Athenian Democracy and Meritocracy

Athenian body politic and MeritocracyTo what extent did the Athenian democracy live up to its governmental theory of being a meritocracy, and to what extent was precedent still in the hand of the self-aggrandizingesy?Athenian democracy was an evolving process in the 5th deoxycytidine monophosphate B.C. The concentration of agent in the policy-making establishment would change advantageously from when the first seeds were planted until the voting citizenship was expanded and new leaders emerged towards the expiry of the century. Democracy was non instituted in the name of human rights only if for virtual(a) purposes and it is necessary that we look at it in this light when considering whether capital of Greece was a meritocracy and whether the laden still held considerable power in Democratic capital of Greece. It is surely true that Athenian Democracy, like all formations, on paper differed substantially to how it was implemented.In this essay I will argue that A thenian Democracy was largely successful in implementing a landed e asseverate democracy in which, to a large extent, there were no obvious discrepancies over who was favoured in matters of society and the state. I will show that the Athenian constitution largely kept the city as a meritocracy, making its citizens equal in the lead the state in matters of soundity and political power. still, I will too consider the limitations of Athenian Democracy and to what extent trustworthy functions whitethorn mass limited its success. I will argue that the power of the sloshed was in most respects limited by the structure of the state but was held back to some extent by the inevitable advantages that come from wealthiness. I will mainly be arguing that whatever limitations there were, they were non full to slang a damaging matter on democracy as a whole.The Athenian Democracy allowed that only adult males of Athenian ancestry were part of the elected system, which overall made up somewhat 10-20% of the demos. Slaves, freed slaves, children, women and metics (foreigners in Athens) were excluded. It is obvious from this that to label Athens as a meritocracy in the modern sense is absurd. In this essay, I will consider Athens as a meritocracy in terms of the rights and opportunities of those who are citizens, not from those who arent and will therefore consider to what extent Athenian Democracy worked the elbow room it was supposed to.The soaked did not hold power to the extent that it harmed the democratic process. The loaded sure enough did have many advantages compared to the low, but this is not of necessity any comment upon Athenian democracy simply an inevitability that those with wealth will be able to achieve more than those without. The sozzled had power but not to an extent that was spectacularly damaging to the state.When defining wealth, I will consider Aristotles definition as including bills, land, real estate, furniture, neckcloth a nd a high quality and quantity of slaves (Rhet. 1361a12-16). in that location was most decidedly a significant wealth contrariety amongst Athenss citizens whereby the vacuous class (those who didnt need to work as a resolve of family fortunes, nobility etc.) made up roughly 5-10% of the populace. This class barrier was acceptedly realised by the lower classes who a good deal showed their resentment at the wealthy. However despite this inequality, they did not see this as particularly affecting when it came down to the political and legal powers of the people, as this inequality was grudgingly accepted. Wealth discrepancies were not seen as unjust as potential legal or political barriers that may have affected the citizens. (see Ober ch.5)Politically, wealth as a peckerwood was restricted as a result of the various stipulations in the constitution. There was no longer any property qualification for the academy or for voting and the holding of political offices as well as juri es stock payment for these services, meaning that the democratic or legal process was not hinged on the use of wealth to misdirect political office or to serve as part of the legal jurisdiction. The constitution minimised any palpable legal or political operate on by the wealthy, who still had frugal power but this fact is only to be expected in a society such as Athens which thrived on the control of goods and services.This idea of the accepted separation of wealth inequality with legal and political affairs can be seen with the orator DemosthenesThe plentiful have great wealth which no one save ups them from enjoying though they must not keep us from enjoying the security which is our most common possession the laws(Demosthenes, Against Meidias, (22.25-27))Therefore, the wealth inequality was not viewed by the people as un-democratic or damaging to their political power and rights (Ober 199.)The wealth even often had a positive effect on the democratic process, benefiting e ven the