How does the Athenian model of democracy differ from our modern understanding of democracy?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers will vary. In Athenian democracy, the emphasis is on direct governing by the masses. In the modern concept, we elect representatives to rule in an electoral body that, in theory, represents the consensus of those represented. By contrast, in Athens, it was a straight majority rule without intermediaries. This was a significant difference from earlier oligarchy, or rule by the best, in which the aristocracy chose a ruling council, supported by an assembly. In the Athenian model, after the reforms of Cleisthenes, the council of Five Hundred was comprised of fifty representatives from each of the ten tribes, chosen by lot from each of the tribes for a period of one year at a time. This replaced the aristocratic Council of Four Hundred and increased the chances that every adult male citizen would serve in the government. Greek democracy was also significantly different because the criteria for citizenship were much stricter, so that only approximately 40 percent of the population of Athens were deemed citizens; half of those consisted of women, who were not eligible for participation in government offices. Only about 20 percent of the entire population of Athens (at estimates of 60,000) could legally serve in the government, and thus the concept of rule by the masses must be somewhat qualified.