Why did Constant think that ancient democracy was dangerously impractical in the modern world?

««GreetingLine»» Trinity Hall

Constant believed that ancient democracy was dangerously impractical in the modern world because ancient democracy is linked to the notion of ancient liberties, which placed in the modern state would result in arbitrary rule or an authoritarian state. He believed that an authoritarian state would occur when there was an emphasis on collective participation in the shared sovereignty of the state (an ancient notion of liberty) instead of the emphasis on individual liberty (a modern notion) as a result people could be coerced into this participation. Thus, this form of coercion would lead to the marginalisation of the individual rights and a slow erosion of political rights. “insistence on the impossibility in principle of realising the ancient conceptions of political agency within the inhospitable practical organisation of modern political societies and on the murderous consequences that are likely to result from the confused attempt to realise them in this profoundly alien setting” Furthermore, he believed that because we live in such a rational society and that because of this structure of society it would not be pragmatic to impose such ancient liberties in a modern setting. In addition, he thought that an increasing globalised world which economic expansion and commerce internationally that the ancient democracy would clash with the fast paced individualistic life we live in today.

Constant saw ancient democracy in the Athenian conception. “This republic was the most famous of all: you will guess that I am speaking of Athens” This conception meant a system of citizen-rule or self-rule that entailed direct and participatory democracy. Furthermore, he saw ancient liberty as a form of exercising collective and direct participation on aspects of sovereign power. “deliberating in the public assembly on issues of war and peace, making treaties of alliance with foreign states, voting on laws, pronouncing legal verdicts, inspecting the accounts, actions and administration of magistrates and calling upon them to explain their stewardship before the entire people to accuse, condemn or absolve them” He saw that this structure of democracy, in terms of its working, would conflict with modern society. He saw that the Athenian point of democracy was the freedom that enabled the citizens of Athens to not only be their own rulers ‘on a remarkably full-time basis’ but also to live as they collectively individually chose for themselves, and ‘to protect that personal opportunity against any forces that threatened it. Thus, to understand why Constant thought that ancient democracy was dangerously impractical in the modern world is to understand what he thought of ancient democracy and its workings.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Ancient liberty was inextricably linked to ancient democracy, as the type of democracy would allow a certain type liberty to flourish. Thus, the ancients according to Constant had a different nature of liberty to that of the moderns. He saw that society on every level affected the nature of liberty. Where because during ancient times states were bellicose in nature it led to a more collectivist approach to ‘liberty’. Where the ancient notion of liberty is “compatible with this collective freedom the complete subjection of the individual to the authority of the community… All private actions were submitted to a severe surveillance. No importance was given to individual independence, neither in relation to opinions, nor to labour, nor above all to religion… Thus, among the ancients the individual, almost always sovereign in public affairs, was a slave in all his private relations” This is what the ancients deemed to be free, that is free from rule by a sovereign, but a shared sovereignty between the citizens of the state. It had particular emphasis on participation in the daily affairs of the state and on decision making for the state. This shared sovereignty was crucial towards the ancient democracy because of the bellicose nature of the states during that period of time. He showed that ancient liberty formed because there was no real freedom from coercion from other states.

Constant saw modern democracies as very different from those of the ancients and that it embraced different ideals and operated differently. The most important point with modern democracies is that it worked through a representative function in society. The underlying difference could be seen through a pragmatic view that modern states are incredibly large and thus direct democracies on a daily basis would not only be disruptive to daily life but also impossible. “All ancient republics were restricted to a narrow territory. The most populous, the most powerful, the most substantial among them, was not equal in extension to the smallest of modern states.” Furthermore, in ancient democracies, there was no universal suffrage and enfranchisement of most citizens thus it was not necessary for there to be a representative democracy. Representative democracy was a product of pragmatism and a market driven economy based on commerce. States today are very much driven by the market economy, and thus individuals are more self interested in their own affairs. Citizens of the modern state are more concerned with their liberty to be left to their own devices where they could engage in their own economic activities rather than to deliberate on a constant basis in the political sphere. Constant believed that the stability and beneficence of modern liberty was based on three “distinct judgements: the civilising impact and evident mutual advantage of international economic exchange, the effective military security of all relatively commercialised societies against military threats from pre-commercial societies, and the manifest absence of rational material advantage for any modern state power in pursuing either its own interests or those of its subjects by the threat of use of armed force against other modern states.”

Modern liberty differed considerably from that of the ancients, as modern liberty would be what Isaiah Berlin called negative liberty or freedom. Alternatively, positive freedom or liberty is what Berlin called that of the ancients. Negative freedom, is a notion where the individual is allowed actions when no one is interfering with your right to action. There is a lack of constraint, whereas positive liberty (that of the ancients) is to have the ability to carry through an objective and the freedom to carry it forward.

