I will describe the Democratic Government of Athens in three brief posts, roughly corresponding to the legislative, judicial, and administrative (executive) aspects of this government. This post concerns the legislative or rules/decision-making process.

Athens consisted of more than the city itself, but surrounding areas that provided the agricultural and mineral sustenance for the area. Athens was divided into several tribes, each of which made up what we would now call a precinct. Over the years, the number of tribes varied from a low of four up to thirteen, depending upon the varying political climate. Think in terms of the practice of gerrymandering in the United States.

Residents of Athens consisted of citizens, non-citizens and slaves. Citizens met the following criteria, though people could and did gain citizenship through the approval of the assembly.

• both parents were Athenian citizens
• they had to participate in military service
• they had to be property owners
• citizens had to be accepted into their father’s phratry (family tree) and deme (district or village)

Only men were allowed to own land, participate in government, and the political process. Originally each of the four tribes selected, by lot, an equal number of representatives to a council of 400 members called the Boule. Each of the four tribes selected by lot 100 adult male citizens to the Boule, but the number from each tribe and total number of members of the Boule changed as the number and size of the tribes changed over time.

If selected, a citizen served in the Boule for one year, and could only serve twice in his lifetime and once in a decade. The Boule acted as the administration and set the agenda for the meeting of the general assembly of all eligible citizens. Above setting the agenda for the assembly, members of the Boule supervised the state’s finances, the military, religious activities, building projects, and other government services. Members of the Boule were assigned to smaller committees that oversaw specific government activities. The yearly rotation of members and selection by lot was supposed to prevent the domination of government by particular factions. We will consider the administration of Athens by the Boule in more detail in a later post.

Making decisions in Democratic Athens was a true democratic process. The size of the general assembly was made up of all male citizens and was originally around 6000 men. It varied over time as the number of citizens changed with the fortunes of Athens. A citizen had to be present to vote, as there was no absentee voting. This imposed significant difficulties upon some citizens who resided in rural areas outside the city of Athens. To encourage participation, At various times, citizens were paid to attend or punished for being late to the assembly. There were about ten meetings of the general assembly per year, though others could be called as circumstances demanded. The Boule set the agenda, but the general assembly made decisions and enacted laws. Citizens could bring topics to the assembly that were not on the agenda as proposed by the Boule. Votes were usually taken by raising hands to support or oppose proposals. A close vote would be settled through voting with stones or shards of pottery.

Athens had a method of punishing unpopular leaders. This was called ostracism and occurred when at least 6000 citizens voted to punish a leader. Punishment consisted of expelling him from Athens for ten years.

It’s interesting to me that the New England town meeting of the modern United States shares some features with the Athenian assembly. In particular, in a New England town meeting, all citizens are allowed to participate and vote, just like in the Athenian assembly. Many town meetings are only lightly attended.

Note that several times over the centuries of ancient Athens’s existence, the democratic government was illegally taken over by leaders known as tyrants. A tyrant’s government could be malevolent and wasn’t necessarily brutal. Sometimes, under a progressive tyrants’ rule, such as Pisistratus, Athens prospered, and its influence over surrounding areas and across the Mediterranean Sea increased significantly. On the other hand, the first tyrant, Draco, enacted severe punishment for many criminal acts. Draco’s rule is the inspiration for the modern term, draconian, an adjective that describes excessively harsh and severe laws or their application. According to tradition, most of Draco’s severe punishments were rescinded by a later tyrant, Solon.

The threats that Donald Trump has made against the modern American Republican Government have made me wonder how significant those risks are and if there might be alternative forms of government that would be more effective. Among other things, I have realized that the Constitution of the United States is 235 years old, and with all the changes in the world since 1789 the possibility that it could be outdated. This made me wonder about what the great philosophers of the past have said about society and government. Are modern philosophers discussing the effects of technology on civilization and have they considered any alternatives that might incorporate technological advancements? This essay is the first of what I hope will be several essays discussing what I am finding out about past and present thoughts on government.

First, I will start with the first documented Western thoughts on the topic, the thoughts of the ancient Greek Philosophers. Certain city-states in ancient Greece are known for their adoption of Democratic principles and ancient Greek philosophers are known for their early contributions to science and philosophy. Most of what we know of Greek philosophers before Socrates (pre-Socratic or early Greek philosophy) is largely associated with the nature of the physical world (physics, math and the nature of being). These sorts of things are not relevant to government, so I will move along to Socratic philosophy which includes among other things, discussion of society and government.

Socrates did not leave any writings, but his student, Plato did. In Plato’s writings, Socrates is often an important character and it is hard to differentiate Plato’s ideas from Socrates. As Plato was Socarate’s student, it is likely they shared many ideas. Plato’s book, “The Republic” describes what he thought might constitute an ideal state. A philosopher king leads this state. The philosopher king is highly educated, experienced in administration and only seeks the truth. The philosopher king does not want to rule but does so only out of a sense of duty. This person is not part of the mercantile class, so it not motivated to profit from his position of authority.

Socrates was so critical of the Democratic government of Athens that he was eventually executed for corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and impiety (worshipping false gods). So my research has revealed that the most famous ancient Greek democracy, that of Athens, was heavily criticized by the greatest thinkers of the day, who proposed an alternative government, led by highly educated philosopher kings.

Next blog post, I’ll explore some of the history of Athens, which may reveal why Socrates and Plato were so critical of their government.

Back in 2016, I never thought a person of Donald Trump’s moral character could possibly win the presidency. I could not have been more wrong and disappointed in the results of that election. This time around, I’m taking a more objective approach to what I think will happen. Like it or not, this go around depends upon a few contentious issues.

One divisive issue that separates the candidates is gun control. Harris has made it clear that she wants to tighten gun control laws. A couple of statistics reveal how important this issue is. A Gallop poll indicates that about 44% of Americans live in households with guns. Another Gallop poll indicates that 43% of Americans think that gun control laws should stay the same (31%) or be relaxed (12%).

Let’s say that 75% of that roughly 40% of Americans are more concerned with their ability to own guns than the moral character of our next president. That gives Trump 30% of the electorate with just this one issue. To win the popular vote Trump will need another 2 out of 7 voters. I haven’t investigated other significant issues like immigration, the sagging economy, and abortion. There is likely to be large overlap in these demographics, but I think the gun control issue alone gives Trumps such a leg up, that any one of these other issues may put him over the top. This entirely ignores the group of people that vote along party lines regardless of the candidate’s platform.

Like the last couple of elections, a few swing states will decide the contest. A factor in Trump’s favor is that several important swing states like Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida all have fairly lenient gun control laws.

So based on this reasoning I think a strong case can be made that Trump will most likely win, despite his well-known character issues.

I am extremely concerned about the lack of urgency in dealing with climate change in our country and the world. To get a better grip on the general theory of government, I been reading quite a bit about great philosophers of the past and their views on the topic. Next post I will summarize some of what I have learned and what I think about some of their ideas.