Paraskevas N. Paraskevopoulos
Professor N.T.U.A.
REBIRTH
OF ATHENIAN
DEMOCRACY:
PHILOCOSMIC
DEMOCRACY
FIRST EDITION – NEW YORK 2013
PUBLISHER: SEABURN PUBLISHING GROUP
REBIRTH
OF ATHENIAN
DEMOCRACY:
PHILOCOSMIC
DEMOCRACY
Paraskevas N. Paraskevopoulos
Professor, National Technical University
of Athens (N.T.U.A.)
1
Author: Παρασκευάς Ν. Παρασκευόπουλος
Title of prototype: Αναγέννηση της Αθηναϊκής
Δημοκρατίας: Η Φιλοκοσμική Δημοκρατία, αριθμός σελίδων 78.
First Edition: 2013
Seaburn Publishing Group, N.Y.
ISBN: 1-59232-412-6
©Paraskevas N. Paraskevopoulos: Rebirth of Athenian
Democracy: Philocosmic Democracy, pp. 78.
Editing for Publication: Sam Chekwas
ISBN: 1-59232-413-4
Publisher: Seaburn, Publishing Group, New York
P.O. Box 2085
Long Island City, NY 11102
www.seaburn.com
Tel: (718) 784-2224
E-mail: [email protected]
Web page: www.philocosmy.com
Cover: The temple of Parthenon on top the Acropolis of
Athens, which ranks as one of the greatest, if not the most
important, architectural masterpieces of humanity.
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
2
This is dedicated to Man,
for his effort to invent a new political system which
will elevate him to the level he deserves.
3
The author forfeits all profits from his book “Rebirth of
Athenian Democracy: Philocosmic Democracy” to the non-profit
Philocosmy Association of Greece. The Association was
established
in
2010.
Background
information
on
the
Association is available below.
The reason that the author forfeits all profits to the
Philocosmy Association of Greece is that, on the subject of the
course of Mankind, he does not want profit to come between
himself and his fellow men, but only the care and love for a
better world.
PHILOCOSMIC ASSOCIATION OF GREECE
Contact, Address and Location:
Paraskevas N. Paraskevopoulos
President of the non-profit Philocosmy Association of Greece
122 - 124 Kykladon Street
P.C. 15562 Holargos, Athens, GREECE
Tel. & Fax: 211-010-9432
E-mail address: [email protected]
(also [email protected])
Web page: www.philocosmy.com
(former www.bookofhumanity.org)
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
THE THREE BOOKS OF PHILOCOSMY ............................... 7
PROLOGUE .................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 1: COMPARISON BETWEEN ATHENIAN
AND PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................... 11
1.2 Athenian Democracy ................................................................. 12
1.3 Parliamentary Democracy ........................................................ 21
1.4 Prevention and catastoly ........................................................... 21
1.5 Comparison of Athenian and Parliamentary
Democracy................................................................................. 24
1.6 Comparison between Athenian Democracy and
Parliamentary Democracy according to outcome..................... 26
1.7 Final comments ......................................................................... 27
CHAPTER 2: PHILOCOSMIC DEMOCRACY
2.1 The definition of Philocosmic Democracy ................................ 33
2.2 The basic structure of Philocosmic Democracy ........................ 35
2.3 The first phase =the election phase =
the phase of meritocracy ........................................................... 40
2.4 The second phase = the phase of
sortition = the phase of equality ................................................ 41
2.5 The Philocosmic State Administration ...................................... 44
2.6 Double elections for the formation
of the State Administration: the level of the experts .................. 50
2.7 Modifications to Philocosmic Democracy................................. 52
2.8 Science and technology at the service of Philocosmic
Democracy: the Philocosmic State Interdisciplinary Body ....... 53
2.9 Example of the implementation of Philocosmic Democracy ..... 55
2.10 Difficulties in the implementation of Philocosmic
Democracy and how these can be overcome ............................. 59
2.11 The golden rule of Philocosmic Democracy.............................. 62
5
Page
2.12 Final comments ......................................................................... 64
EPILOGUE...................................................................................... 69
INDEX OF NAMES ....................................................................... 73
LIST OF PICTURES AND FIGURES.......................................... 75
GLOSSARY .................................................................................... 76
ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................... 76
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................ 76
BRIEF BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE ON THE
AUTHOR ......................................................................................... 77
6
THE THREE BOOKS OF PHILOCOSMY
The term “Philocosmy” (in ancient Greek, φιλώ (philo) = to
love) refers to the knowledge, the respect, the care, the protection and
the love for the entire “cosmos”, where the term “cosmos” is allinclusive, from the leaves of a tree and through to the ends of the
universe. You should also note that the terms Philocosmy and
Philocosmic Democracy are, to a great extent, essentially equivalent in
meaning and are used alternatively and as one chooses in the text.
