The dawn of Democracy

[Tiglath Pileser III]

29th November, 2008

Courtesy www.gilgameshgames.org




The West’s erroneous belief is that democracy miraculously sprang out of Greek civilization in the fifth century B.C. and was utilised by the Roman Empire and arguably gave rise to the great moments in the construction and propagation of Western civilization.



Modern Western myths further purport that modern Democracy in the Middle East is undermined by the fact that the people of the Middle East have historically been accustomed to “autocracy and passive obedience.â€

[Eleatic Guest]

You can't be serious...

[Epictetus]

It seems odd that such detail can be asserted with such certainty. Unfortunately the works cited are all secondary, so where did the primary sources come from?

It looks like the site has an agenda:

Who are we?
We are a non-profit organisation consisting of a group of writers dedicated to deconstructing the "historical pillar" of Orientalism. We aim to do this by showing that civilisation evolved naturally at the confluence of three continents rather than miraculously in the isolated mountainous terrain of Greece. Anyone interested in contributing to this work or making a contribution can contact us.

[Tiglath Pileser III]

You can't be serious...

Yes I was also flabbergasted after reading Benjamin's article.
It amazed me that we could so blindly ignore the well spring from which our modern civilisation has sprung.

It looks like the site has an agenda:

Of course we have an agenda. We intend on revealing the roots of our modern civilisation and trace them back to their true sources........not secondary sources.

[Epictetus]

We intend on revealing the roots of our modern civilisation and trace them back to their true sources........not secondary sources.

Well, that’s great. I’m all for historical research. But the problem is the article cites secondary sources. For instance, this seems quite interesting (and very specific and certain):

At every stage, the assemblies appear to have been lively places, with participants openly pointing out the contradictions and inconsistencies in their opponent’s argument. When all of the participants had been given a chance to state their case at least once, the proceedings ended before debate became cyclical, emotional or counterproductive.

But unfortunately the works cited were published in 1970 and 1976. (One of these works appears to be an “essay.â€

[caiusbeerquitius]

I don´t see where this is going. Even IF there had been earlier forms of "democracy" (which is, in general, not unlikely), it is hard to find any links to Athens, that is, where should there be any continuity? Since that is not given, I don´t see why this should be of any relevance to the history of "western" democracy. As such our modern western democracy is nothing but based on the athenian democracy, but also has many more elements to it, such as Gewaltenteilung, freedom of press and other things the ancients were actually not familiar with. So I don´t see a point in this whole article other than spreading personal/ political agenda and trying to tell everyone how great one is. Usually such agendas derive out of deep inferiority complexes. If it keeps you from posting this stuff furthermore, I am willing to attest you that you are from the greatest country in the world, and that your culture is the most sophisticated and oldest and advanced one on the whole darn planet. Really. Send me your adress and I´ll write it by hand and send it to you. Oh. No, wait. The place is already taken by the Ancient Israelites. They said they were chosen by god to be the greatest in the world. That´s even better than inventing democracy... Higher authority and stuff... You´ll get a writing from me that you´re second best! Happy?

[Jona Lendering]

Even IF there had been earlier forms of "democracy" (which is, in general, not unlikely), it is hard to find any links to Athens, that is, where should there be any continuity? Since that is not given, I don´t see why this should be of any relevance to the history of "western" democracy.

I think that there is a relevance, and that it is the same as why Greek democracy has relevance to us: it shows that there are only a limited number of forms for democracy - call them "configurations" if you like Mintzberg. The Phoenicians and Greeks choose for an assembly, we have chosen for representative bodies. Both are replies to the same basic problem: how to make it work, how to make sure that any vote really counts. That the same problems existed back then, is illuminating; and it tells something about Athens that it chose the same solution as Phoenicia, and not the model we have.

Besides, I would not exclude the possibility of influence. A little rumor like "in the cities of Phoenicia, they give every man a vote" is sufficient to give ideas to the Athenians in a crisis situation.

Finally, I agree very much with Christian that we must not overestimate the relevance of ancient democracy or democracies for our own society.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Besides, I would not exclude the possibility of influence. A little rumor like "in the cities of Phoenicia, they give every man a vote" is sufficient to give ideas to the Athenians in a crisis situation.

