Why didn't anyone else in the world, be it the Chinese or the Muslims, develop a system of democracy?
Why did democracy only develop in Ancient Greece?
- Thread starter burgoynewulfe
- Start date
Democracy in the Americas is pretty well-attested, and ancient India had republics, but I don't pretend to know what Indian republics were like.
Democracy is one of several systems of polyarchy. Polyarchy, in the sense of devolution of power to multiple sources rather than a single monarch, exists in a bunch of civilizations: we see it in the Iroquois Confederacy, and in Tang and Song China, where aristocrats and merchants respectively held a lot of independent informal power and could check the power of the emperor. There was also a tradition of electing kings among German tribes in the Early Middle Ages, but I don't know whether it descends from Roman republicanism (probably not) or from an independent Germanic tradition. The Greek system of formal voting seems natural because the West dominated the world, but it's not the only way to do polyarchy. Modern liberal democracies have had to introduce a lot of additional refinements: separation of powers (at a minimum, an independent judiciary), civil liberties, minority rights, property rights. In Classical Athens, people could vote to exile someone they disliked; in today's democracies, it's not possible.
ChineseDrone#48295857
Banned
Several native American tribes developed democratic systems completely independently of the Greeks.
The early Caliphate was also elective in nature (technically speaking, this is still part of Sunni doctrine--the Ulema elects the caliph).
Also a lot of non-state tribal peoples across the world adhered to systems of proto-semidemocracy. As a matter of fact, what we call modern Western democracy, especially in places like the Anglosphere, actually has just as much, if not more, of its roots in old Germanic tribal assemblies as in Greco-Roman democracy
The early Caliphate was also elective in nature (technically speaking, this is still part of Sunni doctrine--the Ulema elects the caliph).
Also a lot of non-state tribal peoples across the world adhered to systems of proto-semidemocracy. As a matter of fact, what we call modern Western democracy, especially in places like the Anglosphere, actually has just as much, if not more, of its roots in old Germanic tribal assemblies as in Greco-Roman democracy
I'd say that Greece simply has one of the better known systems of democracy. Hardly the only one. The Norse also had assemblies with some form of voting, although perhaps not always as formalized as the Greek city-state.
Direct democracy is somewhat rare, but republicanism and polyarchy, as Alon noted, are actually relatively common. Absolute despotism is rare indeed, because most governments need the cooperation of at least a portion of the people they rule in order to govern.
Direct democracy is somewhat rare, but republicanism and polyarchy, as Alon noted, are actually relatively common. Absolute despotism is rare indeed, because most governments need the cooperation of at least a portion of the people they rule in order to govern.
So then is the idea of "republicanism" a western concept?
Also what is your opinion on a scenario like this? (http://antiikki.taivaansusi.net/?page_id=167 )
Could those Chinese kingdoms have developed a system of modern democracy without influence from Athenian democracy?
Also what is your opinion on a scenario like this? (http://antiikki.taivaansusi.net/?page_id=167 )
Could those Chinese kingdoms have developed a system of modern democracy without influence from Athenian democracy?
The question put forth is invalid because of its vague assumptions. Democracy in its widest form is almost universal. "Modern democracy" is a thing developed over the course of centuries.
Everyone developed systems of democracy. It's just that Greece overshadows them by virtue of the West claiming descent from ancient Greece, whose culture was defined by the glory hound Athenians.
Ah, that thing. Well, geography apparently makes it difficult. But I always did adore the idea of multiple Chinese kingdoms. Maybe a Three Kingdoms era extended and prolonged? It's certainly in the same time period as the Crisis of the Third Century.
Everyone developed systems of democracy. It's just that Greece overshadows them by virtue of the West claiming descent from ancient Greece, whose culture was defined by the glory hound Athenians.
Ah, that thing. Well, geography apparently makes it difficult. But I always did adore the idea of multiple Chinese kingdoms. Maybe a Three Kingdoms era extended and prolonged? It's certainly in the same time period as the Crisis of the Third Century.
Several ancient Bengali kingdoms, such as the Palas and the one founded by Shashanka (supposed originator of Bengali New Year) were elected by popular assembly (although their descendants immediately moved to a monarchy in both cases upon the founder's death).
Not quite - about what Britain had around the time of the 1832 Reform Act. Also comparable to several Lower South States in 19C America.
Indeed, many Native American groups, due to their smaller size, ruled through consensus and mutual agreement and compromise.
The problem is that schools in the west don't generally care to go over subjects considered obscure like ancient Indian republics or the egalitarianism of Iroquois society and it's effect on American ideals of democracy. Instead you get the traditional discourse on western civilization's perceived origins in Ancient Greece and everything that followed but nothing outside the boundaries of their ecumene.
Which is a shame because IMO India is super interesting in this regard, Hinduism being arguably democratic in its theology.
Both Rama and Vishnu exemplify this, but it is most notable in Rama who in the name of kingly duty bends to the popular appeal of his subjects and essentially constitutional law; Rama exiles Sita much to his heartbreak even though his saving her was pretty much the point of his existsance. Likewise, Krishna is more openly an incarnate of Vishnu and yet he also bends to the edicts of peasants and the laws set out before him; in the Bhagivad Gita he is seen as a charioteer for this very reason and even extols the wisdom of democratic rule embodied in kingly behaviour, another theme throughout the Mahabaratha.
I know the examples listed are petty and tribal kingdoms rather than even the democratic republics that would come later, but it is still very interesting to see such a democratic spirit in these guiding texts.
Apologies for my ignorance!
As someone who likes to claim to know quite a bit about history I was pretty dumbfounded to find out just how many cultures really did develop these ideas!
After all Prime Minister, Parliament, House of [insert here] are all English terms not Greek. Point being I didn't realize how much democracy really was a shared creation, even if in the end the Athenian Democracy became the "root" in the eyes of the Western World.
So really if the Scandinavian culture ruled the world today instead of the English or French then we'd all say Althing instead of parliament or Forsætisráðherra instead of Prime Minister?
As someone who likes to claim to know quite a bit about history I was pretty dumbfounded to find out just how many cultures really did develop these ideas!
After all Prime Minister, Parliament, House of [insert here] are all English terms not Greek. Point being I didn't realize how much democracy really was a shared creation, even if in the end the Athenian Democracy became the "root" in the eyes of the Western World.
So really if the Scandinavian culture ruled the world today instead of the English or French then we'd all say Althing instead of parliament or Forsætisráðherra instead of Prime Minister?
I think this is a great point.
I've always said, if you want people to go along with you, you have to promise to bring them along with you.
You need oarsmen? We need a vote. It's a deal.