U.S. Democracy compared to ancient Athenian Democracy

The Political System of the Unites States of America
The political system of the United States of America is a so-called constitutional republic – a form of liberal democracy - framed by the U.S. Constitution, which protects individual rights and freedom (The Bill of Rights), such as assembly, freedom of speech, religion, privacy, property, and equality before the law. All citizens are subject to three levels of government: the local, the state and the federal government. Concerning all three levels, officials are mainly elected by voters, who have to be at least 18 years old and all voters are individually responsible for their registration to vote. In some cases, officials are appointed or nominated by an executive branch, and the nominated officials have to be approved by the legislature.

The federal government is divided in three distinctive branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The executive branch is the President. He is the head of the States, and the commander-in-chief for the military. The President has the political power to administer and enforce federal laws and policies. He can veto bills, and he is able to appoint the Cabinet besides other federal officers (Head of the CIA, FBI etc.). Both the Senate and the House of Representatives in combination function as the legislative branch, a so-called bicameral Congress. They are responsible for federal laws, they can approve treaties and they are able officially to declare a war. In addition, the Congress is in charge of the purse and of possible impeachments against members of the Congress and – by exception – against the President of the United States. The judiciary branch is the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, whose judges are not elected – but appointed by the President, followed by the Senate’s approval. The Supreme Court has the power and the ability to interpret and to overturn laws.

The goal of the constitutional republic of the United States (and others) is that no individual group is able to achieve absolute power, but is controlled by the constitution, which limits the power of the government, and therefore makes it constitutional. The political decisions of the President and other officials are subject to judicial review.

The Athenian Democracy
The Athenian Democracy, also known as the Classical Democracy, was a direct democracy, where people did not elect representatives, but participated actively and directly by voting on legislation and executive bills in their own right. All free Greek male citizens of Athens were allowed to participate in political decision making and governed themselves. Both Solon in 594 and Cleisthenes in 508 B.C. contributed to the distinctive and remarkable development of Athenian democracy through reformation and
adjustments. Ephialtes later revised Cleisthenes’ constitution slightly (462 B.C.), but the Athenian democratic structure that is discussed here is the one Cleisthenes implemented.
He changed the political map of Athens and its neighborhood significantly.
The city of Athens and the villages that surrounded the city (demoi) became constituent units of the Athenian political organization. Cleisthenes divided Attica into thirty units (trittyes), which were further divided into three groups of ten tribes. The three groups represented the coastal, the urban and the inland areas. Each trittys consisted of several villages/neighborhoods, called deme. All adult male citizens, at least 18 years old, could participate directly in the running for the government. Women, children and slaves were excluded. The number of representatives from each deme was proportionally based on the size of its population. The so-called Council of 500 (formerly established by Solon as the Council of 400) was made up of 50 men from each of the ten tribes, all selected by lot. These members had to be over 30 and could only serve for a year, but could be re-elected a second time in their lifetime. Considering the fact that approximately 25,000 to 30,000 adult male citizens were allowed to vote, almost every Athenian citizen would have to serve at least once in a lifetime. The council oversaw the Assembly, and a farmer could sit next to an aristocrat, with equal voice and opinion, and the right to vote. The Assembly, probably more than 6,000 people, summoned whenever life-and-death decisions had to be made about war, peace, military issues (navy, hoplites, and armor) and food supply. All free male citizens were allowed to attend an assembly meeting. They could vote, speak up, and persuade or influence various political decisions.

