Much has been said concerning the development of Democracy. Various historians have debated the causes of and circumstances necessary for the evolution of the democratic process in Greece and in the Western world, but there still exists a question that should be addressed: why did democracy develop in Greece rather than in other parts of the civilized world? New research has revealed a surprising correlation between population density and civic participation, which may reveal the key to democracy’s development in Greece versus any other region in the world.
It is first important to exactly define what we mean by democracy. Some may simply posit that the definition would be the consent of the governed. This seems to be too vague and inclusive of a definition. In a way, all governments are run with a degree of consent. From the tyrants of Athens down to Augustus Caesar, despots have only ever been able to rule with the apathetic consent of the governed. Perhaps, it could be defined as a government formed by the governed. This approximation seems closer to the mark, yet it still appears to lack a degree of nuance. Adding complexity to the development of democracy, the Greeks actually did not make a strong distinction between oligarchy and democracy instead viewing them to be two of the same coin where the center of the political sphere was a sovereign citizen with full rights.i” In this way, oligarchs defined themselves as the representatives of the governed. Evidently then, it seems to be necessary to define democracy as a form of government where the governed participate fully and directly in their governing. For this reason, by democracy this paper specifically refers to a particular form of democracy which will be called participatory democracy where a significant portion of the population directly participates in the activity of governance.
An additional question must be explained: can democracy be considered anything other than a modern phenomenon considering the lack of full incorporation of the populace in the governance even in the relatively liberal model of Athens? Prominent historian of antiquity, M. I. Finley elaborates:
A central feature of the societies with which we are concerned was the important presence of slaves, another was the severe restrictions among the Greeks of access to citizenship, a third was the exclusion of women from any direct participation in political or government activity. The view is therefore frequently echoed that it is wrong to speak of democracy, rights or freedom at any time in ancient history. That seems to me to misconceive the nature of historical inquiry, to reduce it to a game of awarding credits and demerits according to the historian’s own value-system.ii
In this quote, Finley responds to the charge that ancient democracy could never be a true democracy in that it lacks the full inclusion of every member of society. Historians should be ever wary of attributing modern sensibilities anachronistically as this disparages the very nature of historical explanation. Furthermore, it should be noted that Athenians (and indeed even Americans following the Revolutionary War) believed that restrictions were absolutely necessary to the creation of a successful democracy which would not fall into tyranny. In his article, “Introduction to Athenian Democracy of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE,” historian Rothschild agrees with this sentiment when he writes:
In 1790, the total population of the United States was 3.9 million, of which about 700,000 were slaves, not entitled to vote. Nor were women allowed to vote at that time.10 Most states also imposed minimum property qualifications on white males, with the result that only 60-70 percent of them could vote. Thus, the franchise was limited to perhaps 25 percent of the adult population—not as extreme as in Athens, but still far short of universal suffrage.iii
Only the wealthier classes of the citizenry would be given the power to rule and govern. Still, this makes a deal of sense when one considers the finances of the ancient government. The lower classes contributed little-to-nothing to the coffers of the city-state. Finley continues this line of thinking when he states that “Direct taxation whether on property or on the person (a poll tax) was a mark of tyranny and was rejected by both oligarchies and democracies. In effect, then, the citizen-poor, and in particular the peasantry, were largely free from taxation: occasional sales taxes, harbour dues and first-fruits to the gods did not add up to a significant burden. That is why taxation hardly ever appears as an issue in classical antiquity before the Roman Empire. Furthermore, as the poor were in the great majority self-employed in the country and in the city in ancient Greece, the peasants were also free from the burden of rents.iv” Keeping in mind these considerations, it appears completely reasonable that those who contribute to the finances of the government would be the ones who wanted the say in how it functioned. Thus, any sort of apprehension concerning the full incorporation of ancient democracy should be set aside during the historical analysis. Ancient democracy gave the greatest extent of popular participation possible considering its place in a patriarchal slave-holding rural society.v
It has also been noted by various scholars that forms of democratic rule can be found in various other parts of the world and the continued focus on democracy as found in Ancient Greece is just another example of Eurocentric Western exceptionalism. It may very well be the case that democracy in Greece was not the first democratic system, yet it was most certainly the best recorded democratic system. Political essays handed down through Arabic then Latin translations explained the Greek view of the different forms of politics. These documents influenced the philosophers of the Enlightenment, which led to the first modern democracies (American, French or Haitian and onward). Thus, the significance of the Athenian democracy is in that it was recorded and influenced the later Enlightenment thinkers and revolutionaries who established the modern democratic system so prevalent in the world today.
