Perspectives by David Lawrence: Contentious Politics

Perspectives by David Lawrence: Contentious Politics: CONTENTIOUS POLITICS As of the date of this writing (November 2013), the political process in the United States has about ground to...

Contentious Politics

CONTENTIOUS POLITICS

As of the date of this writing (November 2013), the political process in the United States has about ground to a halt.  There is an acerbic and often hateful tone attached to proponents of both parties.  There seems to be no immediate end to the gridlock with one party determined to block any attempt at legislation by the other.  I shall leave an analysis of the reasons and the process by which this stand-off can be resolved to political experts of the current day.  I am an historian, and the point I want to make here is that this situation is not at all new.

Free societies have always found themselves forming opposing parties or factions.  Usually there is one that represents the interests of the common people and another that represents the interests of the privileged class.  At times these opposing viewpoints have hammered out solutions by way of compromise, and at other times impasse has given way to violence.

Please note that I qualified my remarks to free societies.  Totalitarian states, dictatorships, and tyrannies do not allow for any other viewpoint than that of the leaders in power.  There were no other political parties allowed in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.  Those in our country who protest “the loss of freedom” betray their own misinformation, for if freedom were lost, they would not be able to speak out critically of the regime with impunity.  But free societies allow for free expression of thought and for opposing viewpoints.

There are two prominent examples which stand out: that of Athens in the fifth century and Rome in the second and first centuries B.C.  We could also cite Renaissance Florence and perhaps a few other examples like the Medieval guild system.  I would prefer to remain with the classical models for the simple reason that America fashioned its government on that model.  From Athens came the idea of democracy, and from Rome came the concept of representative government and the constitution.

Democratic interests cannot flourish in an aristocratic society where wealth and power are concentrated in the noble class and everyone else is classed as commons with no say in anything political.  The very word political comes from the Greek word polis which means city.  The inference is that cities have developed which included commerce, requiring a viable middle class.  As trade and commerce increased in the Greek cities, beginning in the eighth century in Asia Minor with cities like Miletus, and then spread to the Balkan peninsula in cities like Athens, Corinth, Sparta, and Thebes, the emerging middle class was no longer content with the absolute authority of the aristocrats.  The quest for political power first came from the business class, but after they achieved some measure of success, the workers wanted their share.

This development was most apparent in Athens where the constitution was changed in 594 to admit the middle class and again in 508 to favor the people.  Those who resisted this constant shift toward democracy and preferred the control of the wealthy were known as oligarchs, and those who favored power in the hands of all the people equally were the democrats.  The landed aristocracy, of course, lined up with the oligarchs, and the middle class split although they usually favored the aristocracy because of their own personal wealth.  

The army was formed of men from the aristocrats who supplied the knights for the cavalry (hippeis) and the middle class who supplied the infantry (hoplites).  Because the knights had to supply their own horses and the infantry their own body armor, those of the poor class who could afford neither became sailors.  Thus the navy developed a definite democratic orientation.  Because naval supremacy was of the utmost military importance to Athens, especially in the war with Persia, the democracy gained considerable political power.

Under the democratic constitution all offices were elected by the people meeting in voting districts called demes.  These demes were gerrymandered to favor the democrats much as we see congressional districts gerrymandered to favor the party in power at the time of the redistricting.

And then as the democracy emerged fully-developed by the end of the sixth century, there were two distinct and opposing parties in Athens: the oligarchs who represented the wealthier and propertied interests, and the democrats who represented the common people.  The most powerful office in Athens was that of the general.  Each year ten generals were elected, one for each of the ten tribes.  One general always was the foremost.  The general was the only office that could be re-elected.  Both oligarchs and democrats produced capable generals.  Miltiades who won at the battle of Marathon in 490 against the Persians and his son Cimon who won at the battle of the Eurymedon in 465 were oligarchs while Themistocles, the hero of Salamis in 480 and Pericles the great leader of Athens at mid-century were democrats.  

The Athenians wrote ugly and defamatory diatribes against each other.  They were very much into political propaganda and denouncing the other side.  Many of these political articles remain today.  However, the conflict never escalated to the point of violence, and democrats and oligarchs united in defeating the Persians (496-465).

The political cracks, however, emerged in the war with Sparta (435-404).  During the time of the democratic and charismatic general Alcibiades, there was a revolt against the government, and the oligarchs took over (411).  Turbulent times followed in which power shifted back and forth.  Athens lost the war to Sparta, and eventually fell to the Macedonians under Alexander.  However, the democracy in Athens did endure for 350 years, although dominated by foreign powers such as Macedon and Rome.  

The situation in Rome was somewhat different.  Like Athens, in its early days it was dominated entirely by the nobility who gained wealth and power from land.  They were the heads of the families and the head of the fatherland (patria).  Thus the class became known as the Patricians.  Like Athens Rome developed its middle class, the Equestrians whose wealth allowed them to own a horse.  Early on the common people demanded representation and were granted some by virtue of an assembly (the tribal assembly) along with the Senate which represented the aristocrats.  They also had ten tribunes to protect the rights of the commons.