Differences
When we compare the United States with classical Athens, we certainly compare two very different forms of democracy: Athens’ direct democracy (also referred to as a pure democracy) and the liberal or constitutional democracy of the United States.
Cleisthenes, and probably many of his fellow citizens, believed that to practice “true democracy” was only possible with a maximum of 30,000 people – very much the number of eligible voters during the classic Athenian era. The size of the population in the United States is estimated to be 300m; in 2004, approximately 72% were eligible to vote, hence 216m people. In terms of an Athenian understanding of democracy, the sheer size of the population would make true democracy impossible. The U.S. is one of the world’s most ethnically diverse nations, which has to be understood as the product of large scale immigration from many countries all over the world, ever since the foundation of the United States. In comparison, Athenian citizenship was only guaranteed to freeborn citizens, whose father was also a freeborn Athenian. Pericles changed this law in 451 B.C. by stating that both the father and the mother had to be Athenian born.
All free male citizens of at least 18 years were directly involved in political decision making, hence, political power as known and practiced in the U.S., was not dependent on winning election terms and consensus decision making, but rather speaking and specifically persuading people in the assembly. Issues were discussed, voted and decisions were finally put into action. Political parties with a specific message and ideology were unknown. Each individual could speak for himself, and was able to choose
a position or standpoint that was to his liking or that suited him well. The Athenian constitution – though never officially a written constitution - required that all citizens were involved in political issues. Women, children and slaves were excluded from any political activity. Equal rights for all people were not known in Attica. It was clearly distinguished between Athens born citizens and “other Greeks”; non-Greek citizens had no rights whatsoever.

In Athens, the so-called strategoi or generals were determined by election of each tribe. The ten generals, who had the most political and military power, were only allowed to serve for one year, but could be reelected again (see also Pericles who was reelected ten times). In the U.S., the President has the most political power. He serves for four years and can be reelected for a second term. However, his decision making power is subject to laws and a balanced control system, that also involves the Congress as well as the Supreme Court. The members of the Supreme Court, however, are appointed by the President, and therefore not elected. The people of the United States have no say in this individual decision making process – most likely the most undemocratic issue compared with Athenian’s judiciary. As per James Woodburn, “[…] the ability of the people to choose officials in government is checked by not allowing them to elect Supreme Court Justices.” In addition, the people are not allowed to make laws directly. The majority rule, however, is tempered by minority rights protected by law – as per U.S. governmental law. The Athenian assembly, however, made laws and rules, and all male adults were responsible for all internal and external political decisions concerning the Athenian City State. The people were voters, political parties, legislative, judiciary, and executive at the same time. The power truly was in the hands of the people, instead of voting for representatives to decide for them.

Similarities
What was known as true democracy in Athens, where sovereignty was lodged in the assembly of all citizens eligible to participate, does not exist in the U.S. or other democratic countries. Various forms of democracies are known, and the constitutional democracy of the United States can be considered a liberal democracy, based on tolerance and pluralism. All legal citizens have the right to vote, and even extremely differing social and political views are allowed to exist and to compete for political power. Despite the fact that only certain citizens were allowed political power in Athens, its democratic structure has to be considered liberal as well. As long as the speaker was convincing and able to persuade the assembly, his opinion could influence or change political decisions. But, even if he was against a decision, he might not have been able to change it, but was allowed to speak up. Ordinary citizens were able to set the political agenda. Farmers sat next to aristocrats. Anyone could become president of the council for 24 hours and was able to rule Attica. This, in principle, is possible in the United States as well. Any American born citizen with more or less valuable experience in law, business or political power can theoretically become president; serve in the House of Representatives or in the Senate, and in many other federal, state or county offices.

Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton are examples of rather poor, though well educated people who were able to win a presidential election. Political leaders in Athens were able to attempt bribery and could make secret political deals in order to favor themselves or their cause. This is still possible in modern United States democracy (as well as in all others); where either individual politicians or a whole political party or wing can make deals under the table in order to gain advantage.
In Athens as well as in the U.S., politicians were/are subject to scrutiny. In the case of mistakes, failure or misbehavior, they could/can be removed from office and had/have to face both political and personal consequences.