Several scholars of history and accompanying disciplines have given different theories as to how democracy developed in Athens. For instance, social anthropologist Jack Goody and the literary scholar Ian Watt argue that the ancient Greeks’ alphabetic script was inherently democractic. Because of its simplicity, even a child of six or seven years of agecould have access to a plethora of information both political and otherwise. Many scholars including Paul Cartledge state that Greek literacy was relatively high being above 50 percent in Athens, the wellspring of democracy.vi On the other hand, Robert Wallace, an expert on Greek democracy, believes that it was tied directly to the military style of the hoplite formations in the Greek city-states. He states that, “phalanx fighting was inherently communitarian, cooperative, and egalitarian.vii” This ‘Hoplite Ideology’ allowed for democracy to develop as it “furthered a sense of community not conditioned by birth, wealth, or other social distinctions.viii” The versatile historian, Josiah Ober believes that it was mostly influenced by cultural formation: “at no point is it appropriate to speak of ordinary Athenians or other Greeks as lacking self-confidence, feeling inferior to wealthier men, or failing to understand and exploit their own political strength. In these mentalities lay the roots of Greek democracy.ix” Yet Ober acknowledges the governmental developments which allowed for full political participation to finally come about in Athens. Ober explains that beginning with Solon’s Reforms and continuing with Cleisthenes “Athens’ constitution had empowered the demos to dominate government.x” Conversely, Kurt Raaflaub believes that the military incorporation of the thetes (landless freemen) was necessary before they could be incorporated politically. According to Raaflaub, this militarization of the thetes took the form of the drafting—but with paid compensation—of the lower class as sailors following the construction of the Athenian navy as well as their paid compensation.xi Following Raaflaub’s logic, the Athenian empire through its navy gave the thetes the financial stability as well as the political clout necessary for their incorporation into the governmental system which, thus, allowed for participatory democracy to take form. Ultimately, for Ober it was an ideological revolution born during the uprising against Cleomenes and the subsequent Cleisthenes reforms while for Raaflaub it was an institutional revolution in the wake of the Athenian empire. This ongoing debate exhibits several of the political, cultural, and social factors which facilitated the development of participatory democracy in Greece.
Now that it has been established that participatory democracy was first found (or at the very least documented) in Ancient Greece for a variety of political, cultural, and social reasons, the obvious question becomes why did participatory democracy develop in Greece and not in Germany or Persia or India. Was Greece simply exceptional in its history or can a pattern be found? Outside of the possibility that the records of participatory democracy in these different locations have simply been lost, one probable answer to this difficult question can be found in an unlikely place: population density. Concerning the comparatively high level of population density of Ancient Greece, historian Kronberg has found that due to agricultural advancements, the Greek city-states were able to sustain 23 persons per square kilometer by 400 B.C. which was, “almost five times the average population density of the less-developed areas of Europe overall.xii” Furthermore, after the great population decline of the Dark Ages, this level was not reached until 1200 A.D. and not until the early 15th century in England.xiii
With population growth being influenced by technological advancements such as water mills and mechanical pumps, the second part of the equation was mountainous Greece itself which is inclined towards higher population densities. Therefore, geography played an important role in the development of democracy in so-much that it increased population concentration. In other major civilizations, the need to control irrigation networks of major rivers such as the Nile, the Indus, the Yellow, the Tigris and the Euphrates led directly to despotic systems of governance such as the temple-palace complex. On the other hand, the cragged coastal terrain of Greece led to the Greeks leaning towards reciprocity, individual sovereignty, and social networking; all important factors for high rates of civic participation.
