Design lessons from Athenian democracy
In Athenian democracy there are endless design lessons, solving political and social problems, not so different the ones we have now. In this piece, we’ll review some of the technological solutions that helped to establish the first democracy in history.
A few years ago we had the opportunity to visit Athens and the Agora museum. It was a very hot summer day, and the Stoa of Attalos served a bit as a refuge to shelter us from the sun. I was browsing inside the museum, predisposed to see nothing but remains of vessels and statues, when I began to discover among the cabinets, remains and signs of contraptions that looked more like the ruins of a computer made of stone, bronze and ceramic.
The Museum of the Ancient Agora, has a collection of inventions, designed for the daily and efficient management of one of the most complicated social entities of the ancient world. In the Athenian democracy there are endless design lessons at all levels, from the most strategic-political to the purely technological. At the risk of painting myself into a corner, I think it may be interesting to refresh its history a bit, since in its vestiges, there are hidden design solutions that solve political and social problems, not very different from those we have now. Implemented by very simple ideas, and manufactured with tremendously humble materials.
However, before extolling the virtues of our Greek ancestors, let us make their basic flaws clear:
The “citizens” of Ancient Greece
As we all know, Athenian democracy was far from being perfect.
To begin with, the role of women in Athens did not differ much from a Taliban caliphate, as they lacked political and legal rights. Condemned to be a minor throughout her life, under the authority of a guardian: first her father, then her husband, and finally her son or her closest relative, if she was left a widow. The legal term for wife was known as damar, a word whose meaning derives from the root “to submit” or “to tame.” The entire system was orchestrated around the citizens (all men), who were an elite of males representative of their respective territories.
The social and economic system was sustained by slavery, considered for the Greeks not only as an indispensable reality, but also as a natural and necessary fact.
The foreign residents (metics) did not have better rights either, which had to find a protector (or prostates) to settle in the city. They did not own a house or land, in any case they lived leased from their protector and were obliged to pay special taxes. The law was not much on their side either, the conviction of a citizen for murdering a metic was at most exile, while the death of a citizen at the hands of a metic led to death.
Certainly many of these situations have not improved much today in some places on the planet. Democracy, as always, is sometimes a mirage.
Origins of democracy
Between 670 and 500 b.C., most of the Greek city-states had been ruled by one man, dictators who seized power most of the time through a coup. After the liberation of Athens from the tyrant Hippias in 510 b.C., Cleisthenes who was a magistrate during his tenure, took advantage of his public office as a legislator to create the foundations of a new state based on the equality of citizens, disregarding ancestral rights by virtue of family inheritance or the wealth.
In order to break the old hierarchical social structure, Cleisthenes instituted a crucial and radical reform: the reorganization of citizenship into new administrative units or phylai (tribes). In his attempt to break the aristocratic power structure, he abolished the old four Ionian tribes (based on family and power relationships) and created ten new ones instead.
With the new phylai, a territorial redistribution was carried out, ensuring that none of the new tribes’ territory, coincided with the area of influence of an old aristocratic clan. In addition, all citizens were assigned equally to each of these groupings, mixing members of Attic families with ancient rivalries. The regions of each tribe were in turn divided into districts (trittyes), areas that included a city, a plain and a coastal zone. In this way, it was avoided that the members of the different tribes did not have personal contacts or common interests.
Here we undoubtedly have a radical solution to nationalisms: distribute the territory as if it were the board of a game, mix the players between different teams, and distribute the resource cards equally. I wish the world was that simple.
As we mentioned, each district or trittys had smaller units called demes (municipalities, towns or neighbourhoods), with their own local officials and administrators. In some cases, if the traditional synergies between demes were narrow, the new system assigned them to separate tribes, with the aim of breaking these alliances. This attempt to ensure equitable representation also occurred in the Athenian administration. Each court jury had the same number of jurors representing each tribe. Public offices were also tried to distribute as fairly as possible.
