The concept of democracy and its application in socio-political life originated in the 6th century BC, notably in Athens, largely due to the reflections of Cleisthenes, a political reformer who questioned how power should be exercised within the city. Contrary to popular belief, ancient Athenian democracy was direct, with citizens actively participating in the life and evolution of institutions, the law-making process, and even in the formal government of their city.
Listen to the article
The Athenian Example
In the 6th century BC, Cleisthenes implemented a system of democracy aimed at reducing, if not eliminating, political crises and dictatorship in Athens. He introduced two fundamental democratic principles: isonomia, which ensures equality among all citizens, and isegoria, which guarantees freedom of speech and debate for all citizens. Consequently, everyone participated in the affairs of the city; everyone had the opportunity to speak, with a water clock (clepsydra) measuring speaking time to ensure equal distribution. Additionally, Cleisthenes established three practices which became the core of democratic activity: voting, elections, and random selection.
Three assemblies governed the city of Athens at the time: the Boule (a sort of Senate responsible for preparing decrees and laws), the Heliaea (the people’s court), and the Ecclesia (the assembly of citizens who vote on decrees and laws, the core of democracy). These three assemblies were coupled with a council of magistrates and officers, tasked with ensuring the implementation of the Ecclesia’s decisions in the political, administrative, and judicial domains.
Of course, ancient Athenian direct democracy had its flaws: women were excluded from political life, as were foreigners living in Athens (known as “metics”) and slaves, who were deprived from their rights. The number of citizens practicing direct democracy was therefore limited (42,000 citizens out of 380,000 inhabitants), especially given the compulsory subscription to the dimensions of the Athenian polis, i.e., the urban center where citizens gathered, which was not spacious enough. Therefore, in the end, a minority of Athens’ inhabitants practiced direct democracy. When this group included the uninformed or those with little commitment, the democracy was bound to eventually malfunction.
The Evolution Towards Representative Democracy
The various monarchies in Europe, which emerged after the fall of the Roman Empire, weakened, if not completely eliminated, the practice of democracy. However, between the 17th and 19th centuries, many thinkers attempted to revive it by rethinking its concept. For them, it was clear that direct democracy was not the model to be perpetuated. The reflection was then conducted based on existing fragments of democracy, such as the Parliament in England, where representatives of the nobility met to deliberate on the issue of taxes due to the sovereign, or in France, where the monarch convened the Estates General for elections, but without real representativeness.
Proper representative and liberal democracy was conceived by Benjamin Constant, a writer, politician, and deputy during the Restoration period in France. In his 1819 speech, “The Liberty of the Ancients Compared to that of the Moderns”, he asserted that representative democracy, underpinned by the principle of equality and the guarantee of freedoms, was the only worthwhile system in the face of a large and diverse citizenry. Convinced that this democracy could only be functional if it was liberal, he strongly defended liberalism as the only bulwark against the state’s control.
Regardless, representative democracy is not immune to its own pitfalls: for example, it could be criticized for being a non-inclusive system, with many citizens wishing to have a greater involvement in the institutions of their country, particularly those who form minorities among them. Likewise, it could easily be observed that the representatives of the people are often so difficult to reach that it would become increasingly rare to succeed in making oneself heard by them.
Current Reflections
In any case, the debate between direct democracy and representative democracy is complex, and there is currently no clear consensus on which is the superior system. On one hand, proponents of direct democracy argue that it allows for greater citizen participation and strengthens the legitimacy of political decisions. In this perspective, referendums and popular consultations are seen as ways of giving citizens a direct voice.
On the other hand, proponents of representative democracy emphasize the need for specialization and the efficiency of elected representatives, as political decisions often require specific expertise that citizens may not always possess to meaningfully participate in all aspects of political life.
However, in today’s world, against a backdrop of impoverishment, precariousness, political scandals, corruption, economic failures, disguised dictatorships, etc., in the realm of representative democracy, issues of trust between citizens and their representatives or institutions emerge and persistently make themselves heard. Consequently, new reflections are taking place, aiming at finding ways to re-establish healthy links between the people and their representatives, and to increasingly involve citizens in political life. In this vein, there is talk of participatory democracy, which, through groups of citizens or various associations, would involve the people in various consultations, conventions, councils, and decision-making processes. There is also talk of delegative democracy, also known as liquid democracy, which would allow any citizen to participate in the legislative process if they wish to do so. These reflections are still in their embryonic stage today and, of course, cannot promise to be ideal.
Lebanese Democracy
In the Middle Eastern context, Lebanon is, in fact, the only country with a representative democracy clearly enshrined in its Constitution. However, given the presence of powerful mafias and heavily armed militias in the streets, it is clear that the situation is unique: as things stand, the people’s representatives are prevented from exercising their representativeness and participation in government and political life, if any. This dysfunction operates in a sort of vicious cycle: popular protests are stifled; in turn, certain valid representatives of the people are hindered; the state itself is in a vegetative coma, with a total and permanent lack of self-awareness, environmental awareness, and the inability to react or reflect. When, then, will the funeral be?
Moreover, what kind of democracy can be reinvented when one has a right to question the degree of many Lebanese people’s attachment to democratic values themselves? What democracy can be rethought when the kings of war and post-war, the real insatiable vultures, continue to feast on the carcasses of a dying people, as done in the worst tyrannies in history? What kind of democracy can be revived when the decision of war and peace is monopolized, or literally violated by pseudo-Lebanese who care neither for the existence nor the perpetuation of Lebanon?
What are we waiting for? The advent of a revolutionary democracy led by Syrian refugees, these shameless squatters, supposedly in our name but, of course, for themselves?
Lebanese democracy? Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas. (Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.)