While it may be noted that the largest cities of the time were, in fact, found in the Middle East and India, several political scientists have noted that city growth actually has a negative effect on civic participation while population density has a positive aspect.xiv Scholars such as Eric Oliver have noted how large city spread makes civic participation difficult because “social connections are more difficult to establish and feelings of powerlessness tend to prevail over citizen involvement in collective action.xv” Thus, large territorial population centers provided negative factors towards political participation. Political scientists Stein and Dillingham continue this sentiment when they write:
New residents are also less likely to feel a strong psychological attachment to the community, since it takes time to develop social ties and to consider a community as one’s own. Fragile social connections constitute an additional obstacle to mobilization. Thus, cities where the influx of new residents is larger are less likely to be favourable grounds for the expansion of altruistic behaviors and social capital. In fast growing cities, the bystander effect takes hold; given the magnitude of big city problems and the increase in city population, each individual expects that someone else will get involved in civic activities, creating a collective action dilemma for the community as a whole.xvi
Still, they specifically made their study because they noted a void in Oliver’s study. They believe that he needed to improve his metric of measurement for civic participation to include population density. This is evident when they write, “Our finding that density has a positive impact upon the relationship between city size and all our measures of civic participation also suggests that Oliver’s conclusions may be incomplete, since he fails to account for the mitigation effect of density upon the relationship between city size and participation.xvii” Stein and Dillingham conclusively show that population concentration increases voter turnout and general political participation. Jointly, they explain their findings when they write, “This plot confirms that the relationship between city population and voter turnout is dependent upon the level of population density. As predicted, the depressing effect of an increase in city population on voter turnout lessens as population density increases. This is indicated by the upwardly sloping marginal effects curve. The contingent effect is statistically significant up to a density level of about 3,000 people per square kilometre, which is well above the mean density of 81.3 people per square kilometer.xviii”
Additionally, a recent study published in Midwest Political Science Association more concretely establishes the existence of a nexus between population density and civic participation. Carr, the author of the journal article, writes, “Population concentration may facilitate the creation of dense social networks that stimulate rather than hinder participation. Neighbours in closer geographical proximity are more prone to come into contact, share concerns on common problems, and organize for civic action population density may attenuate the negative effect of larger city size on group mobilization and increase the likelihood of civic participation.xix” Finally, Carr summarizes that “Municipalities with larger populations are likely to display lower rates of civic participation; H2: Municipalities with more dense populations are likely to display higher rates of civic participation; and H3: Population concentration has a positive contingent effect on the relationship between the size of the local population and levels of civic participation.xx” This was exactly the case in Mesopotamia, which despite having large populations such as the urban center of Babylon that sustained 100,000 citizens, was quite large with its outer wall enclosed 890 hectares. Large population growth in a large spread city favored centralized empires where an upper class could support its city with taxation on its large population.xxi Therefore, according to the density-participation nexus, Mesopotamia was simply too large of a territory to develop participatory democracy. While there are still no exact numbers for density in India and China, some hypotheses can be proposed. If density increased because of the mountainous terrain of Greece, then regions of long stretches of flat plains will have low levels of population concentration. This is exactly the case for both China and India. Both the Indo-Gangetic and Zhongyuan plains stretch along the river systems of the vast territory of the country. Thus, high density rates (while possible) become unlikely. And without high density rates, democracy becomes less likely to develop. Thus, to summarize, the formula is that a city must have a slowly reached high population while maintaining a certain level of density to encourage social networks which promote civic participation while cities sprawled across a large land area with a large population of new migrates negatively affects political participation in governance. Using contemporary statistics, one can explain the factors necessary for participatory democracy to function.
Now, was this the case for Athens? The simple answer is in the affirmative. There exists a common consensus among historians of the population growth and population density of Ancient Athens with minor variation on the exact number.xxii Athens probably had 20,000 residents by 500 B. C.xxiii. Additionally, Morris claims that Attica as a whole had a population of 150,000 by the late sixth-century with its population “carrying capacity” at its fullest further suggesting the maximum amount of population density in Ancient Greece.xxiv This can even be seen in modernity where “Athens already has a very high density in comparison with other European and American cities.xxv” Morris notes that the other classical example of urban growth would be Syracuse on the isle of Sicily, but acknowledges the lack of density when he writes, “Its territory covered 4,685 km2, more than twice the area of Attica.xxvi This comparison shows the differing effects of density as Athens developed participatory democracy in contrast to Syracuse. Consequently, the population density increase perfectly aligns with the rise in participatory democratic power in Ancient Athens.