The construction of a new identity
But all this territorial design, more typical of the Catan board, had a problem that a priori seemed insurmountable. How could all these territories be socially united? We are talking about mixing individuals who in the past had been fighting each other, and getting them to cooperate with each other. What is it that makes people have a sense of belonging to a group?
To define the identity of the ten tribes, Cleisthenes had a brilliant idea. In order to satisfy the Greek custom of choosing a mythical founder for each territory, he sent to the oracle of Apollo at Delphi a list of the names of one hundred of the first Athenian heroes. The oracle chose ten (Hippothoon, Antiochos, Aias, Leos, Erechtheus, Aigeus, Oineus, Akamas, Kekrops, and Pandion), the eponymous heroes, that served as much to give names to the tribes as to create their emblems. Hence, the term “eponymous”, which means to name a concept by the name of a person.
In this way, each tribe had its own “coat of arms”, an approach that is not far from how many people still continue to build their identity and sense of belonging around mythomania: worshipping a soccer player, through an artist fan club, or following an influencer.
In the Agora of Athens, a platform with the statues of the ten heroes was also built, where in addition to worshipping them, a public notice board was built at the base of the monument. Advertisements affecting the members of their respective tribe were hung under the statue of each hero.
The re-division of Attica was also carried out probably, or at least in part, with a view to creating a new, more transversal army model, since each of the tribes had to supply a regiment of soldiers.
Many people on the move
Unlike previous forms of government, in which the government had been in the hands of a single person, Athenian democracy depended on its legitimacy from a constant circulation of people in and out of public office. An impersonal and representative constant flow of individuals, without a static office structure, which implied the registration and identification for access to governing bodies.
The Athenian political system was essentially a daily tide of people on the move (officials, juries, litigants …), heading to symbolic places or precincts to cast their votes and opinions. After the liturgy of trials and assemblies, each citizen returned to his private life, where he lived according to the rules and verdicts that he had helped shape.
It was the beginning of the separation of powers and the specialization of the government in different organs. A decision that also sought to consolidate the “reliability” of the system, which should be fraud-proof in any of its processes. The Athenians were very chastened by corruption and tyranny. It is very curious, how they mainly deposited that trust in chance, as many of the museum pieces show.
The allotment tokens
One of the objects that attracts the most attention in the Agora Museum are the so-called “allotment tokens”. These are rectangular clay plates with an irregular edge cut like a puzzle, designed to fit together. In these plates, if the two pieces are joined, the name of a tribe, a deme and some letters that have been interpreted as the abbreviation of a political office can be read.
There are many hypotheses about the use of these cards, but according to Mabel Lang, it is believed that the mechanics would be the following:
For each tribe fifty complete cards were prepared, on the back of each card the names of the demes were painted according to their representation in the council. Once the glaze was dry, the chips were cut into two halves drawing a saw shape, then the upper halves were handed over to the representatives of the corresponding deme.
Once the representatives left, the assignment of the positions was made in the lower room, so that the corresponding deme could not be known. For this, fifteen halves were chosen at random, where the abbreviated names of the positions were written, leaving the rest of the pieces blank. Then they were all mixed up until the day of the adjudication of positions in the Hephaestion, where the candidates of each deme presented their pieces and made them coincide. The allocation ceremony was held publicly, turning over each piece and announcing the result of the draw and the allocation of the fifteen apodektai (magistrates) by tribe.
The system was tremendously simple, but effective in preventing corruption or influence in office. We have all played as children to pass secret messages on cut papers. I certainly can’t think of an easier way to create an analogue certificate.
Many people legislating
The Citizens’ Assembly
All Athenian citizens had the right to attend and vote at the Ekklesia, a popular assembly that met approximately every ten days on the premises of the Pnyx. We are talking about a massive gathering, since the maximum capacity of this space reached more than 13,000 people. You can imagine that these assemblies could become a real cacophony in some moments, nine members of the Senate (the boule) were in charge of establishing a bit the order of the shift, interrupting the discussion and establishing the voting order.
