ฝึกพูดภาษาอังกฤษด้วยเทคนิค Shadowing จากวิดีโอ: DEMOCRACY: Ancient vs. Modern

This is a painting of life in ancient Greece, specifically in Athens during its political golden age.

Its male citizens enjoyed, for the first time in the history of a state, near total control over their own political lives.

They called their form of government demokratia.

Themos in Greek means people.

Kratos means power to do things, which people usually translate as rule.

Together, you have demokratia, the rule of the people.

After the fall of Athens, the word democracy wouldn't be linked to another state for more

than 2,000 years upon the founding of the United States of America.

But the United States created a very different form of democracy that, to many, isn't democratic at all.

This video is going to explore these two democracies.

We're going to talk about where they came from, what their ideas were, how they're democratic, and also how they're undemocratic.

At the end, we're going to circle out and ask if the word democracy is appropriate for either society.

So this video is designed to give you a better grasp on the concept of democracy, and also how it relates to both societies.

So that's the plan, and we're going to begin by looking at Greece.

Ancient Greece wasn't a country in the modern sense, with one state and one government.

Instead, it was a collection of cities that were their own states, called city-states.

These city-states formed over hundreds of years when neighboring families, clans, and tribes joined together for protection.

So these city-states were basically just an urban area and the surrounding countryside, all under one sovereign jurisdiction.

The most famous city-state, and also the best documented one, was Athens.

In 507 BC, the Athenians adopted a system of popular government that lasted nearly two centuries,

with a brief interruption in 404 BC when Athens lost to Sparta at the end of the Peloponnesian War.

The classical Athenian democracy permanently ended in 321 BC when Athens was defeated and subjugated by another powerful neighbor, Macedonia.

The invention of democracy didn't happen in a vacuum.

If you look at the position of Greece on a map and consider the prominent civilizations at the time, like the Persians, the Egyptians, and the Phoenicians,

you can see how it was positioned to be a sort of focal point among the flourishing civilizations at the time, as they interacted, traded, and even fought with one another.

So from that came a sort of swirling mixture of genes, cultures, and challenges that shaped Greek civilization and culture.

A similar phenomenon continued throughout the Athenian Golden Age, which made Athens a remarkably alive city in its time.

It's hard to definitively say more precisely how it happened, since we're talking about ancient history here,

but one thing that came to distinguish this flourishing Greek culture was its respect for wisdom.

So the Greeks respected wisdom, similarly to how 19th century Americans respected capitalistic enterprise.

So the Greeks made their sages into heroes, and had popular sayings like, Wisdom should be cherished as a means of traveling from youth to old age,

for it is more lasting than any other possession.

In particular, they were interested in practical wisdom, wisdom that you could make function actively in the world.

The Greeks' focus on practical intellectual pursuits led them to develop a new philosophy of rule.

You could ask the question of any society, who rules, or where's the highest political authority.

The answer to that question for most of history was a person, like a king or a pharaoh.

But to the Greeks, these were barbarians.

They weren't free-thinking people.

The Greeks instead answered the question with law.

That, on one hand, was thought to free people.

It was thought that getting everyone in society, including its leaders, to be subject to the law gave people a certain amount of protection in their lives from arbitrary uses of power.

It was also thought to have a civilizing effect on people.

It was thought that getting people to follow the law made people more driven by reason, and less driven by emotional impulses.

Here's how Aristotle put it, "...just as man is the best of the animals when completed," which here basically means living in a Greek city-state,

"...when separated from law and adjudication, he is the worst of all." So the Greeks believed that they could civilize all of society,

including its leaders by making everyone in that society subject to the law.

So that concept is called rule of law.

You don't have to be a democracy to have rule of law.

You can have a king, for example, who's also subject to the law.

But it's a fundamental aspect of Athenian democracy, as well as American democracy.

It's also thought to be a necessary component of democracy more generally.

If you think about it, you probably won't be able to rotate out unwanted people by election who are holding office, if those people in office are not subject to the law.

So rule of law is understood to be a western idea

because the ancient Greeks are understood to be the people who discovered it.

Again we're talking about ancient history here, and the further we go back in time, the less sure we can be about what we know.

So we can't say definitively that the Athenians are the ones who invented rule of law.

But we are pretty confident that it was a Greek invention, and it certainly paved the way for the Athenian democracy that followed.

Another major conceptual development that led to democracy is captured in the Greek word isonomia, which translates to equality for all under the law.

So you can think of democracy as a manifested expression of isonomia, an expression of political equality in a state with rule of law.

But how did this come about?

How did this become a thing?

For one, rule of law is naturally somewhat equalizing.

It brings people of all classes politically closer together.

tumbling towards those at the top and elevating towards those at the bottom.

So once you have rule of law, calls for political equality might not be far behind.

