Why elections are undemocratic according to Aristotle
Here in the UK, we have recently taken part in our solemn democratic duty: voting in the local elections. And every time we have these elections I am always reminded of ancient Athenian democracy, which is meant to be the foundation of modern democratic ideology. But one thing we do not share with the ancient Athenians was their disdain for elections!
Elections are not democratic in nature.
It seems counter-intuitive to say these words. We are, after all, taught that a free election is the pinnacle of modern democracy. One where every eligible voter has their say on the course of the next four years. But, to the ancient Athenians, the idea of voting for political leadership roles meant something very different (Aristotle, Politics 1294b):
it is thought to be democratic for the offices to be assigned by lot, for them to be elected is oligarchic, and democratic for them not to have a property-qualification, oligarchic to have one; therefore it is aristocratic and constitutional to take one feature from one form and the other from the other, from oligarchy that offices are to be elected, and from democracy that this is not to be on a property-qualification.
To be democratic, positions of power had to be assigned by lot using a machine called a kleroterion - the end result was entirely randomised, almost like pulling names out of a hat. This was deemed the fairest method and would ensure an even representation from across the political wards of Athens (the ten tribes).
In Greek political thought there were a few models of rule, some were deemed good, some problematic, and some downright bad. Of course, which model was which came down to the experiences and views of the person who was writing!
Democracy (collective rule of the people - the demos) was not particularly popular with the wealthy, for instance, because it limited their ability to influence political decisions. Oligarchy (the rule of the few) was rule by committee, where a small number of people were given the power to make decisions for everyone else. There was also autocracy (the rule of one - this could be a king, emperor, or a tyrant), which relied heavily on the competence of one person.
Aristotle, like many other political commentators of the ancient world, believed that no system was perfect. So in what he describes as aristocracy (the rule of the best - the aristoi) he has blended two systems: democracy and oligarchy. The democratic ideal of removing property-qualifications meant that you did not need to have a certain amount of wealth to qualify for office. He combines this with the oligarchic preference for elections, which would prioritise the best and most influential public speakers. So aristocracy is the rule of a small group of people, theoretically from any socio-economic level, who has been elected into power.
If you are thinking this sounds rather familiar to modern ‘democracy’, you would not be wrong! Aristotle would be impressed with our political preference to elect our politicians but without a demand for a minimum financial level to qualify. He would also no doubt be impressed by the fact that the majority of our politicians were still of a higher social status than the general population. What may confuse him is our choice to call this democracy. He would call this an aristocracy.
Ancient Athenian Elections
In Athens, they did hold elections for some very specific public administrative roles. Roles that could not be left to luck, but required more experience and specialist abilities to be reliably run. Many of these were financial roles, as Aristotle himself lists (Constitution of the Athenians 43):
“All the magistrates that are concerned with the ordinary routine of administration are elected by lot, except the Military Treasurer, the Commissioners of the Theoric Fund, and the Superintendent of Springs. These are elected by vote, and the magistrates thus elected hold office from one Panathenaic festival to another.
There was one other public role, mentioned by Aristotle, that was elected rather than selected. It was a position that required experience and knowledge, of course, but also in a radical democracy like Athens - where every male citizen held equal status - this particular role required the people to imbue the individual with authority which he would not automatically have:
All military officers are also elected by vote.
The policy did not guarantee success, but it did mean that the same men serving in the army were part of the decision to give him his command. It also meant that commanders were subject to public scrutiny after their service came to an end as well!
The use of elections were limited in Athens, and were not immune from criticism either. Although generally, our direct evidence for corruption in elections is almost non-existent; the one downside to elections was the ability of an individual to manipulate the voting public. This led one orator called Isocrates make this rather pointed remark (On the Peace 8.50):
We pass a multitude of laws, but we care so little about them (for if I give you a single instance you will be able to judge of the others as well) that, although we have prescribed the penalty of death for anyone who is convicted of bribery, we elect men who are most flagrantly guilty of this crime as our generals and we pick out the man who has been able to deprave the greatest number of our citizens and place him in charge of the most important affairs.
It seems that elections do not ensure that the best people get the job. Who’d have thought it?