Freedom of speech was essential to the idea of the assembly. Any citizen could speak regardless of their status, however, those over 50 had priority. To put some order, the herald was the person in charge of finding out prior, who wished to speak in the assembly
The Senate
The boule was made up of a group of 500 citizens, 50 representatives from each tribe, chosen by lottery each year. In it, the laws were deliberated and proposed to be later ratified by all citizens in the Ekklesia. As for example the supervision of the magistrates, guaranteeing a sufficient food supply and the defence of the territory, including the maintenance of the fleet. Elections and much of the financial administration were also under boule’s control.
Many people judging
The popular courts were made up of at least 200 people and could reach 2,500. Court cases followed strict procedures. Before reaching a jury, the case had to be heard by a magistrate or arbitrators at a preliminary hearing. In some cases, the presentation of evidence or testimony was sealed for opening during the trial itself, using containers similar to ceramic pots. The courts were also the supreme authority when interpreting laws.
Juries
For each trial, jurors were chosen from numerous citizens available to serve for a period of one year. At the beginning of the year, each member of the jury received a bronze pinakion, which would become one of the first identity documents created in history. It was a plaque where the name of the citizen, the name of his father and the deme where he resided, was inscribed.
The pinakion were used in the kleroterion, devices used to assign jurors to the courts randomly. This device was a monolithic stone piece, with horizontal grooves arranged in ten columns (one for each tribe). The allocation procedure was as follows:
On the day of the trial, the potential juror was summoned with the adjudicating magistrate. At the base of the kleroterion were ten baskets, one for each of the ten tribes. Before the start of each trial, the jury’s pinakion was deposited in its corresponding tribal basket. The magistrate then took the pinakion from the first tribal basket and placed them in the corresponding column of slots for each tribe, until all the slots were filled.
On one side of the device was a hollow bronze tube, embedded in the stone, with a funnel at the top and a crank at the bottom. Through the funnel, the magistrate poured a handful of black and white balls, which after mixing would line up in the tube randomly. By turning the crank, a ball was dropped, as if it were a bingo game. If it was white, the ten citizens (one member of each tribe) whose pinakions were placed in the first horizontal row would be assigned to the jury for that day. If it was black, they were discarded. The procedure was repeated row by row until the cut was completed.
Reproduction of the kleroterion and its remains along with some pinakion. Museum of the Agora of Athens.
In this way, an absolutely random selection was ensured, both by the order in which the pinakion were placed in the kleroterion, and by the order in which the balls appeared. Corruption and bribery of the jury was also avoided, since these were assigned just before the beginning of the trial. In addition, a diverse and equitable representation was also ensured, with the same number of members of each tribe.
The magic of this device is that the process of selecting judges became a spectacle, in which the gods operated the circuits of chance to designate their representatives. If we put ourselves in the head of one of the Athenian citizens, we could think that the kleroterion had a life of its own, or that it was a computer with access to the databases of Olympus. The kleroterion is such a fascinating machine that it has inspired several science fiction tales. Lately it has also become fashionable linking it to artificial intelligence projects, or dispute solutions through decentralized cryptography.
Once the trial was over, the Athenian jurors were paid for their work on the spot. Another democratic procedure, designed to guarantee that citizens could afford to serve justice, without affecting their domestic economy.
Speakers
The disputants often spoke on their own behalf, although they occasionally resorted to professionals to prepare their speeches. Skilful rhetoric, charisma, and theatricality were required to influence a jury.
Trials lasted no more than one day, there was a set schedule, and limited time was allotted to speakers. The maximum time of each parliament was measured by the klepsydra, water clocks made up of two containers, one placed on top of the other with a hole through which the water was poured into the lower one. They were of different sizes, depending on the time required. The speaker could only speak for the set time, that is, until the bottom container was full. The experienced speakers, to create more climax, kept their attention on the jet of water and, as the pressure of the flow dropped, they concluded their speech, ending it just as the last drops fell.
