The Five Ancient Criteria of Democracy: The Apotheosis of Equality

Democracy in ancient Athens was different from what is implemented today even in the most advanced democracies. To evaluate this difference, this paper presents five criteria of democracy and then applies them to ancient Athens and modern advanced democracies. In comparison and according to five criteria, modern democracies are inferior to what the eligible citizens of Ancient Athens enjoyed. The ancient Greek literature on the subject has identified five criteria of democracy which neither today nor in ancient times were fully satisfied. The democracy today satisfies some but not all five criteria. This was also true for the ancient (Athenian) democracy. They differ in which criteria they satisfied. Of course, each criterion is fulfilled to a certain extent and this may differentiate modern from ancient democracy. These issues are discussed in this paper.

Direct Democracy Practices of Local Authorities in Turkey

Direct democracy, an early form of democracy, which was applied in city states of ancient Athens, is at the agenda of politics again, especially at local levels due to the limitations of the representative democracy. People do not want to voice their ideas about the cities or countries where they live just once in four or five years by casting their votes in the ballot box. They desire to be involved in decision-making mechanisms, at least for relatively more important issues that might have direct effect over their lives. Today, more local governments are applying direct democracy tools in line with the expectations of local residents and as a requirement of the local governance principle of participation. Of course, as it is the case in representative democracy, direct democracy, which aims civic engagement for each significant decision, has some limitations. This chapter will explore the implementation of direct democracy by municipalities in Turkey, with all its variation, sources of motivation, opportunities, and challenges.

The Specialist in Athenian Written Rhetoric During the Classical Period: A Reconsideration of Technical Rhetoric and Rhetorical Iconography

This essay argues that technical rhetoric in ancient Athens is neither well nor fully understood in its present historical characterization but rather is best realized as occupying a position on a spectrum of literate skills ranging from an art to a craft. The dismissive views of technical writing advanced by Plato and Aristotle should be reconsidered and specialized literate practices be recognized as an important feature of rhetoric in Athens’ classical period. A review of discursive and material (archaeological) evidence reveals that technical writing was evolving into a craft-skill in Athens as early as the archaic period and, by the classical period, would be regarded as a respected “rhetorical” profession of artistic expression. This essay urges readers to reconsider the restrictive characterization of rhetoric advanced by some historians of rhetoric and include the specialist craft-skills of writing as a manifestation of technical rhetoric that both illustrates, and more accurately represents, the range of classical rhetoric in ancient Athens.

Gulliver Unleashed? International Order, Restraint, and The Case of Ancient Athens

International relations often include orders of smaller powers led by major powers. Perhaps the most significant aspect of international order is whether the major power leader is restrained or nonrestrained. Restrained major powers respect smaller powers’ preferences, eschew wielding power to impose their preferences, and avoid violating the smaller powers’ sovereignties, often using binding institutions and rules. Nonrestrained major powers violate decision-making rules, seek to impose their preferences, and violate smaller powers’ sovereignties using coercion and force. This article asks, what causes an order to evolve from restrained to nonrestrained? It argues that when a major power grows in strength relative to smaller power order members, the major power becomes more likely to abandon restraint, using coercion and force to impose its preferences on the order. Further, there is a snowball effect, as initial acts of nonrestraint undermine the credibility of the major power's commitment to restraint, encouraging smaller powers to exit the order, fueling further major power nonrestraint. The theory is tested on the fifth-century BCE Athenian order. Athens’ transition from restraint to nonrestraint, what some call a transition from alliance to empire, supports the predictions of the theory. Neither ideology nor rent-seeking theories explain this transition.

An educational history of the future

The importance of active, “experiential” learning, and the belief that schools and colleges need to engage the world outside their walls in new ways in order to equip students for the rapidly changing future, is increasingly held to be fundamental to any educational program or reform effort, and in particular to the current rethinking about what (and how) students need to learn. In fact, however, this truth was recognized as early as in ancient Athens. In recent years the world has been transformed, and we are now well into a new era of individual and social experience. With the unprecedented processing power of mobile devices, the seemingly endless expansion of storage capacity, and unlimited access to information, we confront a vastly different landscape for education. This essay examines what this all means for education futures.

Ancient Mediterranean City-State Empires

Only a few ancient Mediterranean city-states managed to absorb their peers into larger empires. This chapter explores the creation of imperial structures of domination and exploitation by ancient Athens, Carthage, and Rome. It identifies crucial similarities among these cases. Empires grew out of alliances formed within existing city-state cultures. Imperial state formation driven by these three city-states produced complex, multilayered systems that sought to preserve the privileged position of the original core and resisted homogenization of status. As a result, the Athenian and Carthaginian empires failed in the face of foreign pressure, whereas Roman power structures survived much longer by assuming a more conventional and stable form of organization, that of a monarchical tributary empire.