The Swamp logo

Defining Democracy

A Continuous Stream of Political Evolution

By Jacob HerrPublished 4 years ago 9 min read
1

The political system of democracy is very much like a chameleon. As time and world cultures change and develop new ideas of civilized order, the democratic process of human government continually makes entrances and exits in differing appearances throughout history. Much like how the actor in the course of a stage play can enter and exit a scene with one outfit and portraying one character, only to appear again, later on, with a different costume playing a secondary part with a completely opposite personality and moral compass; in comparison to their previous performance. For democracy ought to be concrete in it’s values and goals, but also have the ability to be flexible with the everlasting changes of the human condition and of human nature as new eras rise and fall, as well as when technology eliminates human dependency.

As seen in the first real appearance of democracy in the civilized world; the Ancient Athenians were constructed by a process of government where representatives of different aspects of Athenian life voted for laws and programs which would benefit their city-state, while also abiding to what they believed was the will of the Olympian gods (Zeus, Athena, Poseidon, Ares, Aphrodite, Bacchus, etc.). Certainly it was a system of which every elected official had an equal vote and the majority ruled the final decisions in the consulship, however, one must also understand just exactly who had the power to serve in the hallowed halls of the Parthenon. These officials were Athenian-born males who were given the proper amount of education to serve political office, veterans of military campaigns, or were extremely wealthy and owned large tracts of private property; and were not voted in by means of popular election. Even amongst the masses of Athenians who did not hold jobs in government, certain groups of individuals couldn’t vote if they were to ever hold a political title. Women couldn’t vote, citizens of foreign birth couldn’t vote, and slaves couldn’t vote. The democracy showcased in Ancient Athens fits more with our modern definition of elite democracy. Such a concept that even the great philosophers of the era (like Socrates and Plato) heavily scrutinized; with their arguments being that to have a select few with the power and pomp to call the ultimate shots on every aspect of the whole city-state's political and economic condition is unfair to the masses who work and toil for their benefit. That for this to take place is the slow but sure approach towards tyranny.

The democratic regime, however, would seem to have a double presence. It’s principle, freedom, is, to be sure, critically evaluated. However, in addition to considering the democratic principle we are so able to reflect, in a way that we cannot in the case of the timarchy or the oligarchy on the realities of democratic practice. (Mara 139-140)

Crucially, Socrates was not elitist in the normal sense. He didn’t believe that a narrow few should only ever vote. He did, however, insist that only those who had thought about issues rationally and deeply should be let near a vote. We have forgotten this distinction between an intellectual democracy and a democracy by birthright. We have given the vote to all without connecting it to that of wisdom. And Socrates knew exactly where that would lead: to a system the Greeks feared above all, demagoguery. Dēmos "the people" + agōgos "leading". (theschooloflife.com)

It is because of this form of elitist democracy which also brought about the city-state’s historic downfall and conquest by the Spartans. Being that no other city-state advocated for democracy and instead relied on forms of monarchy. Pure democracy requires the preservation of the people's right to liberty and enfranchisement, yet also requires the voices of such people of all levels of the social hierarchy to be spoken and considered in the actions of voting, and establishing legislation. Democracy ought to do this while at the same time carefully regulating who has enough power to conduct these actions. Where should the system draw the line between the empowering of the people and the politicians to avoid instances of tyranny and oppression? Perhaps an insight into another appearance of democracy in history may answer such a question.

Following the American Revolution and the political experiment known as the Articles of Confederation failed to consolidate the upstart U.S. government, a convention in Philadelphia took place to draft out a new series of documents detailing a new form of government which could exercise federal power and collect appropriate revenues, while also maintaining that the individual states (as well as the people who made up the populations of such states) would be entitled to certain powers and freedoms; avoiding another route towards tyrannical monarchy. However, in the course of what would become the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the political figures which made up the convention clashed over the matter of power distribution between federal and state. The Federalist Party (consisting of men like John Adams, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton) advocated for a strong federal government which can maintain it’s own power and distribute limited amounts of laws and liberties to the states. Meanwhile the Anti-federalists (Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and James Monroe) supported a much weaker federal government which would equalize the right for each state to share power and draft it’s own laws in accordance to social and economic conditions. In Jefferson’s mind, this makes sense because the early days of America were economically driven by business which are designated in today’s time as “blue collar” jobs. Such as agriculture, game hunting, fur trading, paper pressing, fishing, whaling, alcohol distilling, or running a private business like an inn or a tavern. Modern industries like textile mills, steel manufacturing, oil harvesting, lumber, and mining of precious metals wouldn’t become a major economic factor in the U.S. until the second half of the 19th Century and onwards. Therefore, the ability of the state governments to draft it’s own laws in accordance to what revenues can be brought to the national government would be fair and equal (especially in southern states where plantations and cash cropping was the most profitable).

