Origin of democracy in Greece

INTRODUCTION :-
Democracy is derived from the word demokratia the root meaning of
which are demos(people) and kratos (rule). Democracy means a form of
government in which in contradistinction to monarchies and
aristocracies, the people rule , Democracy entails a political community
in which there is some form of political equality among the people. The
history of the idea of democracy is complex and is marked by
conflicting conceptions.
In addition, the Greek democracy supported the idea that the people can
replace their government through peaceful transfers of power rather than
violent uprising or revolution. Thus, a key part of democracy is that the
people have a voice.
In the fifth century BC, Athens emerged as the most innovative and
sophisticated 'city-state' or polis among many rival Greek communities.
Initially, these cities were typically controlled by local kingships but
later, often after violent conflicts, they came to be dominated by 'clan'
and 'tribal' hierarchies.
The political continuity of the early city-states was broken by the rise of
the 'tyrants' or autocrats (c.650-510 BC), who represented the interests of
those who had recently become wealthy through either landownership or
commerce and trade. The clan and tribal order gave way to more
tyrannous regimes. But the stability of these regimes was vulnerable to
shifting alliances and coalitions. The growth of wealth for some was not
matched by improvements in the conditions of the poorer classes,
particularly those who were landless or owned small farms and peasant
holdings. An expansion in the population increased pressure on the
privileged, and a period of intensive social struggle ensued.
Greek city communities acquired a growing sense of identity and
solidarity. Clear lines of demarcation were drawn between 'insiders'
(citizens) and 'outsiders' (slaves and other categories of people including
all those, however respectable, who had come from other communities
and resettled). This identity was reinforced by a growth in literacy which
also aided the administration and control of people and resources
(although the ancient world remained predominantly an oral culture)
In the year 507 B.C., the Athenian leader Cleisthenes or the father of
democracy introduced a system of political reforms that he called
demokratia, or “rule by the people”
The first known democracy in the world was in Athens. The Greek idea
of democracy was different from present-day democracy because, in
Athens, all adult citizens were required to take an active part in the
government. If they did not fulfill their duty they would be fined and
sometimes marked with red paint. The Athenian definition of “citizens”
was also different from modern-day citizens: only free men were
considered citizens in Athens. Women, children, and slaves were not
considered citizens and therefore could not vote.

Each year 500 names were chosen from all the citizens of ancient
Athens. Those 500 citizens had to actively serve in the government for
one year. During that year, they were responsible for making new laws
and controlled all parts of the political process. When a new law was
proposed, all the citizens of Athens had the opportunity to vote on it. To
vote, citizens had to attend the assembly on the day the vote took place.
This form of government is called direct democracy. As direct
democracy is a form in which the citizens are required to take part in the
day to day functioning of the government and it is different from the
present day democracy which is the representative democracy in which
citizens vote to choose their representatives who are accountable to
them.

To participate in the demokratia, a person had to be free, male and

Athenian. In the beginning of the democratic period, Athenian men had
to have an Athenian father and a free mother. By the mid-5th century
B.C., Athens changed the law so that only men with Athenian
fathers and mothers could claim citizenship. Because there were no birth
certificates (or DNA tests) to prove parentage, a young Athenian man’s
political life began when his father introduced him at their local demos,
or political unit, by swearing that he was his father and bringing
witnesses to attest to this, Cartledge says.
The Ekklesia

Athenian democracy was a direct democracy made up of three important

institutions. The first was the ekklesia, or Assembly, the sovereign
governing body of Athens. Any member of the demos—any one of those
40,000 adult male citizens—was welcome to attend the meetings of the
ekklesia, which were held 40 times per year in a hillside auditorium west
of the Acropolis called the Pnyx. (Only about 5,000 men attended each
session of the Assembly; the rest were serving in the army or navy or
working to support their families.)

At the meetings, the ekklesia made decisions about war and foreign
policy, wrote and revised laws and approved or condemned the conduct
of public officials. (Ostracism, in which a citizen could be expelled from
the Athenian city-state for 10 years, was among the powers of the
ekklesia.) The group made decisions by simple majority vote.

The Boule

The second important institution was the boule, or Council of Five

Hundred. The boule was a group of 500 men, 50 from each of ten
Athenian tribes, who served on the Council for one year. Unlike the
ekklesia, the boule met every day and did most of the hands-on work of
governance. It supervised government workers and was in charge of
things like navy ships (triremes) and army horses. It dealt with
ambassadors and representatives from other city-states. Its main function
was to decide what matters would come before the ekklesia. In this way,
the 500 members of the boule dictated how the entire democracy would
work.

