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
No comments:
Post a Comment