But we think the main reason why political equality emerged as a popular concept in Greece

and in its most extreme form in Athens boils down to Greek military culture.

In Greek culture, battle and conquest were glorified.

The warriors who won battles brought honor and prestige onto themselves.

Since armies were needed to defend every city-state against potentially larger opponents, far more people served in the military than we're used to now.

For example, even aristocrats might serve as cavalry, since they were wealthy enough to own horses and the land that was needed to support them.

If the cavalry prominently served in a battle and won, they'd bring glory onto themselves, and with that, power.

So over time, a link developed between military service and political power, the power to administer the state.

So that made the composition of armies in ancient Greece inherently political.

The types of people serving in armies were positioned to win power.

Athenian citizens were the ones who democratically capitalized on that.

If you think about Greece, it's notably characterized by islands and the Aegean Sea.

You can think of the Aegean Sea as the heart of Greece.

Athens became unique in Greece when it used wealth from a silver mine it controlled to take advantage of the Aegean Sea.

Between 507 and 480 BCE, they build up a powerful navy.

It was the greatest navy the Greek world had ever seen.

And who, overwhelmingly, works in an ancient Greek navy?

The answer is oarsmen.

The people who literally rowed the boats.

So you might see where I'm going with this.

The next question should be, what type of person worked as an oarsman in this ancient Athenian navy?

The answer was poor Greek men.

The Greek word for them was thetes.

We don't know how many thetes there were living in ancient Athens, but there were presumably quite a lot of them.

Athenian literature sometimes refers to them as the masses.

Athens also had a land army that was more standard for the time, consisting mostly of hoplites.

Hoplites were heavy infantry.

They were basically the middle class of Athens, people who were wealthy enough to own shields and weaponry.

The important point here is that between the Thetes and the Hoplites, you have a clear majority of the adult male Athenian population,

again in circumstances where war can bring glory and power.

In that same period, as you might have guessed, Athens uses its land army and its navy to win a stunning series of victories.

Its Hoplite army unexpectedly defeats the much larger Persian army in the Battle of Marathon, making them heroes around all of Greece.

They also won a string of battles around Greece in 506.

But probably the most important victory of all went to the navy in the Battle of Solomus in 480,

100

again defeating the Persians and effectively saving Athens from subjugation,

101

which was reported to have caused the masses to have gained a newfound confidence in themselves, which was directly linked to the Athenian Democratic Revolution,

102

to the ushering in of Isonomia.

103

That revolution is typically thought to have occurred in three major phases, three major reforms, and each reform is linked to a person.

104

The first reform is linked to a man named Solon.

105

Solon was responding to a class war that was ravaging Athens around 600 BCE.

106

There was a massive wealth disparity between rich and poor, and the government, the army, and the courts were controlled by the wealthy.

107

Many in Athens were deeply in debt and unable to pay it off.

108

So Solon was brought in as a moderate to mediate between the classes and keep Athens from destroying itself.

109

One of his main accomplishments was to convince all Athenians, regardless of class, to obey the law.

110

So he created a new set of laws that were applied, without distinction, to all free men.

111

So he's a good figure to peg the beginning of rule of law on in Athens.

112

Solon also cancelled the debts, but probably more importantly for the long run, he politically reorganized Athens.

113

He broke Athens into four groups depending on their income, which is where we get thetes from.

114

Each group was then given a different amount of political privilege.

115

The thetes were given the fewest political privileges.

116

They were given access to the assembly, which is a voting body which we'll get to, and they were also given access to the courts,

117

so thetes could now litigate and serve in the jury.

118

Under Solon, the most powerful political authority was called the Council of the Areopagus, which only the wealthy could serve on, and whose members served for life.

119

The second reform was through a man named Cleisthenes.

120

Cleisthenes was involved in a power struggle around 508 in Athens.

121

There seemed to be simmering anger against elites at the time, which Cleisthenes used against his opponent.

122

He aroused the people to revolt, sweeping him into power and establishing him as a populist dictator.

123

He wanted to break the hold that powerful aristocratic families had over parts of Athens, So he politically reorganizes Athens into 10 tribes,

124

which were further broken into subgroups down to deems.

125

So these deems are essentially local districts.

126

It was through that infrastructure that Athenian citizens would go on to exercise many of their democratic rights.

127

Each tribe could elect members to a newly created Council of 500, which we'll get to.

128

And they could also elect one of ten generals to lead the military.

129

But under Cleisthenes, you still had the Council of the Areopagus, and Thetes, importantly, couldn't hold public office.

130

The last major reform happened under a man named Pericles.

131

Pericles came from a noble family, which was reported to have descended from Cleisthenes.

132

He lived in the mid-5th century, which was the era of Athenian naval dominance.

133

There were calls for political equality, and Athenian opinion was split into two camps.

134

One side believed that elites should govern Athens, and the other believed that the people, the Deimos, should govern Athens.