Positions on the boule were chosen by lot and not by election. This was
because, in theory, a random lottery was more democratic than an
election: pure chance, after all, could not be influenced by things like
money or popularity. The lottery system also prevented the
establishment of a permanent class of civil servants who might be
tempted to use the government to advance or enrich themselves.
However, historians argue that selection to the boule was not always just
a matter of chance. They note that wealthy and influential people—and
their relatives—served on the Council much more frequently than would
be likely in a truly random lottery.

The Dikasteria

The third important institution was the popular courts, or dikasteria.

Every day, more than 500 jurors were chosen by lot from a pool of male
citizens older than 30. Of all the democratic institutions, Aristotle argued
that the dikasteria “contributed most to the strength of democracy”
because the jury had almost unlimited power.

There were no police in Athens, so it was the demos themselves who

brought court cases, argued for the prosecution and the defense and
delivered verdicts and sentences by majority rule. (There were also no
rules about what kinds of cases could be prosecuted or what could and
could not be said at trial, and so Athenian citizens frequently used the
dikasteria to punish or embarrass their enemies.)

Jurors were paid a wage for their work, so that the job could be
accessible to everyone and not just the wealthy (but, since the wage was
less than what the average worker earned in a day, the typical juror was
an elderly retiree). Since Athenians did not pay taxes, the money for
these payments came from customs duties, contributions from allies and
taxes levied on the metoikoi. The one exception to this rule was the
leitourgia, or liturgy, which was a kind of tax that wealthy people
volunteered to pay to sponsor major civic undertakings such as the
maintenance of a navy ship (this liturgy was called the trierarchia) or the
production of a play or choral performance at the city’s annual festival.

The End of Athenian Democracy

Around 460 B.C., under the rule of the general Pericles (generals were
among the only public officials who were elected, not appointed)
Athenian democracy began to evolve into something that we would call
an aristocracy: the rule of what Herodotus called “the one man, the
best.” Though democratic ideals and processes did not survive in ancient
Greece, they have been influencing politicians and governments ever
since.

Modern representative democracies, in contrast to direct democracies,

have citizens who vote for representatives who create and enact laws on
their behalf. Canada, The United States and South Africa are all
examples of modern-day representative democracies.

Origin of Democracy in India

In the period before ce 400, ancient India was home to a variety of self-
governing polities using quasi-democratic institutions comparable with
those of the Greek city-states of the same era.

Vedic Councils and Post-Vedic Republics

The Ancient body of texts, Vedic literature, was created at various times
over a thousand year span, c. 1500–500 bce. Vedic literature speaks
directly only about the prayers, rituals, incantations and sacrifices of the
lost cultures of that vast period. The most obvious political figures who
emerge from the Vedas are rajas, who can be seen as kings or (taking a
less lofty view) elected war chieftains.
Experts have debated the definition and functions of these bodies,
notably those called the vidatha, the sabha and the samiti, but it seems
clear that even in monarchical communities, it was common enough to
have a council or an assembly or both. This hint of self-government in
the past was a subject for celebration. India, even at a very early time,
had participated in the common human pattern of
small-scale governance, what Walter Bagehot aptly called ‘government
by discussion.
Similarly, some communities rejected the claims of monarchy and its
religious Justification i.e the varna system . One manifestation of this
opposition were the many corporate bodies whose members enjoyed a
certain equality and who governed themselves through discussion and
voting, in other words organisations that manifested varying degrees
of democratic practice.
Ideas of participative governance come from the Vedas as the Rig Veda
and Atharva Veda talk about sabha and samiti. Jayaswal argued that a
samiti was a sovereign body from the constitutional point of view,
while sabha was a standing body of selected men working under the
authority of the samiti.
It would not be wrong to say that the principle of democracy is
originated from the Vedas.
The Sabha and Samiti are mentioned in both Rig Veda and Atharva
Veda. In these meetings, a decision was made after the discussion with
the king, ministers, and scholars at that time. This shows how politics
was at that time because people together used to settle the decisions of
the Sabha and Samiti with good vision. Even people of different
ideologies were divided into various groups and take a decision after
mutual consultation.
Occasionally there was also a conflict between ideas due to the
differences in the mindsets of people. So, it will not be wrong to say that
the beginning of bicameral legislation can be considered since the Vedic
period. Even the selection of Indra was also due to these committees
during the Vedic period. At that time, Indra was the post which was
known as Kings of King. The word republic has been used forty times in
Rig Veda, 9 times in Atharva Veda and in Brahman texts many times.
After the decline of the Vedic era, the monarchs emerged and remained
the ruler for a long time.