Arguments for and against direct democracy
As stated above, direct democracy as understood by the ancient Greeks is only feasible with a limited number of participants. City States with a few thousand inhabitants as known in classic Greece had the possibility to implement and maintain pure democracy, but modern States with a population of several million people are not able to support this form of democracy efficiently. Also, a direct democracy can be unrepresentative, since voter turnout is not necessarily equally distributed among various groups and since not always all eligible voters participate in each vote. However, a direct democracy is inherently representative, since everyone can vote.
Wealthier citizens in Athens certainly had easier access to education than did poor farmers. The higher the level of education, the greater the advantages concerning political influence, rhetoric, law making etc. The art of speech and fundamental knowledge of rhetoric, combined with charismatic arguments and convincing gestures could have led to unreasonable decisions and laws, because the speaker was just able to paint a picture to his benefit and yet was able to convince the majority – but not necessarily for the greater good and public cause. The speaker and/or the voter might have selfishly focused on needs and values, which benefited him, to the disadvantage of the majority. On the other hand is it well known that less educated people were also able to submit their point of view and were able to influence or even change decisions. It is generally difficult to make a law, which benefits a smaller group and hurts a larger group, even if the benefit for the smaller group outweighs that of the larger one. The decision making process tended to be slow and inefficient at times. By keeping in mind that basically all matters of public importance had to be discussed prior to a final decision, questions might have been asked several times, and unimportant issues might have come up during a discussion that caused delays and finally public apathy and voter fatigue – which unfortunately can also be seen in contemporary democracies. Many voters were not interested in politics and considered it a burden to participate while the farm needed attention, or just because they had a general lack of political interest. Special interest groups would have fought for their specific cause, where others ignored the issue completely and did not vote. Group interests shifted, and a full assembly would have decided otherwise. By allowing salaries for Greek politicians, it became much easier for less rich or simply poor people to work effectively in office. It also reduced the likelihood of corruption, which is considered intrinsic concerning the concentration of power in a representative government.

Political parties are considered the “necessary evil of a representative democracy”. The party representatives often have to compromise their own values and the values of the electorate to be in line with the party’s ideology or strategy to win the next election. Influential lobbyists, such as religious groups, the American Firearm Association etc. tend to influence and/or financially support political parties or politicians in favor of their
policies and goals. Political parties also tend to focus on subjects that interest the public – such as abortion or gay marriage – but would have no significant influence on external policies or other subjects that might be much more necessary to discuss at certain times. Especially in the U.S., a tendency can be seen that candidates are more focused on personal image, reputation and personal opinions being in line with lobbying groups or popular opinions rather than political issues that would be significant for the greater public cause. Representatives have a tendency to compromise in order to achieve other or additional objectives (e.g., minimum wage measures are combined with tax relief).
The financial resources spent for elections are enormously high and could possibly be spent somewhere else. The money that is needed to support either a party or a candidate makes both the party and the candidate vulnerable to funneled opinions and might jeopardize their objectivity. Moreover, elected candidates often appoint friends and supporters to positions in order to reward them for their loyalty during a political campaign. Lack of knowledge and competence can cause serious damage for the public with long-term negative results to follow (see Michael D. Brown’s appointment as head of the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency and his devastating performance during and after the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe). Another serious issue is the lack of accountability concerning elected representatives. Once in office, elected representatives are basically free to act as they please. Promises are sometimes broken and the actions taken are often contradictory to the desires and demands of the electorate. Theoretically, these candidates can be removed from office. In reality, this hardly takes place. Especially when the candidate acts shortly after being elected, the public tends to forget his failures and broken promises. In Athens, a political party would have had no effect, because there was no need for people to conform to popular opinions. Moreover, each issue was decided on its own merit.

There are many more arguments for and against a direct democracy, and in return, for and against a representative democracy. The arguments cannot be seen as right or wrong, or black and white. But feasibility is certainly one major issue that has to be considered while discussing the matter. The United States as a constitutional republic, and therefore as a representative democracy, based on its Constitution, guarantee freedom and pluralism for each individual. Alexander Tsesis has stated this clearly and significantly, “A representative polity established on fundamental law, each person has the right to pursue and fulfill his or her unobtrusive vision of the good life. In such a society, the common good is the cumulative product of free and equal individuals who pursue meaningful aims.” However, corruption, conflicts of interests, practicality and efficiency, lobbies and personal interests can deteriote and finally weaken any political system until it collapses. Democracy means also that the people allow political things to happen – to a certain degree. It is then up to the people indeed to oppose and to react upon political
issues that could jeopardize a democracy as a whole and the freedom and the power of the people that lives in it.