Then if population density leads to an increased likelihood of democracy formation, then can it be seen that population sparsity has the adverse effect. In terms of population decline, historian Davies writes:
The whole Mediterranean world underwent in the last centuries B.C. and the first centuries A.D. a marked numerical decline of population. This decline attacked the most civilized regions first. Greece was becoming underpopulated by 200 B. C., in Italy we can trace the beginnings of decay by 150 B. C., and the population-problem was serious by 20 B. C.xxvii
Therefore, this factor also seems to correlate with the rise of despotic rule under the auspices of the Roman Empire in the first century AD where the pretense of popular rule as vested in the Republic was completely eroded.
Yet, another comparison can be made. Numerous scholars have also speculated on the development and influence of the Þing in Viking Scandinavia. The Þing (or Assembly) was also characteristically participatory, though on a smaller scale than the larger city-state of Athens. The origin of the Assembly and density statistics of the Viking Age are non-existent due to the lack of record keeping of the ‘barbaric’ Nordic peoples, but there seems to be one commonality: geography. With the exception of Denmark, Scandinavia is notoriously hilly and mountainous. The Norrland terrain and South Swedish highlands which straddle the country leave little room for large spread cities creating an ideal situation for higher rates of density even at a smaller population size, but more research is still needed in order to verify or dispute this hypothesis.
While historians have argued various points for the development of democracy in Ancient Greece such as the influence of the navy, hoplite culture or political revolutions, an important element of the equation was required to be analyzed: the affect of the geography on the development of democracy. As has been shown in this paper, the geography of Greece (and in Athens itself) contributed to the population density which has been found to be a key ingredient necessary for a high rate of civic participation. This high rate allows for the establishment of participatory democracy. It has been shown that Greece was more dense than other regions of the world and within Greece, Athens was one of the densest city-states. Furthermore, when the density decreased with the population decline following the Peloponnesian War, the ability to create social capital necessary for civic participation among the average citizens of Athens vanished and the populace simply gave up any desire to participate in governance. Further studies are still needed to test this theory in other regions in order to properly validate its veracity, but if found to be true, the density-participation nexus will unravel interesting and unexpected patterns in mankind’s development.
Bibliography
Carr, Jered B. and António F. Tavares. “So Close, Yet so Far Away? The Effects of City Size, Density and Growth on Local Civic Participation.” University of Minho/University of Missouri-Kansas City Journal of Urban Affairs, Volume 00, Number 0 1–20, 2012.
Carr, J. “City Size, Density, and Political Participation in Local Government.” Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, IL: Midwest Political Science Association, 2008.
Cartledge, Paul. Democracy: A Life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Chandler, Tertius. Four Thousand Years of Urban Growth: An Historical Census. Lewiston, N.Y., U.S.A.: St. David’s University Press, 1987.
Cook, K. S., R. Hardin, and M. Levi. Cooperation Without Trust? New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 2005.
Davies, O. “The Depopulation of the Ancient World.” Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, no. 2 76-86, 1948.
Dillingham, G., and R. Stein. “Political Participation in an Urbanized Society.” American Political Science Association. Chicago, IL: American Political Science Association, 2004.
Finley, M. I. Politics in the Ancient World. The Wiles Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Fletcher, Roland. The Limits of Settlement Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
George, A. R. “Babylon Revisited: Archaeology and Philology.” Antiquity Journal Volume 67 734-746, 1993.
Kronberg, Kenneth. “The Roman Model of Mass Depopulation.” EIR Volume 9, Number 31 30-32, 1982.
Lawrence, D., G. Philip, H. Hunt, L. Snape-Kennedy, and T. J. Wilkinson. “Long Term Population, City Size and Climate Trends in the Fertile Crescent: A First Approximation.” PLOS ONE 11(6) (PLOS ONE 11(6)), 2016.
Lindkvist, Thomas. “Introductory Survey.” The Cambridge History of Scandinavia. Ed. Knut Helle. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 160-167, 2003.
Manville, Philip Brook. The Origins of Citizenship in Ancient Athens. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997.
