing speeches and solid strategy. He led Britain through the Second World War, and supposedly proved that good will always triumph over evil... Overall though, Cleisthenes’ introduction of the generals was a good step forward, as it gave every tribe the chance to contribute to military discussions.
Finally, Cleisthenes created the system of Ostracism, where every year, a vote would be cast on who should be banished from Attica for ten years. The system was largely effective, as it helped eject those who society thought were growing too powerful and had to be stopped before things out of hand (such as two of Peisistratos’ descendants: it was feared they would bring a return to tyranny, so they were ostracised). The biggest weakness with ostracism, as Athena has mentioned, was that citizens were often exiled for strange reasons. For example, Plutarch talks of the case of Aristides the Just:
“An illiterate and uncouth rustic handed his ostrakon to Aristides and asked him to write the name ‘Aristides’ on it. The latter was astonished and asked him what harm Aristides had ever done him. “None whatever”, was the reply, “I do not even know the fellow, but I am sick of hearing him called ‘The Just’ everywhere!” When he heard this, Aristides said nothing, but wrote his name on the ostrakon and handed it back”. Plutarch, Aristides 7.5-6
Ostracism functioned effectively for Athens, but like several other reforms, doesn’t really have a place in modern society. It would be considered too “politically incorrect” for the public to have the chance to banish citizens from the state for ten years, and as such, has never been implemented or even considered within 21st Century law.
Pericles:
Finally, we come to Pericles, the citizen who probably did the least for the constitution, and yet is still somehow called “The First Citizen” who founded Athenian Democracy. His first reform was that all offices of state, including Archonships, became open to everyone. This was interesting, as most were chosen by lot, so when this reform was introduced, a poor, illiterate peasant would theoretically be able to get a high position within the government. A modern-day example of this would be the selection of almost every office, including Members of Parliament within the UK. Any citizen can stand for election, regardless of wealth or status, and if they have the support of the people then no one can stop them taking that post. The system was obviously very democratic and successful, and still survives today.
Secondly, Pericles introduced the prospect of payments for citizens who served political institutions (law courts, council, archons and lesser magistrates). This allowed poorer people to play a fuller role in democracy, and is also similar to the MP system in the United Kingdom in 2010. Members of Parliament are professional politicians and are paid by the state to carry out their jobs. This sometimes leads to scandal such as where MPs overspend their state allowances on extravagancies, but overall, the system seems to work fine. Also, if a citizen is called up to jury service, the state must compensate for the time (therefore, money) that they have lost from not being at work. Therefore, the citizen gets effectively paid to sit on a jury, but if (in the case of doctors and businessmen etc) the salaries are too high, the state cannot afford to pay the jury and another citizen is randomly selected. Payments for positions in political institutions was another of Pericles’ lasting contributions to the constitution.
Finally, because Athenian citizenship was so highly valued, Pericles tightened it up and made it so that only the legitimate sons of an Athenian mother and an Athenian father would be eligible for citizenship. This may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but it was actually worse overall (as Athena has stated) because several prominent Athenians would be excluded from citizenship. Also, the system is not really feasible in modern society – for example, in the UK, around 50% of children born are illegitimate, and thus 50% of the future population would not technically be citizens. This is not really democratic, and therefore, has no place in 21st Century Britain.
Having heard the shades of the four citizens give the facts about what they did, having heard Athena’s analysis and approval (or otherwise) of their actions, and having heard Zeus’ insight into the future repercussions of them, it is now time for the decision to be made as to who really was the greatest contributor to the Athenian Constitution. Zeus shall now use his infinite wisdom and power to pass judgements upon the four citizens.
The real question here is that who is the greatest contributor to the Athenian Constitution. Through my all-seeing eyes, Peisistratos and Pericles can be removed from the table instantly. True, they did make several long lasting reforms which allowed Athens to become a democratic state, but their contributions pale in comparison to those of Solon and Cleisthenes.
Some would say that Solon, being the first step in the direction of democracy, should deserve the honour of being the biggest contributor. However, though his reforms set the foundation for it, they were not truly democratic and it required the work of the other three to modify them to an acceptable level.
Thus, in conclusion, Cleisthenes is the biggest contributor to the Athenian constitution. His consolidation of many of Solon’s reforms is commendable, as is his reorganisation of the deme and tribal systems to create a fairer society. He also increased the powers of the Assembly, introduced the Boule and founded Ostracism. All of these reforms show that he, and only he, is worthy of the title of the Greatest Citizen.
NB: Word automatic bibliography thingy will be used to make the citations etc when all the facts and stuff has been added and edited according to your judgement. Pointless doing it now as things may have to change – hope thats ok.
Bibliography
1. Renshaw, James. In Search of the Greeks. s.l. : Bristol Classical Press, 2008.
Renshaw’s “In search of the Greeks” expresses this view that hippeis could become Archons. However, Amos and Lang’s “These were the Greeks” disagrees, and claims that only the pentacosiomedemnoi were eligible for Archonship. I am not in a position to choose between the two, so this footnote will have to suffice.