Yes, of course it cannot be outruled, but I´d like to see some evidence which shows continuity and which lifts the hypothesis out of the realm of speculation.

[Jona Lendering]

I´d like to see some evidence which shows continuity and which lifts the hypothesis out of the realm of speculation.

Actually, there is some evidence, although I would not accept it myself as sufficient proof: the Cadmus story. The first city in Greece was believed to have been founded by a Phoenician, and the implication may be that the Greeks believed that the origins of their political system were Phoenician as well. I admit that this is insufficient, and I also think that real proof will be difficult to obtain.

However, there is one course we must never take: unquestioningly believe the Athenians that they were the inventors. It is remarkable that ancient historians who are perfectly capable of deconstructing Athenian propaganda elsewhere, never challenge the Athenian claim to have invented democracy. Beloch was aware of this problem, and was looking for arguments to accept the Athenian story; he came up with the argument that the word demokratia is not found in any archaic text. Of course this is nonsense (although I do not like to say that of the great historian); but he ought to have realized that before 450, nearly all our texts are poetic, and the word demokratia does not fit into the poetic meters.

In sum, we have no other argument to believe that democracy was invented by the Athenians than their own stories. They are probably right, but I think it is by no means as certain as is often believed.

[Tiglath Pileser III]

I don´t see where this is going. Even IF there had been earlier forms of "democracy" (which is, in general, not unlikely), it is hard to find any links to Athens, that is, where should there be any continuity?

It's quite simple. Civilisation took a path that can be traced back to the Middle East much like our genetics can all be traced back to Africa. We are advocates of culutral continuity.

Since that is not given, I don´t see why this should be of any relevance to the history of "western" democracy. As such our modern western democracy is nothing but based on the athenian democracy, but also has many more elements to it, such as Gewaltenteilung, freedom of press and other things the ancients were actually not familiar with.

Brenjamin has not compared ancient Mesopotamian democracy with modern day Democracy, Benjamin has compared it with ancient Athenian Democracy and shown that there are remarkable similarities with of course a difference of over one thousand years.

So I don´t see a point in this whole article other than spreading personal/ political agenda and trying to tell everyone how great one is. Usually such agendas derive out of deep inferiority complexes. If it keeps you from posting this stuff furthermore, I am willing to attest you that you are from the greatest country in the world, and that your culture is the most sophisticated and oldest and advanced one on the whole darn planet. Really. Send me your adress and I´ll write it by hand and send it to you. Oh. No, wait. The place is already taken by the Ancient Israelites. They said they were chosen by god to be the greatest in the world. That´s even better than inventing democracy... Higher authority and stuff... But then: You´ll get a writing from me that you´re second best! Happy?

Thank you for hitting the nail on the head.

History is written by the victors not the vanquished. That kind of explains why the Battle of Britain makes the Brits look so noble and honourable in battlling the dreaded Germans whereas not a word is said about the bombing of Germany especially the bombing of hamburh in which over 35,000 innocent Germans were incinirated.

The Europeans conquered the Middle East culturaly before they ever conquered it physically during the past few hundred years. In order to justify their Imperialist conquests the Europeans and today the US usurped and demeaned the culture and history of the conquered through their books, media etc using revisionist history.

This combination of Eugenics theory, racism, anti-Semitism mixed with nationalism is what deliberately ignored the well spring from which all of our civilisation was derived. So you see no nation or culture is better than any other for you to think in that manner reflects your adoption of retrograde nationalism. We are all humans genetically from the same stock and thanks to articles such as this also culturaly interconnected.

[caiusbeerquitius]

It's quite simple. Civilisation took a path that can be traced back to the Middle East much like our genetics can all be traced back to Africa.

Apparently you are not up to date about modern anthropology. Nowadays it is far from sure that mankind derives from Africa. See Dmanisi etc. Afro-Asian Steppe etc.

History is written by the victors not the vanquished. That kind of explains why the Battle of Britain makes the Brits look so noble and honourable in battlling the dreaded Germans whereas not a word is said about the bombing of Germany especially the bombing of hamburh in which over 35,000 innocent Germans were incinirated.

