freedom in ancient Athens

I’m listening to a new Great Course called “A History of Freedom,” and the professor kicks it off by talking about freedom in ancient Athens, touching on a lot of the things I talked about in my last post--the positive freedom of self-governance, the “general will,” and the freedom that can be granted by a benevolent dictator.

Athens during the fifth century BC was a direct democracy. Citizens didn’t elect representatives the way we do. Instead, all major decisions were voted on by an assembly of all the adult male citizens. Government offices were filled by lottery. An ordinary farmer could become a ranking official for a term just by having his name drawn randomly. We can see how it’s a place where the positive freedom to govern one’s self requires a pretty significant sacrifice of negative freedom. This is exemplified in the quote from Pericles:

“We do not say that a man who takes no interest in public affairs is a man who minds his own business. We say he has no business being here at all.”

Then along comes Socrates. Socrates has no interest in public affairs. He is interested in deeper philosophical ideas, and questioning long-held beliefs and traditions. He says, “no honest man can survive in your democracy.” This doesn’t jibe with the Athenian devotion to duty and democracy, and Socrates is condemned to death by a jury of his peers for the crime of “corrupting the youth.”

In another Great Course, “Freedom: The Philosophy of Liberation,” the professor describes how the trial of Socrates destroyed Plato’s faith in democracy. Plato was a student of Socrates who went on to write “The Republic,” which put forward the idea that the best form of government would be monarchy under a “philosopher king.”

This eventually came to pass with the rise of Alexander the Great, a student of Aristotle, who was himself a student of Plato. Alexander really does appear to have been a great philosopher, and his empire does seem to have been a place where people enjoyed peace, security, freedom of religion, and economic prosperity. But it was still an empire, built on war and death, and when Alexander died, it all fell apart as the men he left it to turned on one another.

So what do I take from all this? First, I think the trial of Socrates was probably on the minds of some of the founders of our country when writing the First Amendment. While the democracy of ancient Athens sounds great for a lot of reasons, it also demonstrates the sort of “tyranny of the majority” that can arise from such a system. This brings me back to my idea that civic engagement is essential to freedom, because unless we have the freedom to associate and exchange ideas with one another (and not only have that freedom but also use it), we can’t have a truly free and vital democracy.

Second, I think the rise of Alexander demonstrates the appeal of believing that a single “great person” can sweep aside all of society’s problems if given absolute power. This isn’t to say that Alexander wasn’t an amazing figure, nor is it to say that everyone who shows strong support for a candidate for office is acting on blind faith in some super-human leader. But no matter how great things might have been under Alexander the Great, no matter how tremendous his impact was on history, it wasn’t worth the cost in lives and liberty. The ends never justify the means.