Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece

Raaflaub, Kurt A.

doi:10.1525/california/9780520245624.001.0001

Cited by 74 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The varied contributions of these scholars laid the foundations for the western scientific revolution. For example, it was the Sumerians who gave us the earliest forms of symbolic language [43]; the Babylonians who contributed to early forms of mathematics, astronomy [44][45][46][47][48], philosophy and the arts; the Persians who developed orderly government, complete with centralised administration, systems of communication and transport [49]; Ancient Greece gave us the first pre-industrial economy along with remarkable advances in philosophy, government, law, literature, astronomy, mathematics, medicine, technology, art and systems of education [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61]; the Roman Empire developed Republican government along with advances in law, economics, architecture, engineering, literature, education, medicine and the arts [50,[61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73] while finally, scholars of the Islamic Golden Age provided a linguistic bridge for the transfer of learning from Antiquity into Turkish, Hebrew and Latin languages. Islamic scholars also made remarkable advances in philosphy, mathematics, the natural sciences, engineering, medicine and the arts; advances that laid an important intellectual foundation for the western scientific revolution [74][75][76][77][78]…”

Section: The Aetiology Of Western Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Towards an Indigenous Transdisciplinarity

Cole

2017

ATLAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Aetiology Of Western Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Towards an Indigenous Transdisciplinarity

Cole

2017

ATLAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Did the plebs want to bring back to Rome the isonomia (popular sovereignty) of their Athenian counterparts (Ostwald, 1989;Raaflaub et al, 2007)? But, if so, why did they then press for aequum ius (equal freedom to determine law)?…”

Section: Conclusion: Democracy As the Kratos Of Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

The quarrel between populism and republicanism: Machiavelli and the antinomies of plebeian politics

Vatter

2011

Contemp Polit Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses the current debate between populist and republican accounts of democracy. To talk about democracy is inevitably to talk about the idea of a people and its power. From the beginnings of the Western political tradition, 'the people' has referred to both a constituted part of society (populus) and to a part excluded from political society (plebs). The article examines the differences between populism and republicanism in light of the different ways in which these two parts relate to each other, and the resulting conceptions of the power of the people. For populism, the people have power when the plebs achieves hegemony within the populus by wresting control of the state from the 'wealthy' elites. According to the alternative republican account developed in this article, instead, the people have power when the plebs inscribes within the state the possibility of abolishing relations of rule. The distinction between these two conceptions of popular power is pursued in terms of the opposing attitudes that populism and republicanism have in relation to the rule of law. The article also raises a hypothesis as to the historical reasons for these distinctions between populism and republicanism by examining three historical moments, which are crucial for the development of plebeian politics: the early Roman republic, the Augustinian foundation of a Christian republic and the crisis of guild republicanism in Machiavelli's age. Contemporary Political Theory (2012) 11, 242-263. doi:10.1057/cpt.2011.25; published online 11 October 2011Keywords: populism; republicanism; rule of law; plebeian politics; Machiavelli; Cicero The revival of republican political theory has brought to the fore once again the importance of distinguishing between freedom as non-domination, which depends on the rule of law, and freedom as collective self-rule, which depends on a conception of popular sovereignty. For neo-Roman political theorists, popular sovereignty, being a species of sovereignty, is part and parcel of a theory of the state, whereas the rule of law -at least as it is conceived in the modern republican tradition -is not a mutation of state sovereignty r

show abstract

“…31 For an extended analysis of Cleisthenes, Themistocles, and other political reforms, see Fornara and Samons (1991); Dillon and Garland (1994); Croix (2004); Balot (2006, ch. 3,4); Raaflaub et al (2007);Jones (2008). 32 Regarding the transformation of Ephialtes who decreased Aeropagus' power, see Rihll (1995).…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…60 Recently, some modern authors (see e.g. Manville and Ober 2003;Karayiannis, 2003;Raaflaub et al 2007) have pointed out that there is much to learn from the workings of ancient Athenian democracy when applied to modern organisation theory, concerning mainly the motivation of persons working for organisations and enterprises. Also, Manville and Ober (2003, ch.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%