The terms Sabha( gathering), Samiti ( smaller Gathering or Committee )

Rajan or Raja ( Householder, Leader) exists and are found in Vedic
literature. Rig Veda also says that the position of the King (Leader) was
not absolute, and he could be removed by the Sabha or the Assembly.

Rig Veda had made democratic principles and its ideals a deity and
called it ‘Samjnana’. This term means the collective consciousness of
the people. The hymns of Rigveda addressed to Samjnana called upon
the people to gather in their assembly i.e. Samgachchaddhvam and speak
there in one voice i.e. Samvadaddhvam, in a union of minds
(Sammanah), of hearts (Samachittam), of policy (Samanmantrah), and of
hopes and aspirations (akuti).

The Buddhist Evidence:-

The best account of the workings of quasi-democratic republics and
other corporations of this era concern the Buddhist monastic
brotherhood, also called the sangha. The earliest parts of the Buddhist
scriptures, known as the Pali Canon, show us in detail how the founder
of this particular sangha was believed to have organised his followers
when he was preparing to die.
The key organisational virtue was the full participation
of all the monks in the ritual and disciplinary acts of their group. To
ensure that this would be remembered, detailed rules concerning the
voting in monastic assemblies, their memberships and their quorums,
were set down in the scriptures known as the Mahavagga and the
Kullavagga.
Evidently, the usual principle of full participation and the equality of the
membership had to be balanced against survival of the religious
enterprise: disunity of the membership was the great fear of all
Indian republics and corporations. The story that begins the Maha-
parinibbana-suttanta, among the oldest of Buddhist texts, shows the
Buddha outlining principles of measured self-government and how they
applied to his brotherhood and to the gana of the Vajjis (Vaggis), a
prominent republican confederation of northeast India.
He then laid down seven conditions of welfare that the Vajjians were
expected to adhere to: holding full and frequent assemblies, taking and
implementing decisions in concord, preserving institutions, honouring
elders, protecting women, conserving shrines and supporting the
enlightened.
The seven conditions of welfare are often recognised as key governance
principles that had elements of democracy. Buddhist monasteries
adhered to the principles, which mirrored the ethos of the prevalent gana
sanghas (clan-based oligarchies) of the time.

The leading republican state in the Vajjian confederacy, Lichchhavi,

followed its own system of governance. Another text, Ekapanna Jataka,
says Vaishali (the capital of Lichchhavi, in present-day Bihar) always
had 7,707 ‘kings’ to govern the state. These kings belonged to the
Lichchhavi clan and they were given to “argument and disputation”.

The Lichchhavi Gana Sangha had a number of administrative units,

each of which was a mini state. They had an elected council, a general
assembly that met once a year, and a system of voting that employed
sticks. The ruling clans practised egalitarian traditions and rejected
Vedic ones.
After the Buddha’s death, monasteries, too, followed a system of
discussion and voting, says the Buddhist text Vinaya Pitaka. They had
three systems of voting: the ballot, whispering in another monk’s ear,
and show of hands.

In Lichchhavi, disputes regarding matters of war and religious and social

issues called for voting. If consensus proved elusive, a committee
called udayvahika was appointed. There were four voting
techniques―open voting, secret ballot, mouth-to-ear whispers and the
“evident system”, in which names of other voters were declared. There
were seven types of courts as well, with the king heading the judiciary.
Lichchhavis had presidents (ganapati), vice presidents (upa ganapati),
army chiefs (senapati), ambassadors and other key heads of
administration.

BASAVANNA : Anubhava Mantapa

“The Anubhava Mantapa―often referred to as the first parliament of the
world. Basaveshwara is the first Indian thinker who started the system of
deliberation and discussion. In that sense, he is a real democrat. His
‘Anubhava Mantapa’ at Kalyan is the perfect example of a legislative
body. People from all walks of life were its members. He called upon
them as ‘Sharana’s, who are the pure and real citizens. Sharana’s were
free to express their views during deliberations and discussions at the
Anubhava Mantapa. All of them used to participate actively in the
proceedings of Anubhava Mantapa. Basaveshwara was the leader of this
body. But when we study him, we find that, he listened to everybody
before coming to a conclusion. That shows the true character of a
democratic leader.
Basaveshwara acted according to the rules and regulations established
by the Anubhava Mantapa. It was constitutional and representative body.
All the members were bound by its rules. The decisions that were taken
in this body were majority decisions. But the minority was never
suppressed. In one sense there was rule of law in the Anubhava
Mantapa.
According to Ranganath Divakar, “Though all other members of
Anubhava Mantapa co-operated with Basaveshwara , he is the real
leader, the chief, a driving force and the central figure for all the
discussions”. This statement shows that he was like democratic leader of
the group. But one thing is to be noticed he never imposed his views on
others. Before taking a decision on any issue the views of each and
every member was considered.

