A Modern Revival of Greek Democracy

Summary

PDF Version

Audio

Table of Contents

Names

Timeline

Search this Text

A Modern Revival of Greek Democracy

Introduction

This essay reflects the personal experience and innovative ideas of a young journalist born in a young southeast European democracy, a person who has had the chance to travel and exchange ideas with other young people living in well-established European democracies, but still found herself confronted with the same old questions.

My essay focuses on the benefits of a direct democratic system. I consider people’s sense of citizenship to be strongly influenced by the rights they are given. Therefore, direct democracy could offer all people more opportunities for participation, young people included. My approach is directed towards finding new ways of increasing youth political participation on one side, and lowering the risk of political abuse and corruption on the other.

Being written from a youth perspective, my essay cannot and should not offer specialized political expertise. In this paper, I have tried to give my personal definition of direct democracy, a new political system that has never existed as such, but could be created by people and for people. Inspired by ancient Greece, but adapted to modern needs, I believe direct democracy to be potentially the best answer to the challenge of popular political participation.

Last, but not least, I include a few suggestions regarding international youth cooperation in democracy. Working as a journalist, I have seen very few international youth events actually reach those who are denied the right to speak in their countries. Therefore, I propose a few measures that could increase the participation of youth living in undemocratic or less democratic regimes around the world.

To sum up, this essay is aimed at sharing personal views from a young journalist’s perspective on the role youth could play in supporting authentic democratic regimes around the world.

Citizenship, Good Governance, and People

The concept of citizenship, a legal status comprising both rights and duties, is understood differently in various parts of the world.

Citizenship is mainly connected with three characteristics of good governance: participation, transparency, and accountability. People who feel like citizens participate more; therefore there is an increasing demand for transparency, and thus the leaders are more accountable to the public. A person who defines himself as a citizen wants to know more about the important decisions and wants to be part of them. In contrast, an indifferent society member is interested neither in information nor in concrete action. A person who defines himself as a citizen is more aware of his rights, and does not allow leaders to commit abuses of power. But a marginalized person will never dare to protest, nor stand up for his legitimate rights.

I believe the concepts of “citizenship” and “good governance” are closely linked. An increased sense of citizenship leads to “better” governance as people know and defend their rights more effectively. Unfortunately, this is not true for many countries around the world where the sense of citizenship is almost absent.

Certainly, cultural differences influence people’s definition and sense of citizenship. Yet the biggest influence of all is in the extent of the rights originally granted to people. The sense of citizenship should not be a mere psychological illusion, but a conviction based on facts. People need not to feel like citizens, but to be citizens. People who are not granted enough rights to empower them from the very beginning will gradually become more and more absent, and eventually retire from political and social life. Their lack of interest will be a direct result of the initial deprivation of rights. For example, people living in dictatorial regimes enjoy little freedom and are almost powerless to make decisions about their lives. This includes the inability to make choices regarding one’s country, one’s education, one’s job, even one’s social and personal life. In addition to this, extreme poverty or the threat of violent repression stop people from expressing themselves freely and uniting to take action. People who live in such regimes will never define themselves as “citizens,” in the democratic meaning of the word, and will rarely make any attempt to change things.

Furthermore, not even citizens of democratic countries enjoy the same “package” of rights all over the world. Many of the world’s “democratic” nations are not so democratic when it comes to guaranteeing their citizens the freedom to decide for themselves and the future of their country. People living in democracies may be granted more or fewer rights, depending on their national legal systems, and of course the good will and sense of justice of their leaders. In addition, the legally guaranteed rights may be more or less respected, as theoretical democracy doesn’t necessary imply that political power belongs to the people in practice. Democracy’s limitations are many, and they arise from inefficient separation of powers, generalized corruption, economic inequities that create educational inequities (thus excluding many citizens from understanding and participating in politics), weak constitutions, political instability, and internal power struggles.

Thus, people living in so-called democratic countries may refuse to participate because of the invisible, yet real exclusion they perceive. It would be wrong to label their apparent apathy as “indifference” or “lack of interest.” People who are not granted enough rights cannot feel like citizens, nor act as such. If dictatorial regimes deprive people of basic human rights, some democracies may also prevent people from authentic participation. This is especially true for my country, Romania.

The Case of Romania: A Young Democracy

Romania is a relatively young democracy. The 1989 December Revolution overthrew the communist dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu, opening the way to a long period of transition to capitalism and long-desired democracy. However, the new Romanian political class failed to gain the citizens’ trust. People soon found themselves disappointed by their freely elected leaders. Today, there is not much enthusiasm for politics in the country, as Romania struggles with poverty, corruption, political instability, and a “communist” heritage that is very much alive.

Today’s political class is composed mainly of people who enjoyed high positions and privileges during the previous dictatorial regime. Thus, people’s right to choose new leaders is virtually denied every time they are asked to vote, since all political parties are made up of “ex-communists.” Furthermore, more and more young, successful, but controversial businessmen embrace politics as a second career, trying to exploit the country through dubious financial engineering methods. These people, who seemingly have no sense of political responsibility, are not afraid to use the country’s budget for their own benefit. Political scandals are common news in the media, but journalists are powerless when it comes to actually forcing politicians to respect the laws. Most Romanians would agree that “all politicians ever do is steal.” Adults who have had the traumatic experience of living in a communist regime do not believe things have changed at all.