These offices were all incorporated into the Roman Republican constitution which was formed, like our own after which it was patterned, over the years.  Originally the power tilted to the aristocrats (Patricians or Optimates), but more and more the common people (Populares) sought, demanded, and received power. 

The Romans freed themselves from Etruscan domination traditionally in 509.  The Athenians adopted their democratic constitution one year later.  Romans were well aware of what was transpiring in Athens.  The Etruscans who had controlled them for two hundred years were in close touch with the Greeks through trade.  The Etruscans had also taught the rural Romans the art of statecraft.  Once the Romans were liberated, they needed to decide on what form of government would best suit their needs.  They rejected the idea of monarchy because it reminded them of the tyrannical Etruscans, and they also rejected the Athenian concept of democracy because they did not believe that each and every citizen was equally qualified to hold political office.  They opted for representational government in which the people voted for qualified politicians who would govern for them.

Their constitution was such a masterpiece that it became the model for the United States’ constitution when this nation separated from Great Britain.  Ours has a bi-cameral legislature, a Senate as the upper house and a House of Representatives that is the counterpart of the Tribal Assembly in Rome.  The elected executive officers hold the supreme military commander-in-chief position.  For Rome it was two consuls, and for the United States a President aided by a Vice President.  We need not discuss all the similarities or the differences, but suffice it to say that we sought to employ the classical model of Republican Rome for our new nation.

After many years of military success in which Rome conquered the entire Mediterranean world and during which the commons and the privileged classes fought side by side, the constitution and the political consensus that supported it began to unravel.  Both the Democrats (Populares) and the Republicans (Optimates) were at fault.  The Republicans feared that the constitution was being disrespected and that doing so would mean the end of the Republic.  The Democrats believed that unless they proceeded with a progressive agenda, veterans returning from the war and finding their lands bought up by plantation owners and dispossessed of home and job would just join the unemployed mob in Rome.  The government was doing nothing to correct the situation, and a Tribune, without constitutional power pushed through a land reform bill.  He believed that as he was elected to represent the people, that his actions were justified.  

Although he (Tiberius Gracchus) did indeed act without constitutional authority and by-pass the authority of the Senate, the Senate undermined the constitution by assassinating Tiberius.  From that point on violence prevailed on both sides and grew worse and worse with each general.  The power fell to the military, and generals alternated between being Democratic (Marius, Julius Caesar) and Republican (Sulla and to some extent Pompey).  It was a bloody civil war.  Ours lasted for four years; Rome’s lasted for a century.  At the end all the leaders were dead except one, the grand-nephew of Julius Caesar, Octavian.  It was he who established a veritable monarchy under the guise of restoring the Republic.

The above is only the outline of the events of Athens and Rome.   What we can learn is that the privileged class always sees itself as the preservers of the nation and its traditions.  The common class seeks for greater representation and better living conditions.  This tension between the two classes can either continue to exist in tension in which compromise is reached in which both sides, although neither party gets all that it would want, and each side attains a measure of satisfaction, or the tension breaks and results in violence as in Rome.

The Roman civil war was a terrible event with mass executions of the losing side by the winning side, only to be reversed when the losers became the winners.  However, it did not end Rome, and the resolution came by a monarchy (Principate) which took Rome to new heights of power and a higher standard of living.  This government existed in one form or another for 1500 years.

Neither of these examples is an exact template for the United States and its political problems in the early twenty-first century.  If we may learn from the classical examples, we can say that it is to be expected that there will be tension between the privileged classes and the common people.  The privileged class will always believe that they are right because their policies will preserve the state and its traditions.  The commons will always believe they are right because they, as citizens, should rightfully have power and a better life.  We see this situation in our nation today.

The question is how to deal with the tension.  Uncompromising postures do not resolve conflict.  Violence is never a desirable option because it creates conditions that are far worse than those that precipitated it.  Ignoring it does not work.  The privileged classes need to understand that the commons will never be satisfied unless their demands are met and also that historical precedent indicates that the people shall increasingly gain what they seek.  The commons need to realize that the privileged classes have in view the integrity of the nation as a whole and see themselves as its protectors.  Too much change too quickly can be a threat; and it can destroy the consensus upon which all rational government rests.  Reasoned discourse and compromise appear always to be the best way to avoid serious problems.  Respect for the integrity of both individual people and for the traditions of the nation as a whole need to be maintained.  The tension will always be present, but it can be maintained in equilibrium.  

Perhaps there are more lessons that can be drawn from the conflict of the democrats and oligarchs/republicans of Greece and Rome, but these are probably sufficient.  May we learn from the past and gain wisdom to deal rationally and realistically with the problems of the present.

-David Lawrence