135

By allying with the people calling for political equality, Pericles rose to power and became the most influential man in Athens.

136

He then worked with a colleague named Ephialtes to break the power of the Council of the Areopagus, which brought about the golden age of Athenian democracy.

137

So without further delay, here's a description of what that society looked like.

138

You could ask the question of any society, where are policy decisions made?

139

Are they made in a throne room or in a private council somewhere?

140

In democratic Athens, policy decisions were made on a hill not far from the Acropolis called the Pnyx the Pnyx.

141

Ten times a year, the citizens of Athens would come together and meet at the Pnyx.

142

Once there, an issue would be raised and then a debate would occur.

143

Everyone there would have equal right to participate in that debate, which was the Athenian basis of free speech, called Isegoria.

144

Once the issue was sufficiently debated, a vote would be held.

145

The people there would then raise their hands to show their support for a particular position.

146

Whenever side won, a simple majority would become new policy in Athens.

147

What I just described was called, in Athens, the Ekklesia, the Assembly.

148

The issues raised in the Assembly were prepared by the Council of 500, whose members were chosen randomly from the public by lot.

149

Of the two, the Assembly was the far more powerful body.

150

The Assembly could vote down bills drafted by the Council.

151

They could change the bills on the floor.

152

They could send the bill back with instructions for redrafting, or they could replace it with an entirely new one.

153

So the real exercise of sovereign public authority rested directly on the assembly.

154

The citizens gathered on the Pnyx could pass virtually whatever policy they wanted.

155

So the most important policy decisions that had to be made in Athens were made in the assembly, which included foreign policy.

156

So, as you might expect, that led to some dramatic assemblies.

157

In the mid-fourth century, for example, Philip of Macedon was marching on Athens.

158

The assembly then had to vote on whether to fight or to try to negotiate.

159

The wrong decision could have meant the fall of Athens and even the destruction of Athenian culture.

160

So this must have been a deeply political society.

161

And considering how long democratic Athens lasted, this must have been a fairly competent public.

162

Speaking to that competence, there were very few elected public officials in this society.

163

Short of a few exceptions, generals, naval architects, and superintendents of the water supply.

164

All public officials were chosen randomly from the citizenry by lottery.

165

These officials all had their power tightly controlled by the assembly.

166

The highest public officials were the generals.

167

They only served one-year terms and were subject to performance reviews by the public.

168

If their performance was found lacking, they would be dismissed.

169

That being said, they didn't have term limits, so generals like Pericles could be re-elected for life.

170

So the influence of a general over a lifetime could give a sort of continuity of purpose to Athenian politics.

171

But all generals, including Pericles, had no formal power outside of the military.

172

Their only ability to influence public policy rested on their ability to persuade the public.

173

So what we're looking at here is a public that directly and thoroughly has control over its own political affairs,

174

which is what we would now call a direct democracy.

175

The Athenian public also directly expressed their political power through the Dekasteria, the people's courts.

176

I think it's worth spending a moment describing what it looked like, because it didn't really resemble modern courts.

177

For one, there were no lawyers in the system.

178

You could hire a speechwriter, but all cases had to be registered and argued by private citizens.

179

There also were no judges.

180

All cases were decided by the jury, and that jury was massive.

181

The average size was around 500 people, big enough to be unbribable, and also big enough to represent public opinion.

182

The jurors were again chosen randomly from the public by lot.

183

That meant that there weren't really any professionals in the system.

184

You could even call it an amateur law system.

185

So legal outcomes could be unpredictable.

186

Speakers could fool the jury by, for example, incorrectly citing laws or distorting history.

187

So those were the three main institutions, the assembly, the council of 500, and the law courts, all directly controlled and managed by the Athenian public.

188

But who exactly was that public?

189

Who had access to those institutions?

190

Athenians, like all Greeks, saw the world in terms of binaries.

191

You were either man or woman, free or slave, Greek or barbarian, citizen or alien.

192

Within that, the Athenians permitted one half of those binaries into their democracy.

193

They permitted free, male, Greek citizens of Athens.

194

So slaves weren't permitted, women weren't permitted, non-Greeks weren't permitted, and non-Athenian citizens weren't permitted.

195

It's still normal today to exclude non-citizens from your politics.

196

The rest of these exclusions were relatively normal for their time, but I think it's worth spending some time addressing them.

197

The Greeks again believed that their city-states civilized people and freed them, so they believed that they lived as free people in their city-states.

198

They also believed that people elsewhere in the world, the barbarians, lived as subjugated people.

199

They lived as subjects to a ruler.

200

So to them, foreigners and slaves were essentially the same.

201

They both had the psychologies of subordinated people.

202

So to the Greeks, their politics were incompatible with both foreigners and slaves.

203

They saw their free politics as being incompatible with the psychologies of subordinated people.

