What can Athenian democracy offer us?

Jacqueline de Romilly, Jean-Pierre Elkabbach, and Monique Canto-Sperber, excerpt from "Between Egypt and Greece with Jacqueline de Romilly - Bibliothèque Médicis (August 7, 2015)"    • Video   ---- Transcript: " What do they [the Greeks] tell us for today, for action, for relationships between people, for political management? Don't ask me if they tell us to vote for this law at this time: it's not like that. They tell us that we must look a little higher and seek to understand what a city is, what devotion to a city is, what a person seeks, what is good. What are the things to understand, and also the dangers of demagoguery: they tell us this, in very general terms, and I still find it quite useful." When people say today that it would be interesting to have citizens chosen by lot—that is, selected at random—serve as jurors and judges, elected officials, politicians… do you ask yourself: is this a welcome return to the principles of Athenian democracy, or is it a dangerous drift? —First of all, I don't intend to take Athenian institutions and practices and transplant them into a completely different culture and atmosphere. I don't want us to go back to the ways of doing things in Athens. But I find it very beautiful that, in that moment of flourishing, they had the idea that every person could take responsibility, judge lucidly, learn, and understand. And I think that today, we suffer somewhat from this growing distance between the average citizen and those in positions of power. —It will be said (and Monique will chime in) that there was, nevertheless, at the time—but it was already considerable progress—that every person had the opportunity. to intervene—all sorts of categories of men and women who were not allowed to participate in the life of the city. Madame de Romilly, you haven't quite answered my question about the participation of citizens chosen by lot: was it in political life, for political management? Or for trials? —It was for the courts. For political management in the assembly, all citizens were involved. With the same reservations, of course—but all citizens. For trials, there were citizens chosen by lot; that is indeed the difference. —And that's how Socrates was tried? —You know, it's a complicated trial. I won't defend Socrates' condemnation, of course. I'll only say what I've said several times: that we are here now saying, "They were unjust, they made a mistake, they condemned Socrates." "But those who said it [first] weren't us, it was right away, at the time. It was Plato, it was all the disciples of Socrates in texts, again, written texts that have come down to us and caught our attention. There had been other unjust and scandalous condemnations, probably more than we think. But these are the ones who made their mark. Already! Monique... And it was a very turbulent period: Socrates' trial took place a few years after the return of democracy, and it was a very turbulent time. ...A political form, democracy, surprisingly successful with checks and balances, accountability: the generals were regularly required to give an account of their government. Above all, with the possibility of putting the law first, freedom was defined as submission to the law. And that's what made Greek democracy so extraordinary compared to Beyond the arbitrary power of each individual, there was the law, the common law, the cusp of liberty. And for a Greek, liberty meant the freedom to actively participate in the affairs of the city. ----- Because it is not up to those in power to write the rules of power: it is up to the people to write their constitution. http://www.le-message.org/ Our current regime is not at all a democracy but a plutocratic oligarchy (the rule of the wealthiest). Argumentation here: http://lavraiedemocratie.fr/ The Gentle Viruses: to reflect on and spread the Message of true democracy http://gentilsvirus.org/