However, James Madison argues that to have some states draft laws in defiance of others simply based on population figures and economic prospects, would be taking a step backwards. He argued that it is nothing less than an utmost necessity to have a stronger national government to oversee the laws that can be granted to the will of individual states would prevent one or a select group of states from becoming too politically powerful; leading towards notions of tyranny and secession (as seen in the cases of Senator and Vice President John C. Calhoun's plan of secession for the state of South Carolina, and the creation of the Confederate States of America in 1860).

Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. (Madison 100-101)

These debates and writings of political discourse between the Federalists and Anti-federalists would bring about the U.S government as we know of it today; with the exception of the additional 17 amendments to the Bill of Rights over the course of nearly 230 years. However, the importance of these debates and construction of the constitutional government lies in the fact that it drew a line in the sand between these political parties which would forge the first era of the American two-party system (northern Republicans and southern Democrats) which would fuel the political animosity seen in the Civil War. Following that conflict, these party identities would remain the same by geographical location, but over the course of several decades into the 21st Century, the northern states which once identified themselves as “Republican” would suddenly call themselves democratic in ideology and the southern states would advocate for the same struggle for individual rights and less government interference, but under the title of the Republican Party. The ideologies and goals are the same, but the party titles are swapped. The chameleon that is democracy changes with evolving time and advancing standards of economics, culture, and technology, to continue fighting for the values once upheld by the old-school Federalists and Anti-federalists.

Yet, does the Anti-federalist's (or modern day republican's) values and goals represent true democracy? Once again, like the case of the Ancient Athenians, the answer is no. On the grounds that the Anti-federalists were advocating for the democratic freedom of the individual states strictly for the economic benefit of rich, land-owning, bureaucrats who wanted to continue making money on their private plantations of cotton, tobacco, and sugar, cultivated by the toil of slaves (vulnerable to the often sadistic and inhumane abuse of their masters). Women were not given the right to vote nor were they given social opportunities to hold public office, or even inherit a family estate or business. Indeginous nations which once resided in these lands were often militarily subjugated for forced off into lands in “Indian Territory” (now the state of Oklahoma) and people under impoverished conditions, who couldn’t afford to own private property, often had to supplement debts by working as indentured servants couldn’t vote or partake in local politics due to their lack of education. It is another instance of elite democracy where the participants of state and local government are from the upper echelons of the society and remain that way, until federal law and advancing technology allow the masses to participate in the democratic process and educate themselves with the tools of instantaneous knowledge that we have today to formulate our own thoughts and politically act on them.

Which leads to the following contextualization. As the democratic process evolves and changes it’s exterior with the continual evolution of technology and the human condition, the modern state of democracy grows ever closer to it’s pure and idealistic definition. However, much like the ideologies of socialism and communism (advocated by the likes of Karl Marx and Frederic Engels), these are only theories; theories which will only be fully successful in perfect worlds where humanity is free from error. The ultimate will of nature and the morality of the individual will always prevent these utopian doctrines of civilized government from coming into full existence. They are ideals bound to the earth like roots. Though, it is from these roots, that the theories act as a foundation for mighty trees of varying deviants of the hardcore utopian ideas; only to grow further into separate entities and make their own mark on the surrounding environments of the planet.

Works Cited

  • Mara, M., Gerald. Socrates' Discursive Democracy: Logos and Ergon in Platonic Political Philosophy. State University of New York Press. 1997. Print. Accessed August 11, 2020.
  • “Why Socrates Hated Democracy”. theschooloflife.com. https://www.theschooloflife.com/thebookoflife/why-socrates-hated-democracy/. Web. Accessed August 11, 2020.
  • Classics, Canterbury. The U.S. Constitution and Other Writings. Printers Row Publishing Group. 2017. Print. Accessed August 11, 2020.
  • Ginsberg, Benjamin., Lowi, J., Theodore, Weir, Margaret, Tolbert. J., Caroline. We the People: An Introduction to American Politics. Eleventh Core Edition. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. 2017. Print. Accessed August 11, 2020.

history
1

About the Creator

Jacob Herr

Born & raised in the American heartland, Jacob Herr graduated from Butler University with a dual degree in theatre & history. He is a rough, tumble, and humble artist, known to write about a little bit of everything.

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.