Nor are Romanian youth very interested in politics, and (or perhaps because) they are given few chances to participate. Most Romanian youth have very little trust in the country’s political class. They prefer not to vote, and most of them choose not to join any political party. Young people enjoy the freedoms of democracy, but have an overall negative view of Romania. They believe the country is corrupt and backward, compared to Western European countries. Many Romanian youth dream of going to live abroad, in another EU member country. All in all, Romanian youth feel they are not lucky enough to live in a well established democracy, and are not given the chance to build it. Citizenship is an abstract concept for them, since they do not actually make use of their civic rights.

Direct Democracy: A Young Person’s Original Approach

I strongly believe there is only one political system that can stimulate youth participation and improve all people’s sense of citizenship: direct democracy.

Athenian democracy was developed in the fifth century in the Greek city-state of Athens, and was truly one of the very first known democracies in the world. The Athenian state managed to create a functional democratic system, in which people did not elect representatives to vote on their behalf, but voted themselves on legislation and executive bills.

Athens’s direct democratic system inspired many later thinkers, philosophers, theoreticians, and politicians. Democratic ideals survived and even became real in many countries around the world. However, most modern-day democracies did not choose to follow the original Greek direct-democratic model. These countries opted instead for representative democracy. The representative democratic form of government, founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people, no longer gives every citizen the right to decide. The representatives form an independent ruling body and assume the entire responsibility for state affairs. Today, in liberal democracies, representatives are usually elected through free and fair elections.

Although I believe representative democracy to be a good, viable form of governance, I still disagree with it, since it is a political system that allows the abuse of power. People’s right to freely elect their leaders is not a guarantee that these leaders will actually fulfil their initial promises. Politicians are free to “change their minds” as quickly as they gain the power to represent people. In modern representative democracies, people obey their elected leaders’ decisions whether these leaders actually keep acting in the people’s interests or not. Representative democracy may eventually end up excluding the very people in whose name it was supposed to function. Even if democracy survived and proved to be an efficient form of governance, I believe the best part of Greece’s democratic system got lost: people’s freedom to debate and make decisions themselves.

Certainly, the Greek democracy had its own limitations, since only adult male Athenian citizens who had completed their military training had the right to vote. This excluded a majority of the population, namely slaves, freed slaves, children, women, metics (resident foreigners), and citizens who failed to pay their debts.

However, as today human rights are a reality accepted and implemented in many countries around the world, it is perfectly possible to create a new, egalitarian, direct democratic system that would grant all citizens the right to vote. The direct democracy solution could work for all the citizens of the country. It would increase all citizens’ sense of responsibility, and would create a participatory environment where young people could learn to fight for their initiatives and ideas.

Even though in Greece, as usual in ancient democracies, one had to physically attend a gathering in order to vote, today’s new direct democracies could benefit from the help of new technologies. This is my personal vision of how a direct democratic system could function:



I believe people living in a direct democratic system like the one described here would be eager to participate, and would actually assume more political responsibility. Citizenship would become indeed “a legal status comprising both rights and duties,” since people will know they have indeed the right to have duties. Young people living in such a regime will also grow up feeling they are the ones who have the power to decide for their country. Thus, they will not fall into apathy or depression and refuse to participate. Young people will understand their social and political role and mature as responsible citizens, ready to share their innovative ideas with the whole world.

Assuming, of course, that the world is prepared to listen to them.

Youth and International Cooperation

Today, there are plenty of youth conferences and meetings on democracy and youth participation around the world. One may hope to find the perfect partners for concrete action aimed at changing the world only by attending these events. However, international youth meetings are not actually open to everyone. Eligibility rules often prevent many young people from participating. Countries where democratic transitions are incomplete—because of corruption, exclusion, and discrimination, as well as a weak civil society—discourage many young people from joining NGOs. Those who are denied participation in their countries have little chance to take part in international meetings, as in many cases only nationally recognize d youth leaders are eligible to apply. Thus those who are marginalized in their countries are left with few means to make their voices heard at an international level.

I strongly believe no young person should be denied the chance to reach out to the world and express his concerns and ideas for change. Global youth networks and coalitions should accept individual membership. These large and powerful “umbrella organizations” should know when to make exceptions. The individual membership option would be the fastest way to unite youth all over the world. When organizing international events, youth should be eligible to apply regardless of their current involvement in national NGOs. New selection procedures could be introduced, such as tests or competitions.

In addition, new technologies should be more efficiently used in order to get youth dialogue and collaboration going, both alongside and apart from face-to-face meetings. I believe Facebook is a great tool, but there are certainly more professional virtual tools that would allow effective online collaboration.

Further, the winners of youth competitions should be offered the support they need in order to implement their projects. The young winners should be given an important role in the ongoing process.

Last but not least, youth from developing countries should be sponsored. There should be free places available for girls, handicapped persons, minorities, and other disadvantaged youth categories from developing democracies.

Conclusions

In my opinion, young people’s sense of citizenship can only be increased if the young generation is given more rights. The best political solution would be direct democracy. Direct democracy would give all people in general, and youth in particular, the opportunity to become active and responsible members of society. International cooperation may help many young people become aware of the role they could play in society. Global youth networks and coalitions should accept individual membership. New selection methods should be introduced in order to increase the opportunities for youth who are denied participation in their home countries.