204

Speaking of slaves, the Athenians had quite a lot of them, probably somewhere between 80 and 100,000 slaves, which was about a third of the total Athenian population.

205

Athenian male citizens wanted to spend their time on things that they thought were valuable, but that don't necessarily create wealth.

206

They wanted to spend their time on things like government, war, literature, or philosophy.

207

But someone has to work to create wealth, and this was before machines were invented, so slaves were the Athenians' answer to that.

208

So the work provided by slaves made it possible for

209

so many Athenian men to spend time in government or to serve in the military.

210

That being said, the Athenians seemed to be relatively generous towards their slaves, in contrast to the United States of America,

211

where slaves and their families were passed down from generation to generation, making their outlook on eventually gaining freedom pretty hopeless.

212

In Athens, it wasn't unusual for well-behaved slaves to be freed as their owners reached the end of their lives.

213

Slaves in Athens also enjoyed some legal protections.

214

If they were badly beaten by their owners, they could flee to a temple, and their owner might be forced to sell them.

215

Slaves were also allowed to participate in business, provided they gave their owners a share of the earnings.

216

And better-off slaves reportedly dressed similarly to free Athenians.

217

The Athenian government also employed a number of slaves.

218

Many of them were given an allowance and were allowed to live where they pleased.

219

Considering the standards of the time, Athenians were known for being mild to their slaves.

220

And it was even common judgment

221

that it was better to be a slave in Athens than a poor free man in an oligarchic state.

222

But I doubt that was of much consolation to the slaves working in the silver mines.

223

It's a bit more controversial how Athenian men regarded Athenian women.

224

Thucydides infamously reported Pericles to have said, at the end of his funeral oration, female excellence meant to be least talked about among the men,

225

whether for good or for bad.

226

In keeping with that, average female citizens were rarely talked about in Athenian literature.

227

Aristotle opened his politics claiming that, while on one hand, men and women need each other for reproduction,

228

on the other hand, some are naturally rulers and others are naturally ruled.

229

Rulers, he says, use their minds, and the ruled use their bodies.

230

Which seems to be implying that men are naturally a ruling class over women.

231

Since women weren't invited into politics, that seems at least fairly representative of Athenian public opinion.

232

So this was a deeply patriarchal society.

233

The woman's place was understood to be not in politics, but in the home, out of sight.

234

As probably the strongest piece of evidence for that, we don't even know the name of Pericles' wife.

235

That being said, not all All male citizens were always allowed into their democracy.

236

Under Kleisthenes, a procedure was introduced that allowed the Athenian public to banish someone from their society.

237

The procedure was called an ostracism.

238

If 6,000 people in the assembly voted in an ostracism, then the person with the most names would be forced to leave Athens for 10 years.

239

So that's something that happened to high-profile people, typically disgraced politicians, and presumably during tense times, considering how many boats needed to be cast.

240

So ostracisms probably worked to relieve domestic pressures.

241

If someone was causing a lot of trouble in Athens, and the Athenian public wanted them gone, they had the means to do it.

242

I think it's worth reflecting on that process, and what it seems to say about Athenian society.

243

When the Athenians wanted someone gone, they didn't kill them, and they didn't throw them in jail, never to be seen again.

244

Instead they just forced them to leave for 10 years, and after that 10 years, they'd be allowed to come back.

245

So it was a fundamentally peaceful process, and I think a civil one.

246

That being said, there is some evidence of fraud during those ostracisms, so the process might have sometimes been manipulated.

247

Illiterate voters, for example, might have been used for political purposes.

248

So what happened to this system?

249

What happened to Athenian democracy?

250

Why do we talk about it in the past tense?

251

Well, democracy in Athens became expensive.

252

The assembly voted to institute pay for more and more public positions, namely in the military and the jury.

253

Money for those positions had to come from somewhere, and Athens found the answer in empire.

254

So democracy in Athens came to depend on empire.

255

They increasingly stretched their power over the rest of Greece.

256

They also sent ambitious campaigns abroad to Egypt and Sicily.

257

Things reached a breaking point.

258

in Greece turned against the Athenians.

259

Resistance to Athenian policy came from nearly every state in Greece.

260

The viability of democracy was also an open question in Athenian time.

261

It was notably rejected by aristocrats and the upper class.

262

That led to divisions at home and a lack of intellectual support from many of the brightest minds at the time, like Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle.

263

By Aristotle's time, the most extreme oligarchs were reported to have sworn the following oath.

264

I will be evil-minded to the demos, and will plot whatever evil I can against them.

265

Athens would go on to suffer a string of defeats that would lead to its fall.

266

The end of the line for the old-style Athenian democracy came in 321, when Athens, subordinated under Macedon,

267

added a wealth criterion for citizenship.

268

Democracy disappeared in Athens and wouldn't reappear for thousands of years, this time in a modern form, influenced by the United States.