Since 2002 up to the present, I have written a series of books
on Philocosmy in Greek. Three of them have been translated in
English. These, both in Greek and in English, are presented below in
terms of the ascending number of pages:
[1a] Παρασκευάς Ν. Παρασκευόπουλος, Αναγέννηση της
Αθηναϊκής Δημοκρατίας: η Φιλοκοσμική Δημοκρατία, πρώτη
έκδοση, Seaburn Publishing Group, N.Y. 2013, σελ. 78, ISBN: 159232-412-6.
[1b] Paraskevas N. Paraskevopoulos, Rebirth of Athenian
Democracy: Philocosmic Democracy, First Edition, Seaburn
Publishing Group, N.Y., 2013, pp. 78, ISBN: 1-59232-413-4.
[2a] Παρασκευάς Ν. Παρασκευόπουλος, Φιλοκοσμικό
Μανιφέστο: Μία Πρόταση για το Παρόν και το Μέλλον της
Ανθρωπότητας, πρώτη έκδοση, Seaburn Publishing Group, N.Y.,
2014, σελ. 280 (υπό ολοκλήρωση).
[2b] Paraskevas N. Paraskevopoulos, Philocosmic Manifesto:
A Proposal for the Present and Future of Mankind, First Edition,
Seaburn Publishing Group, N.Y., 2014, pp. 270 (in progress).
[3a] Παρασκευάς Ν. Παρασκευόπουλος, Το Βιβλίο της
Ανθρωπότητας: Το «Ευφυές Σχέδιο» του Ανθρώπου, πρώτη έκδοση,
Seaburn Publishing Group, N.Y., 2011, σελ. 783, ISBN 159232293Χ.
[3b] Paraskevas N. Paraskevopoulos, The Book of
Humanity: Man’s “Intelligent Design”, First Edition, Seaburn
Publishing Group, N.Y., 2011, pp. 751, ISBN 1592322743.
7
Book [1] presents us with the important issue of the rebirth of
ancient Athens’ Athenian Democracy, analogous to the rebirth of the
Olympic Games – which has already happened.
Book [2] is an extended summary of the voluminous
proposition [3] or, in other words, it constitutes the Philocosmic
Manifesto.
Book [3] presents the outline of a complete proposition
regarding the issue of Philocosmy. As expected, a detailed proposition
on such an important and wide issue would need an extended paper. On
the other hand, were this paper to be accessible to the reader, it should
have a limited number of pages. I devoted time and effort to reduce the
number of pages as much as possible.
Book [1] has 78 pages, book [2] has 280 pages and book [3]
has 751 pages. The content of book [1] is almost wholly included in
book [2] and almost all the content of book [2] is included in book [3].
We note that the reason why we wrote the three abovementioned books on Philocosmy is to make it easier for the interested
reader to choose the book most accessible to him, in terms both of
money and time.
We inform you that books [1a], [1b] and [3a] are available in
Greece from the publications of the PHILOCOSMY ASSOCIATION
OF GREECE (for information see pg. 4). Book [2] will also be
available soon.