poor. The various taxes imposed on the rich (liturgies, war taxes and fines given out by the courts) was often redistributed in a way that greatly benefitted the poorer in society, such as state projects, the upkeep of the city, the academy and also security from outside threats. Therefore, often the wealthy had a positive effect on both the city and the poor, with their gold often acting as subsidies for the less wealthy instead of them exploiting the poor for their own benefit. (Ober 202)However, it is true that there were indeed many situations in which the wealth were able to use their gold as leverages and to exert a certain amount of power over the lower classes. In legal matters, the wealthier would often get less punitive punishments for certain crimes such as theft. The wealthy could also dominate proceeding through the use of benefactions they could use money to buy silence from witnesses or make them lie, they could also try and bribe prosecutors and use their wealth to buy support from the crowd.Also, the dependence of the state on the money received from the rich could have damaging effects. The wealthy may try and hide their wealth from the state or even slump to pay certain taxes that are voluntary. It is also true that the allegiance of the wealthy to the Athenian state was not as solid as the poorer citizens as they were less dependent on the state structure which was very effective towards the poor. These actions of the rich could potentially have very negative outcomes in situations where the state were in need of the wealth of the rich. Finally, in times of war the rich certainly had an easier time, whereby the rich could use their money in order to buy positions as horsemen which were less involved in the fighting than the frontline soldiers who were often peaceful of those soldiers who could not afford as expensive equipment as those less wealthy.The wealthy were limited in the power they could hold. While they held econom ic power, this did not have much of an impact upon the legal and political rights of Athenian citizens as economic inequality was not seen as having as important a subprogram in democracy as other egalitarian principles they was accepted. The occurrences of violations of democracy by the rich does not show the weakness of the state as a whole only the weaknesses of individuals in certain instances and the inevitability of those with wealth having certain advantages over others these should not be seen as any substantial drawback to the ideals of meritocracy in the Athenian state.The Athenian Constitution largely justifies describing Athens as a meritocracy. It allowed for legal and political rights to become universal for all Athenian citizens where separately man was considered justly under the eyes of the polis. Athenian Democracy was not perfect. Like all systems there were areas which were vulnerable to corruption and which were arguably mischievous to a healthy state. Ther e undoubtedly was a selection of the wealthy elite who would often use their wealth for self-aggrandisement rather than back up the state but this has to be expected in all societies. On the whole, the Democracy of Athens was largely egalitarian in political and legal matters where those who were citizens were treated with the same eyes. The wealthy in society were, to a large extent, prohibited from using their wealth to defile the workings of the state. The times in which the wealthy were able to exert a certain level of power were inevitable blowbacks to a society where there was a competition for money and a competition for power. The power that the wealthy had and used was not enough to taint a relatively sophisticated political system and where corruptions of that system occurred, personal power-grabbing was often shrouded in popular support and the use of wealth for personal gain was seen as an inevitable circumstance of self-preservation.BibliographyM. I. Finley (1962) Ath enian Demagogues then(prenominal) Present 21 3-24Ober, J. Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens rhetoric, ideology, and the power ofthe people, (Princeton University evoke US 1989.)Ober, J. Public Speech and the Power of the large number in Democratic Athens in TheAthenian Revolution. Essays on superannuated Greek democracy and political theory, (PrincetonUniversity Press US 1996)Raaflaub, K.A. Equalities and Inequalities in Athenian Democracy in Ober, J. andHedrick, C. (eds.) Demokratia. A conversation on Democracies, ancient and modern,(Princeton University Press US 1996)Hansen, M. H. The Political Leaders in The Athenian Democracy in the Age ofDemosthenes (Blackwell UK 1991)Davies, J.K. Wealth and the Power of Wealth in Classical Athens, (Ayer Co New York 1981.)Sinclair, R.K. Democracy and Participation in Athens, (Cambridge University Press Cambridge 1988.)Aristotle The Art of grandiosity (Penguin UK 1991)Demosthenes Political Speeches (Oxford University Press London 2014)