269

We're about to turn our attention there, but I'd like to close this section out by reading a speech

270

that Pericles was reported to give to the citizens of Athens.

271

was a dark time in the city, plague had struck, and the tide of the war against Sparta seemed to be turning against Athens.

272

I think it gives a sense of both the intelligence and the grandeur of the time.

273

It reads, Even if we should ever be forced to yield, for everything that grows great also decays.

274

The memory of our greatness will be bequeathed to posterity forever.

275

That we of all the Greeks ruled over more Greeks than anyone,

276

that in the greatest wars we held out against enemies in alliance and individually,

277

and that we lived in a city that was the most ingenious and the greatest.

278

We see the wisdom of Solon's remark that no more good must be attempted than the nation can bear.

279

Thomas Jefferson, corresponding with Walter Jones, 1801.

280

If you think about it, democracy in Athens, as told by its literature, manifested itself as a class struggle, a struggle between the many and the few.

281

Democracy was implemented when the many won that struggle and took control of politics.

282

But the few always resented the many.

283

Democracy in Athens ended with the few reclaiming power and the many losing it.

284

Democracy in America, by contrast, manifested itself as less of a class struggle and more of a moderate compromise,

285

probably most powerfully embodied in the philosophy of James Madison, the principal framer of the Constitution.

286

For that to make sense, we need some context.

287

I think the best place to start is to look at the state of democracy before the founding of the United States.

288

In the mid-1700s, ancient Greece was thousands of years in the rearview mirror of history.

289

Available literature at the time was limited, so people's understandings of ancient Greece at the time were also accordingly limited.

290

So that meant that even though they created what's considered the first modern democratic nation.

291

Only a few of the US founders were at all familiar with ancient Greek history or political thought.

292

What little they knew mostly came from only two sources, Thucydides and the biographer Plutarch, with Plutarch being probably by far the bigger source.

293

That translated into the founders not showing much interest in ancient Athens.

294

They mentioned it sparingly and typically in a passing fashion.

295

But there was an ancient society that they were more interested in.

296

Intellectuals at the time, in both America

297

and Europe showed far more interest in classical Rome and the concept of republicanism that's associated with its society before Caesar.

298

That meant that leading up to the revolution, there were two main political philosophies on the table, republicanism and monarchism.

299

So it was republicanism that ended up replacing monarchism.

300

There's a few things to say about that.

301

For one, the concept of republicanism wasn't precisely understood at the time.

302

For example, Alexander Hamilton said that it was used in a variety of senses.

303

And John Adams said, even after the founding, that he never understood what it was, and thought that no man ever did or will.

304

To further confuse things, the words republic and democracy were

305

so closely associated in the minds of the colonists that they are often used synonymously.

306

We have an understanding now that the word republic is different because it refers to a representative government.

307

But that distinction had only barely begun to exist at the time.

308

It was apparently invented in 1787 for polemical purposes by James Madison,

309

who argued that pure democracies have a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the government in person,

310

while republics have a scheme of representation.

311

But that was a distinction with no basis in prior history.

312

Pretty much all of the earlier republics, including Rome, fit into Madison's definition of a democracy.

313

So throughout history and throughout 18th century America, the words democracy and republic were used interchangeably.

314

They didn't refer to different types of popular government, and instead reflected differences in language.

315

Democracy came from Greek, the rule of the people, and republic came from Latin.

316

Res publicas meant thing of the people.

317

So that was a lot of mental work to basically bring us back to square one.

318

The American founders were setting out to transform America from a monarchy into a republic.

319

But the words republic and democracy were interchangeable at the time.

320

So they were setting out to do something that was closer to the spirit of classical Athens than you might think.

321

Even though understandings of republicanism were messy at the time, there was still a clear enough idea of what it was.

322

As a historian at the time put it, you can think of it as the difference between subjects and citizens.

323

I'm basically

324

describing democratic Athens here.

325

But as you're probably aware, American democracy only partially resembles Athenian democracy.

326

So there's more to the picture here than the American people simply collectively owning sovereignty.

327

I think the best way to explain the particular character of

328

American democracy is to break the story of the creation of American democracy down into two storylines.

329

The first storyline is similar enough to the Athenian one.

330

That's the story of rejecting authoritarian power and spreading the ideas of freedom and equality under the law.

331

Basically the spreading of isonomia in America.

332

Even before the revolution, Americans didn't feel close to the English monarchy.

333

It felt to them like an extraneous, overlaid power, too far across the ocean for its majesty to be felt.

334

They also felt tired of the system it was based in, which was a system of patronage,

335

which is a system where your connection and loyalty to others determines your prospects in life, including your prospects in politics.

336

Americans over time came to see patronage in starkly negative terms.

337

They came to see it as a form of dependency, dependency on the authorities above you.