Voting
Once the speeches and other evidence had been presented, the jurors took a vote to choose the prosecutor or the accused. The archaeological remains that were found suggest that at the beginning of the 5th century b.C. the vote was not secret, since it was made using pebbles and in public. But after the Cleisthenes reforms, the design of the voting system became more sophisticated.
The tickets were made of a few pieces of bronze, similar to a spinning top with a shaft in the middle. They were of two types, some with hollow ends (votes in favour of the prosecutor) and others solid (votes in favour of the accused). At the time of voting, there were two jars in the patio, one made of wood and the other one made of bronze. The bronze one represented the valid vote, and had an accessory so that only one ballot could be inserted. At the time of voting, one by one, the members of the jury left their valid vote in the bronze jar, and the discard in the wooden one.
If the final verdict was guilty, then there was a second phase of the trial to set the penalty. After several speeches, the jury decided between two possible punishments, one proposed by the prosecution and the other by the defence. Likewise, if during the vote not enough guilty votes were obtained (at least one fifth of the jury), the case was not considered worthy of trial and the prosecutor was fined. Yet another mechanism to avoid abuse of power and over-supervision of daily life, since experience tells us that most conflicts between people, if there is no serious damage involved, are usually resolved by talking and reaching an agreement.
The popular protection of democracy
The fall of Hippias also inspired Athenians to devise more solutions to prevent the rise of new tyrants, or simply to penalize citizens for misbehaviour.
Once a year, the citizens met in the Agora and held a vote, to determine if someone was becoming too powerful, and therefore in a position to re-establish a tyranny. If a simple majority detected a potential tyrant, they would meet again after two months. This second meeting took place at the foot of the hill located near to the potters’ neighbourhood, who used to throw defective pieces of pottery there, which were recycled by the citizens to carry out the vote. In these fragments the name of the person who wanted to be excluded from Athens was written.
For this second final meeting, a minimum of 6,000 voters was necessary. If the name of a citizen appeared in an absolute majority of votes, he had to leave the city and was exiled for ten years, without losing his rights as a citizen. Perhaps due to the shape of these ceramic pieces, they were called “ostracon” (sherd or shell) and therefore, this sentence was called ostracism. However, this procedure did not last many years, since, although it was an interesting idea, in practice it did not prevent a powerful citizen from using ostracism to eliminate a rival.
Conclusion
In summary, and to avoid writing some stupidity around subjects that require much more study, the Athenians designed a system that required a lot of coordination, mechanisms and technology to generate trust. They had to do many things that current information technology would have made it much easier for them, and yet they managed quite well to build, with the materials at their disposal, the tools they needed to make the system work.
If something remains of our civilization in 2 or 3 millennia, the archaeologists of the future are more likely to find the detritus of our petrified dogs, inside their corresponding plastic bags, than indications of our best works and ideas. All of them encrypted and encoded with a language that they may not understand, stored in various devices and formats, reduced to dust in the odd fire or climate disaster. For this reason, I believe that it is not a bad thing to look back, from time to time, to give ourselves a bath of humility, and to be inspired by the simplicity of the solutions of the past.
Bibliography
- Buitron-Oliver, D., Camp, J. “The Birth of Democracy”. American School of Classical Studies at Athens (1993)
- Dibbell, J. “Info Tech of Ancient Democracy”. Alamut.com. (1998)
- Hansel M. “The Athenian democracy in the age of Demosthenes”. University of Oklahoma Press (1999)
- Lang, M. “Allotment by Tokens.” History: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 8, no. 1 (1959): 80–89.
- Lang, M. “The Athenian Citizen. Democracy in the Athenian Agora ”. American School of Classical Studies at Athens (2009)
- William, C. “Coastal demes of Attika”. University of Toronto Press (1969).