Maurer, Stephan, Jorn-Steffen Pischke, and Ferdinand Rauch. 2017. “Of Mice and Merchants:Trade and Growth in the Iron Age.” NBER Working Paper No. 24825.
Milakis, D., N. Barbopoulos, and Th. Vlastos. “The Optimum Density for the Sustainable City: The Case of Athens.” Sustainable Development and Planning II, Vol. 1 25, 2005.
Morris, Ian. “The Growth of Greek Cities in the First Millennium BC.” Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics Paper No. 120509. Princeton/Stanford: Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics Paper No. 120509, 2005.
Oliver, J. Eric. Democracy in suburbia. Princeton University Press, 2001.
Putnam, R.D. Bowling Alone. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000.
Raaflaub, Kurt A., Josiah Ober, Robert W. Wallace, Paul Cartledge, and Cynthia Farrar. Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press, 2007.
Rothchild, John. “Introduction to Athenian Democracy of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE.” Wayne State University Law School Research Paper No. 07 1-44, 2007.
Snodgrass, Anthony. “Archaic Greece: The Age of Experiment.” The Antiquaries Journal Volume 60, Issue 2, 1980.
Stein, R. and G. Dillingham. “Political Participation in an Urbanized Society.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, September 2-6, 2004.
i M. I. Finley, Politics in the Ancient World (The Wiles Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 7.
iiIbid., 8.
iii John Rothchild, “Introduction to Athenian Democracy of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE.” (Wayne State University Law School Research Paper No. 07 1-44, 2007), 14.
iv M. I. Finley, Politics in the Ancient World, 38.
v In the fourth century, most Athenians would have had to serve at the Countil simply to fill the specified deme and tribal quotas. (Cartledge 224))
vi Cartledge, Paul. Democracy: A Life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2018, 21.
vii Kurt A. Raaflaub, Josiah Ober, Robert W. Wallace, Paul Cartledge, and Cynthia Farrar. Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece. (Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press, 2007), 35.
viii Ibid., 35.
ixIbid., 81.
xIbid., 81.
xiIbid., 122.
xii Kenneth Kronberg, “The Roman Model of Mass Depopulation.” (EIR Volume 9, Number 31 30-32, 1982), 31.
xiiiIbid., 31.
xiv Jered B. Carr, “City Size, Density, and Political Participation in Local Government.” (Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, IL: Midwest Political Science Association, 2008).
xv Jered B. Carr and António F. Tavares. “So Close, Yet so Far Away? The Effects of City Size, Density and Growth on Local Civic Participation.” (University of Minho/University of Missouri-Kansas City Journal of Urban Affairs, Volume 00, Number 0 1–20, 2012), 10. Which quotes J. Eric Oliver, Democracy in Suburbia. (Princeton University Press, 2001), but does not state its page number.
xvi R. Stein and G. Dillingham. “Political Participation in an Urbanized Society.” (Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, September 2-6, 2004), 9.
xviiIbid., 23.
xviiiIbid., 19.
xix Jered B. Carr, “City Size, Density, and Political Participation in Local Government”, 7.
xx Jered B. Carr and António F. Tavares. “So Close, Yet so Far Away? The Effects of City Size, Density and Growth on Local Civic Participation”, 4.
xxi Ian Morris, “The Growth of Greek Cities in the First Millennium BC.” (Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics Paper No. 120509. Princeton/Stanford: Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics Paper No. 120509, 2005), 6.
xxiiIan Morris, “The Growth of Greek Cities in the First Millennium BC”, 15. as well as both Philip Brook Manville, The Origins of Citizenship in Ancient Athens. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997), 120 and A. R. George, “Babylon Revisited: Archaeology and Philology.” (Antiquity Journal Volume 67 734-746, 1993), 10.
xxiii Ian Morris, “The Growth of Greek Cities in the First Millennium BC”, 11.
xxivIbid., 12.
xxv D. Milakis, N. Barbopoulos, and Th. Vlastos. “The Optimum Density for the Sustainable City: The Case of Athens.” (Sustainable Development and Planning II, Vol. 1 25, 2005).
xxvi Ian Morris, “The Growth of Greek Cities in the First Millennium BC”, 18.
xxvii O. Davies, “The Depopulation of the Ancient World.” (Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, no. 2 76-86, 1948), 76.