338

And it became patriotic to free yourself from these dependent connections and influences.

339

There was also, importantly, a sort of proto-industrialization happening at the time, as huge numbers of farmers and artisans started to take up manufacturing and trading.

340

Average Americans were becoming noticeably wealthier and were even starting to engage in luxury.

341

This was a new concept, the idea that anyone could work and become wealthy.

342

Work before then had been thought of as something that you necessarily had to do for bare survival.

343

Basically, the poor worked and stayed poor.

344

So the colonists were enthusiastic about what was happening to them

345

and were simultaneously worried about the possibility of losing their newfound wealth.

346

They saw themselves as being especially vulnerable to the English monarchy.

347

So that led to the development of a new Republican philosophy of property.

348

Americans came to see property as something that makes people equally free and independent property became people's source of personal authority.

349

They thought that anyone could work to own property, and owning it could protect you from the outside world.

350

So as these ideas came together, Americans came to reject monarchism and the old set of values that were associated with it,

351

like loyalty, order, stability, and hierarchies.

352

And they came to support republicanism and the new set of values associated with that, liberty, equality, and independence.

353

A veneration of property came along with it, since property was thought to make independence possible.

354

Equality in particular became a rallying call for those seeking to challenge authority and superiority.

355

By equality, they mostly meant equality of opportunity.

356

They were rejecting patronage and trying to dream up a new world based in merit.

357

A world where all offices lie open to men of merit, of whatever rank or condition.

358

But equality also came to mean something new, something like equality of spirit, the idea that all people are inherently equal inside.

359

Best captured in Thomas Jefferson's statement in the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal.

360

That was the radical opposite of monarchy.

361

From here, the storyline's familiar.

362

The Americans declared independence, fought a war with England, and won it.

363

They then had an opportunity to form a government, a new government based on principles of their choosing,

364

and the principles on their minds were liberty, equality, and independence.

365

We can call that the end of Storyline 1.

366

You can associate it with thinkers like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson.

367

But we still have Storyline 2.

368

You can associate this one with John Adams, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.

369

This storyline is a storyline about skepticism, skepticism towards republicanism and democracy.

370

Part of that skepticism began pretty much right away.

371

The declaration had barely been signed

372

when some of the revolutionary leaders began expressing doubts about the republican virtue of the American people.

373

There were new popular leaders emerging who were far less educated and far less broad-minded than many other revolutionary leaders had expected.

374

These new leaders promoted their own local selfish interests at the expense of what the founders saw as the public good.

375

Jay's rebellion in 1786 likely made things worse when thousands put up armed resistance to paying debt and taxes,

376

which ended in an attempt to overthrow the standing government.

377

Something that added to their skepticism of democracy was their philosophy of the nature of power.

378

They believed that concentrations of power were dangerous and that it had the tendency to grow out of control if object.

379

For example, George Mason said, From the nature of man, we may be sure that those who have power in their hands will always, when they can, increase it.

380

That extended towards the public.

381

They believed if a majority of Americans gained a certain amount of power, they'd use that power to further increase it and oppress everyone else.

382

Here's Hamilton saying it.

383

Give all power to the many, they will oppress the few.

384

Although for what it's worth, it worked in reverse.

385

Give all power to the few, they will oppress the many.

386

The reading materials available to the founders at the time also turned their opinions against democracy.

387

Reading Plutarch, Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato, and Aristotle all made the founders believe that pure forms of democracy,

388

where the people directly control politics, were dangerous.

389

The founders believed, rightly or wrongly, that pure democracies drove themselves into self-destruction over time with their policies.

390

And yes, their language was that dramatic.

391

Here's Madison.

392

Madison.

393

Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property,

394

and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

395

The state that was most held to that charge was the purest democracy of all, Athens.

396

So they believed that pure democracies like Athens needed to be saved from themselves with institutional safeguards,

397

and the lack of those safeguards is what drove those societies into ruin.

398

So you have these two conflicting storylines, and they don't easily reconcile with one another.

399

How do you make the public sovereign if you don't trust them?

400

But time was ticking.

401

The provisional government was running out of money, and new government had to be made.

402

But what would that government look like?

403

The prospect was overwhelming.

404

No one had ever successfully made a popular government at anything close to the scale of the United States.

405

John Adams, in his frustration, said, The lawgivers of antiquity legislated for single cities.

406

Who can legislate for 20 or 30 states, each of which is greater than Greece or Rome?

407

The answer came more than anyone from James Madison.

408

He said that politics consist of conflicting interests.

409

Any one group that stands behind a particular interest is a faction.

410

He then says, We should expect factions to look out for their own interests, which might be against other people's interests and might be against the community's interests.

411

So in this scheme, there's not a limit on the amount of factions there can be, and factions can be majorities or minorities.

412

He then says, we should design a government where it's difficult for any one faction to gain control over the whole thing.