Finally, we make it clear that this book presents, only and
exclusively, our proposal for a new political system. Our other
proposals, e.g. for a new economic system, are presented in books [2]
and [3].
8
PROLOGUE
The dominant issue of every society is its political system. It is
that which determines the course of its basic activities, as are justice,
education, the economy, human rights, culture and humaneness.
The present book concentrates on politics and is divided into
two chapters, as follows:
Chapter 1 presents two political systems: the political system of
ancient Athens, known as Athenian Democracy, and that of
Parliamentary Democracy, which prevails today.
Athenian Democracy has been the best political system ever
invented by mankind. It was implemented only once, in ancient Athens.
Its structure is such that it posits man himself at the epicenter and it
cultivates the universal values, while at the same time effectively
combating both greed and corruption. As concerns our era, Athenian
Democracy has the disadvantage of being extremely difficult to
implement, the reason being that the number of inhabitants of a country
grows so high that it can reach up to millions, up to tens of millions, up
to hundreds of millions, even above that of one billion.
Parliamentary Democracy is the political system which most
countries of the world have adopted today. Parliamentary Democracy
has the advantage of being implementable and is being implemented in
many countries with many tens of millions of inhabitants, even with
that of one billion. The structure of Siamese siblings, the Parliamentary
System and Capitalism, is such that it sets at its epicenter money as
god, a fact which allows for the development of immorality, greed,
corruption, the absence of meritocracy, etc.
Chapter 2 sets forth a new form of political system, which we
name Philocosmic Democracy.
Philocosmic Democracy is an apt union of Parliamentary
Democracy with that of Athenian Democracy. This union is such that it
leads to a much-promising new form of democracy because it includes,
among others, the following characteristics:
 Philocosmic Democracy is, in total, a preventive form of
political system. Such attribute, on the part of Philocosmic Democracy,
is also its greatest asset, for it shields politics from wrong doing, as it
forestalls them well before these make their appearance.
9
 Philocosmic Democracy creates an all-pervading
atmosphere wherein, on the one hand, the positive elements of people
flourish while, on the other hand, the negative elements wither away.
 For our epoch, Philocosmic Democracy much surpasses
both that of Parliamentary Democracy and of Athenian Democracy,
taken separately.
 If implemented, Philocosmic Democracy shall protect us
from the multiple and exceptionally damaging consequences of
Parliamentary Democracy, and shall radically alter our life for the
better.
 Philocosmic Democracy is a proposal which shall provide
us with the two supreme ideals of mankind: that of the real
democracy and of the real freedom.
Philocosmic Democracy is a proposal meant for discussion and
problematization as to how we may organize ourselves politically so as
to upgrade our life. It is a proposal which I believe befits its
implementations in our emerging new world.
*
With this book I want little else but to be given the possibility
to extricate myself from the intensifying loneliness which is being
cultivated nowadays and to talk with you, about how we shall manage
the gift of life which we hold in our hands. To let you know how I feel
about the present and the future of mankind, but also to listen to you as
well talking and being concerned for the selfsame issues.
September 21, 2013
P.N. Paraskevopoulos
10
If liberty and equality,
as is thought by some,
are chiefly to be found
in democracy they will
be best attained when
all persons alike share
in government to the
utmost.
An imbalance between
rich and poor is the oldest
and most fatal ailment of
all republics.
Aristotle
Plutarch
CHAPTER 1
COMPARISON BETWEEN ATHENIAN
AND PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The dominant issue of every society is politics. Since the
beginning of time, and up to the present, there have been a plethora of
different political systems on our planet. Chapter 1 refers to the
following two political systems: Athenian Democracy, i.e. the
Original Democracy of ancient Athens and present-day Parliamentary
Democracy. These two political systems are also known by the terms
Direct Democracy and Indirect Democracy, respectively.
Athenian Democracy (A.D.) was established by the ancient
Greeks and was implemented by them in ancient Greece, particularly in
the special case of the city-state (or simply the city) of ancient Athens.