The Europeans conquered the Middle East culturaly before they ever conquered it physically during the past few hundred years. In order to justify their Imperialist conquests the Europeans and today the US usurped and demeaned the culture and history of the conquered through their books, media etc using revisionist history.

This combination of Eugenics theory, racism, anti-Semitism mixed with nationalism is what deliberately ignored the well spring from which all of our civilisation was derived. So you see no nation or culture is better than any other for you to think in that manner reflects your adoption of retrograde nationalism. We are all humans genetically from the same stock and thanks to articles such as this also culturaly interconnected.

Vae victis.

So you see no nation or culture is better than any other for you to think in that manner reflects your adoption of retrograde nationalism.

This depends on whether there are ethical base values or whether there are no ethical base values. Here an argument may quickly become a naturalistic false conclusion. I would judge my culture as "better" than the "Spartan" culture, where weak children were simply killed.

Talking about genetics: you may be right to a certain extent (as far as is necessary for your argument you are very well right), but a human being does not consist of genes alone. The larger part of what makes us different is enculturation. And culturally there are quite big differences. And in certain ways certain cultures may be more "successful" or more satisfactory for their members than other cultures for theirs.
The major problem in all of this discussion is that certain countries are by far not secularized enough (politically and on a personal level of the majority of it´s inhabitants) to produce a broad academically believeable and methodologically unquestionable base for scientific cooperation.

[Jona Lendering]

Talking about genetics: you may be right to a certain extent ... but a human being does not consist of genes alone. The larger part of what makes us different is enculturation.

Exactly.

The major problem in all of this discussion is that certain countries are by far not secularized enough (politically and on a personal level of the majority of it´s inhabitants) to produce a broad academically believeable and methodologically unquestionable base for scientific cooperation.

I do not know whether secularization is the point. Nationalism may be another factor. There is a large group of secular Iranians who want to replace the historical propaganda of the Islamic Republic, and reintroduce the propaganda of the Shah (Cyrus Cylinder as a human rights document, et cetera). The real point may be the strength to accept doubt and admit ignorance; people who cling to religion or nationalism are not necessarily the strongest people.

[Sean Manning]

Thanks for the link! I just finished reading the article.

I'm not very interested in the argument about modern politics, but at least Mr. Iskahan makes his purpose clear. Events and institutious 2500 years ago are of limited importance to events and institutions today (although what people believe about those events and institutious can be more important). As Christian said, modern democracy has many later elements which the ancients were not familiar with (female suffrage, neutral judges and bureaucrats, representative government, political parties, etc.). I agree with Jona's take that Phoenecian institutious could (or could not) have influenced the development of Athenian democracy.

I agree with what he says about primitive democracy in the Sumerian world. I want to read his sources on the Iron Age, and I don't know enough about Ancient Egypt to comment.

On p. 110 I notice that he describes the Report of Wenamon and the Amarna Letters as “Phoenecian documents,â€

[Tiglath Pileser III]

Apparently you are not up to date about modern anthropology. Nowadays it is far from sure that mankind derives from Africa. See Dmanisi etc. Afro-Asian Steppe etc.

That our genetics trace back to Africa is the most widely acknowledged theory to date. Doesn't mean that there's total agreement just as there isn't in the theory of evolution.

And in certain ways certain cultures may be more "successful" or more satisfactory for their members than other cultures for theirs.
The major problem in all of this discussion is that certain countries are by far not secularized enough (politically and on a personal level of the majority of it´s inhabitants) to produce a broad academically believeable and methodologically unquestionable base for scientific cooperation.

Thank you for throwing around broad sweeping generalisations that have become enshrined in the framework of Orinetalism.

Let me translate for the readers exactly what you are saying:
Middle Easterners are too backward, primitive and religous to accept Democracy.

Very similar broad sweeping generalisations were being made about the Arab's semitic brothers the Jews in Hitler's Germany which were then used to justify their final solution.

Let's also conveniently forget the fact that the US foreign policy which ties US miltary and economic hegemeony against a strong dollar tied to the selling of world oil in US dollars prefers installing "strong men" and dictators in the Middle East while assassinating and removing moderates.