His statement, “The one who wishes the betterment of every living
creature” shows that he was very much interested in the welfare of all. In
the early 12th century he developed a concept of welfare state. He thinks
of the establishment of a new political society, where in every individual
was given importance irrespective of his caste, creed, race or sex.
Basaveshwara is of the firm belief that, the power of good people is the
first and foremost asset of a state. Happiness of the people is the
happiness of the state. The power of the people was the power of the
state.
Harihara in his “Basavaraj Devar Ragale” says that Basaveshwara
upholds the principle of common welfare. In this epic story Harihara
tries to depict that Sharana’s i.e. the noble citizens have equal rights and
powers with the King. No way the King is superior to the commoner.
The property of the state belongs to everyone and not to the King alone.

KAUTILYA :
The Arthashastra (Book 11) is clear: ancient India knew kingdoms
(rajya), but also republics (sangha). Some of them followed farming and
other economic endeavours as well as the military arts, that is, true
democracies of farmer-soldiers. Others called themselves rajas,
presumably large landowners maintaining servants working the land – in
other words, an aristocratic stratum of the wealthy who shared power
amongst themselves and decided affairs of state in assembly.
In Kautilya’s Arthashashtra the Republic has been described in two
categories fist, the Ayudh Republic, in which the only king makes
decisions and the second is Republic only in which everyone can
participate in the decision making process. In Panini, Janpad's word is
also mentioned. In which the representative was elected by the people
and he only takes care of the administration. Inscriptions on the walls of
the Vaikunda Perumal Temple at Uthiramerur in Tamil Nadu, which has
been dated to 920 CE, detail an elaborate system of local self-
governance that elected councils by secret ballot. Similar inscriptions
have been found in other parts of the state, indicating that an early form
of democracy was prevalent in ancient times.

Conclusion
Do you know that some important facts of modern parliamentary
democracy like a decision by the majority were also prevalent at that
time? After the Vedic Period, the description of small Republics is found
in which people participate together in the decision-making process
related to the administration.

The Republic was defined as a democratic system in ancient India. In

the Atreya Brahmins, Ashtadhyayi of Panini, inscriptions of
Mahabharata, Ashoka pillars, the historical writings of contemporary
historians, Buddhist and Jain scholars, in the Manusmriti, various
historical evidence are found.
In Mahabharata, there was a gathering of common people called
Parliament in the Shanti parv which was also known as Jan Sadan.
Democracy was also prevalent in the Buddhist period. Licchavi,
Vaishali, Malak, Madak, Kamboj, etc. are examples of the democratic
system of that era. Vaishali's first king Vishal was chosen via election.
From this article, we come to know that democratic elements were also
there in Ancient India.
Panini’s Sanskrit grammar, an irreplaceable window into
ancient Indian life, indicates that there was at the dawn of the post-Vedic
period a well-known terminology for the process of corporate decision
making: Panini gives us
the terms for vote, decisions reached by voting and the completion of a
quorum.
Another cluster of words indicates that the division of assemblies into
political parties
was well known. Further, Panini and his commentators show that
sometimes select
groups within a sangha had special functions: acting as an executive or
perhaps as
committees for defined purposes. The words gana
and sangha were the most important terms for such groups. Both words
originally
meant ‘multitude’, but by the sixth century bce, they meant both a self-
governing
multitude in which decisions were made by the members working in
common, and
the style of government characteristic of such groups. The strongest of
such groups,
which acted as sovereign governments, were the equivalent of the
republics of the
contemporaneous Mediterranean.
Business could be transacted legitimately only in a full assembly, by a
vote of all the members. If, for example, a candidate wanted the
upasampada ordination, the question
(n˜atti) was put to the sangha by a learned and competent member, and
the other
members asked three times to indicate dissent. If there was none, the
sangha was taken
to be in agreement with the n˜atti. The Kullavagga provides other
techniques that were used in disputes especially dangerous to the unity
of the sangha,
those which concerned interpretation of the monastic rule itself. If such a
dispute
proved to be bitterly divisive, it could be decided by majority vote, or
referred to a jury
or committee specially elected by the sangha to treat the matter at hand.