413

In practice, that meant making three branches of government, each with limited power, and each with the ability to check the power of the others.

414

The legislative branch was further broken into two chambers, One intended to represent the many, and the other intended to represent the few.

415

Only after both chambers approve legislation can it be sent to the president to sign into law.

416

So the complexity of the system makes it difficult for any one faction to grab the reins of government for itself.

417

It'd be much more difficult than, say, persuading a single assembly.

418

A network of further checks was laid in place either at the time or shortly after, guaranteeing individual rights by law, like property rights or free speech.

419

limits the government's power against citizens, but also limits the majority's ability to use the government against other citizens.

420

An independent judiciary places the highest legal decisions outside of public control.

421

Limiting national power against state power is another one, protecting minority populations in states against national majority populations.

422

It was also decided to make America a representative democracy, and they had a few reasons for that.

423

For one, it made practical sense.

424

In a country the size of the United States, it didn't make sense to expect average citizens to commute to wherever decisions were made, or to keep up with the intricacies of politics.

425

The larger a country is and the more connected it is to other countries, the more complicated its politics become.

426

It seemed to make more sense to hire representatives who could travel

427

and spend their time keeping up with the complexity of politics.

428

Representatives were also thought to be a check on what they saw as the emotional excesses of popular crowds.

429

Madison argued

430

that passing the public's views through representatives allowed the cooler wisdom

431

of an elite few to best discern the interests of the country.

432

You can take it or leave it, but that was his logic.

433

He was trying to prevent, for example, the public from voting for short-term policies that would doom the country in the long run.

434

Most of what makes this system democratic is that these representatives are chosen by the citizens, so the representatives have to compete against each other in an election.

435

They have to run for office and convince the public that they're the right person for the job.

436

That also makes this government somewhat accountable to the people, in that these representatives probably want to please the public in order to attain and secure their jobs.

437

So going up to the very highest offices, the citizens choose who they want to represent them.

438

And if they don't like their performance, in the next election cycle, they can peacefully rotate them out of a job.

439

So what they ended up with was a government where the people had control over the very highest officials in charge, like the president and members of Congress,

440

and that the people get to pick who they are and get rid of them if they don't like them.

441

But they also created a government that's difficult and even near impossible to control in its entirety.

442

In short, the American people can only hope for, at best, partial and somewhat indirect control over their government.

443

Exclusions at the time made the initial system even more undemocratic.

444

American politics have in some ways become more democratic over time, and in other ways less democratic.

445

For the sake of not repeating myself, I think the best place to cover that will be in the conclusion.

446

So, let's get to that.

447

I started this video out saying I would end it by squaring the concept of democracy against both societies.

448

So it's time to do that.

449

Let's start with a definition.

450

I'd say democracy is a form of political organization where the people living under political institutions simultaneously exercise control over them.

451

To be transparent, I got that wording by reformulating a statement

452

that Sean Mullins made in The Rise of American Democracy when he said,

453

Democracy appears when some large number of previously excluded ordinary persons, what the 18th century called the many,

454

secure the power not simply to select their governors but to oversee the institutions of government.

455

Virtually all the definitions I've seen center around the same idea.

456

The idea that democracy is government by the people, with the people being understood as broadly as possible.

457

But I prefer definitions that are less abstract and more precise.

458

Another way to say it is that you have democracy when the people living under a government control it.

459

If we can accept that, then the task of figuring out whether a society is democratic or not becomes relatively simple.

460

We have two main factors here, the people and their control.

461

To figure out then how democratic a society is, you have to answer, how broadly realized is this concept of the people?

462

When we're talking about democracy, we're talking about realizing the people in terms of political equality.

463

Are there exclusions?

464

Is there one type of person being privileged over another?

465

That reduces democracy.

466

It makes that society less democratic.

467

The second factor is control.

468

How thorough is the people's control over their institutions?

469

For our purposes today, we're only going to square this against Athens and America, and we're going to start by looking at Athens.

470

The control that Athenian citizens had over their government was incredibly thorough.

471

The citizens directly controlled the three most powerful organs of government, the Assembly, the Council of 500, and the Law Courts.

472

Its few elected officials were heavily constrained in their power, subject to the law and supervised by the people.

473

It's hard to imagine a society where the people have greater control over the institutions of their government.

474

So in that way, Athens was highly democratic, even purely democratic.

475

But who were the people?

476

In Athens, only adult male free citizens had political rights.

477

So that's only around 10 or 20 percent of the population.

478

So that means that between 80 and 90 percent of the Athenian population didn't have access to political privileges.

479

If you could just parse that sentence, that pretty much tells the story.

480

So Athenian democracy was both remarkably thorough and remarkably narrow.

481

It was thorough in the amount of control that the people had over the government, and narrow in the amount of people enjoying those privileges.

