Democratic Reform
Kleisthenes' Reforms (507 BC)
After the fall of the tyranny, there was a struggle between Isagoras the son of Teisander, who was a supporter of the tyrants, and Kleisthenes, who was of the family of the Alkmaionids. When Kleisthenes lost power in the clubs (hetaireiai), he took the people into partnership [or ‘on to his side’] by promising them control of the state . . . At that time . . . he first divided the citizens into ten tribes instead of the earlier four with the aim of mixing them up so that more might share control of the state".
(Aristotle, Constitution of Athens 20-21).
Kleisthenes started the democratic reforms at 'deme' level such that it can be argued that there were 'local democracies'. Each deme would send a representative to the 'Council of 500' in Athens.
In 487 BC, a lottery was introduced for the highest positions in Athens, the nine chief archons.
In 487 BC, a lottery was introduced for the highest positions in Athens, the nine chief archons.
Helot Revolt (465 BC - 462 BC)
The helots rose up against the Spartans, following a massive earthquake in Laconia. By 462 BC, the revolt had become so serious that the Spartans appealed to Athens for military aid to stop it developing even further, despite their 'chill' since their co-operation against the Persians. This 'chill' was due in part to the moral support by the Spartan leaders of the rebellions in the Delian League. Cimon persuaded the Assembly to send hoplites to aid the Spartans, however, they were quickly sent back to Athens due to fears that they would aid the helots in the name of democracy. The rejection of help by the Spartans outraged the men of Athens and provoked hostile relations between the two city-states.
Ephialtes' Reforms (461 BC)
Ephialtes convinced the Assembly to pass measures that limited the power of the Areopagus. His reforms all set-up a judicial system of courts in which:
- jurors were chosen by lot
- bribery was virtually impossible as trials held in one day and the jury was large (several hundred to several thousand)
- no judge
- no lawyers
- accuser and accused were required to speak for themselves (though speeches could be written)
- jurors were chosen by lot
- bribery was virtually impossible as trials held in one day and the jury was large (several hundred to several thousand)
- no judge
- no lawyers
- accuser and accused were required to speak for themselves (though speeches could be written)
'Radical' Democracy
Most posts in the Athenian government were filled by lot from the adult male citizen body and these offices were paid to ensure that all members of society could afford to be a member of the government. This meant that the selection for these roles was truly random. However, some offices, such as that of strategos (general), had annual elections as these posts required special competencies and skills. All adult male citizens had the right to attend the Assembly and to propose, discuss and vote on legislation. This happened about forty times per year.
Principles of Democracy
- wide-spread participation in government and administration of justice
- selection of participants at random for most public offices
- strict procedures for performance review of officials in office
- equal protection under law, regardless of wealth
- some legal restrictions on women
- privilege given to the majority over the minority
- firm respect for the freedom of the individual
Ostracism
Ostracism was the official procedure for exiling a man from Athens for ten years. Each year, the Assembly voted on whether or not to go through the procedure. If they agreed to go through it, a ballot would be taken as to who to ostracise. If 6,000 ballots were cast, the man with the most votes could be exiled. However, there was no other penalty enforced - their families and properties remained undisturbed and their rights remained the same upon their return. It is likely that there were no more than two dozen ostracisms in the fifth-century BC.
The process fell into disuse from about 416 BC as it was discredited by Alcibiades and Nicias who manipulated it in order to protect themselves from ostracism.
Following the failed aid to Sparta, Cimon was ostracised as a scapegoat. Arisitides, who had been responsible for establishing the Delian League's finance and who also had the nickname 'the Just', was ostracised due to the extent of his own personal prominence.
The process fell into disuse from about 416 BC as it was discredited by Alcibiades and Nicias who manipulated it in order to protect themselves from ostracism.
Following the failed aid to Sparta, Cimon was ostracised as a scapegoat. Arisitides, who had been responsible for establishing the Delian League's finance and who also had the nickname 'the Just', was ostracised due to the extent of his own personal prominence.