To understand how Constant was lead to believe that ancient democracy was dangerously impractical; is to understand what would happen when ancient liberties are placed on a modern world. Constant shows the difference between the ancients and moderns in terms of the “outcome of these differences”. Firstly “the size of a country causes a corresponding decrease of the political importance allotted to each individual” Constant believes that, in ancient states, the individual citizen still wield considerable power in terms of his political influence whilst in modern states, he does not. This is due to the fact that modern states are much larger than ancient states and that sovereignty is shared and thus influence of the modern citizen is greatly reduced. The ancient notions of political participation through direct democracy and shared sovereignty would not only be un-pragmatic but also lead to a stall in democratic function in the modern state because of the direct processes of democracy that is needed to take place would not be able to. For modern individuals to gain similar amounts of influence, as the ancients, would mean reorganising modern day politics including destroying representative government and getting rid of party politics.

“Secondly, the abolition of slavery has deprived the free population of all the leisure which resulted from the fact that slaves took care of most of the work.” Constant outlines here that slavery which was a norm in ancient times, does not exist in modern day society. The abolition of slavery has a dramatic impact on ‘citizens’ because slavery has made masters much more free with their time and thus able to participate in the political realm. The impracticality here is that, in modern democracy (which has an emphasis on individual liberty thus thoroughly against the idea of slavery) slavery is abolished and men have to provide for their own livelihood and thus have smaller amounts of free time available.

“Thirdly, commerce does not, like war, leave in men’s lives intervals of inactivity. The constant exercise of political rights, the daily discussion of the affairs of the state, disagreements, confabulations, … necessary agitations, the compulsory filling … of the life of peoples of antiquity, who without this resource would have languished under the weight of painful inaction, would only cause trouble and fatigue to modern nations, where each individual, occupied with his speculations, his enterprises, the pleasures he obtains or hopes for does not wish to be distracted from them other than momentarily, and as little as possible.” What Constant show here is that commercial activity and trading, which is predominantly in a modern setting, influences the priorities and behaviour of people with regard to political participation. As a result, modern society is not ardent on shared political sovereignty but rather individual aspirations orientated around their own enterprise. “Commerce supplies their needs, satisfies their desires, without the intervention of the authorities. This intervention is indeed always a trouble and an embarrassment” Shown here, Constant believed that moderns were not only ambivalent to political participation but also disregarded the authorities in any infringement on their individual liberty.

Constant saw that ancient democracy and modern democracy was intrinsically different. He would consider today’s democracy as a Republic form of government, one that is ruled by a few than that of the rule by many. He saw that by having a decisive site of authority in a multitude of men, through an assembly, where all citizens could speak and vote would lead to a state that entitled the direct rule of the poorer majority over the rich and aristocratic. Furthermore, there would not be a balance in terms of the power held by different layers of society, and this he believed that would not lead to a just and virtuous government. Thus, conflicting with republican government, as he would have seen modern states today. Also, another dangerously impractical aspect which ancient democracy would impose on the modern world would be that of political competencies. If there was direct rule of all citizens, and that ancient democracy rested on the fact that all citizens would deliberate on all spheres of political then the modern political system would lack continuity and prudence in the ability to reason about the consequences of particular actions.

In conclusion, Constant thought that ancient democracy was dangerously impractical in the modern world because the ancient notions of liberty and the modern notions of liberty clash directly in many ways. Ancient democracy and its society had differing norms and aims than that of the moderns. In essence, he saw too much difference between the modern world and the ancient democracy to be able to integrate both together.

Bibliography

John Dunn, “Conclusions,” in Democracy: the unfinished journey 508 BC to AD 1993, ed. John Dunn

Biancamaria Fontana, “Introduction,” in Constant: political writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988)

Isaiah Berlin, “Two concepts of liberty,” in Four essays on liberty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969),

John Dunn, “Liberty as a substantive political value,” in Interpreting political responsibility (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996)

John Dunn, “Conclusions,” in Democracy: the unfinished journey 508 BC to AD 1993

The word rational here would refer to Max Weber’s conception of the word, meaning that the modern state is much more specialised, in terms of occupation, and structure of society.

John Dunn, “Liberty as a substantive political value,” in Interpreting political responsibility (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996)

The liberty of the ancients compared with that of the moderns

John Dunn, “Liberty as a substantive political value,” in Interpreting political responsibility (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996)

The liberty of the ancients compared with that of the moderns