482

You also have to remember that those exclusions were normal for the time, so you have to take historical context into account.

483

If that society existed today, it'd be more controversial to call it democratic.

484

But as it stands, it was an ancient society.

485

Since their control over government was so thorough, and their exclusions were normal for the time, I think it's safe to call ancient Athens democratic.

486

America is basically the opposite story.

487

American democracy began as a limited democracy, similar to the democracy under Kleisthenes, if you remember him.

488

As I described over the last third of this video, the control that the American people had over their government from the beginning was partial,

489

mostly just in the form of elections of representatives.

490

The people who held those privileges in the beginning was, like Athens, a narrow band of people, white male property holders.

491

So given that, I think early American democracy was at best a limited democracy.

492

The controls over government were too partial, and there was too much political inequality.

493

There were too many groups being excluded from politics.

494

The limitations on the public's ability to control their government that I described in this video all still exist,

495

so the American public's ability to control their government is still, at best, partial.

496

In some ways, it's become even more limited, for example with the rise of institutions like the CIA and the FBI, which are effectively outside of the public's control.

497

But the scope of people included in American politics has significantly expanded over the last, say, 200 years.

498

Proprietalist people, women and slaves, were all seen as dependents in early America and therefore unworthy of political privileges.

499

After a civil war and a string of civil rights movements, virtually all adult citizens in America now formally have equal political rights.

500

Only a few exclusions still stand, like non-citizens and children and criminals in some circumstances.

501

So the people in America is now realized about as broadly as it's been at anywhere at any time.

502

But their ability to control the government is limited in that it mainly rests on elections.

503

To make a judgment, I think America is a democracy.

504

The ability to hire and dismiss your policymakers and your leaders is a powerful one.

505

It's arguably the most powerful one, short of private citizens directly citing policy themselves.

506

But the power of the public is limited enough to make me roughly agree with the democracy theorist Robert Dahl

507

when he said that he believed

508

that Madison went about as far as it's possible to go while still remaining in the rubric of democracy.

509

Which is to say that American institutions are about as undemocratic as they can be, while still deserving the name.

510

I think many hear that and automatically condemn the United States.

511

But I think it's important to say, as a last note, that that's not necessarily the case.

512

Democracy isn't a concept that has to be maximized at all times and under all circumstances.

513

It's not self-evident that the more democracy we have, the more fully we're able to realize a democracy, the better off we are.

514

So it could be that more democracy would be good for America, but also maybe not.

515

So think for yourself.

516

That's it for me today.

517

Thank you very much for watching, and goodbye.

✨ วิดีโอแนะนำ

140 ประโยค

Where Did Democracy Come From, and Does It Still Work?

IELTS PrepTOEFL Prep+2

127 ประโยค

Why the First Cities Might Just Be Fan Clubs - Prof. Jiang Xueqin

IELTS PrepTOEFL Prep+2

114 ประโยค

Why the UK won't return the Parthenon Marbles | Stuff The British Stole | ABC iview

IELTS PrepTOEFL Prep+2

43 ประโยค

เทคนิค Shadowing คืออะไร?

Shadowing เป็นเทคนิคการเรียนรู้ภาษาที่ได้รับการรับรองทางวิทยาศาสตร์ พัฒนาขึ้นสำหรับการฝึกนักแปลมืออาชีพ วิธีการนี้เรียบง่ายแต่ทรงพลัง: คุณฟังเสียงภาษาอังกฤษจากเจ้าของภาษาและพูดตามทันที — เหมือนเงาที่ตามผู้พูดด้วยช่วงเวลาห่าง 1-2 วินาที การวิจัยแสดงว่าเทคนิคนี้ปรับปรุงความแม่นยำในการออกเสียง ทำนองเสียง จังหวะ การเชื่อมเสียง การฟังเข้าใจ และความคล่องแคล่วในการพูดได้อย่างมีนัยสำคัญ

เทคนิค shadowing: อ่านคู่มือฉบับเต็มทีละขั้นตอน →

ฝึกพูดภาษาอังกฤษด้วยเทคนิค Shadowing จากวิดีโอ: DEMOCRACY: Ancient vs. Modern

Where Did Democracy Come From, and Does It Still Work?

Why the First Cities Might Just Be Fan Clubs - Prof. Jiang Xueqin

Education in America

Why the UK won't return the Parthenon Marbles | Stuff The British Stole | ABC iview

Why Socrates Hated Democracy

Libya: How To Kill a Nation

What is History? E.H. Carr

Is War Over? — A Paradox Explained

Should America Leave NATO?

A revolution that takes our power? | Yuval Noah Harari

American Beginnings - What is an American? (Crèvecoeur)

THB Reform is Fit to Govern - Matt Goodwin - Prop

เกี่ยวกับบทเรียนนี้

เทคนิค Shadowing คืออะไร?