The formation and subsequent implementation of Athenian Democracy
began towards the end of the seventh century B.C. and ended towards
the end of the fourth century B.C. The three most significant
protagonists of Athenian Democracy were, in chronological order,
Solon, Cleisthenes and Pericles (picture 1.1). Since the time of Solon
through to the time of Pericles, Athenian Democracy would improve
continually. Solon and Cleisthenes were the main founders of Athenian
Democracy.
The city - state, or simply the city of ancient Athens, had a
population of about 150.000 inhabitants. The men who had done their
11
military service were called citizens and were the only ones who had
the right to vote. The number of citizens was approximately 30.000 and
the 120.000 were women and children. The total number of 30.000
citizens was named the Demos. The gathering of the citizens of the
Demos was called the Assembly of the Demos.
The word Democracy is composed of two words, that of
“Demos” and that of “cratos”. The word “cratos” express the power of
the citizens or is otherwise the power of the Demos. Thus, democracy
means that the power of the city of Athens lay in the hands of the total
number of its citizens.
Parliamentary Democracy (P.D.) was born in England in
1215 with the Magna Carta and was implemented in the 17th century
by the English with Cromwell as its pioneer. The change from
Monarchy to Parliamentary Democracy was marked by long civil wars
and climaxed with the beheading of King Charles I in 1649. The
beheading of Charles I occurred because he stubbornly refused to allot
certain essential rights to Parliament, insisting that the King is the
absolute monarch and that only the King rules his land, and indeed by
the grace of God and as the representative of God on Earth over his
subjects. Since then and to this day, Parliamentary Democracy has gone
through many stages of improvement, especially in countries such as
England, the USA, France, Holland and the Scandinavian countries.
In what follows, we will present the basic elements of Athenian
and Parliamentary Democracy, which will allow us to compare these
two political systems. The presentation will be very concise,
simplifying, rounding off and omitting, where necessary, much of what
are mainly secondary facts and characteristics of these two forms of
Democracy.
1.2 ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
There are three basic characteristics of Athenian Democracy:
sortition (lottery), the large number of those selected by sortition
and the term of office of city-state administration. The basic aim of
these three characteristics was, first of all, to reduce as much as
possible the influence of lawless interests in every area of the city’s
administration and, secondly, to decisively limit, and even eliminate
such influence, in every form of political power. In addition, it was
meant to eliminate the political patronage system which, given the
12
(a). Solon and Cleisthenes.
(b). Pericles speaks to the Assembly of the Demos on Pnyx hill.
Picture 1.1. The three protagonists of Athenian Democracy: Solon,
Cleisthenes and Pericles.
13
opportunity, politicians would have craftily and overtly exploited
together with the citizens.
(a) Sortition (lottery). The selection of city administrators,
such as, for example, the members of bodies like the Executive and the
Judicial, was done by sortition, where the sortition pool was the
Assembly of the Demos. Even civil servants, the police and the clergy
were selected by sortition. The exercise of power by sortition was
mandatory. At the same time, the exercise of power was considered to
be knowledge, that it is a school and must not be monopolized by a
few. He who governs, learns. No one must be barred from learning and,
therefore, no one must be excluded from participation in the exercise of
power; otherwise, he is barred from an important part of the learning
process.
(b) Number of those selected. The large number of those
selected by lot ensured the selection of administrators without allowing
for the possibility of redeem of those being selected prior to sortition.
(c) Term of office of city administration. Selected rulers, if
they have already served in some administrative office, do not have the
right to be re-elected to the same administrative office, unless all of the
Athenian citizens have served in it. For example, if someone has been
selected once by sortition as a member of the Executive Body, he
cannot be re-elected. The larger the number of those selected, the
longer the time period of administration, without this period being
allowed to be greater than one year. In other words, the length of a term
in office increases as the number of city administrators increases, and
decreases as the number of city administrators decreases. The most
characteristic example was that of the Epistates. The Epistates was a
widely recognized person and ranked top in the hierarchy of archons,
i.e. he was something like the modern President of a country. He was a
simple member of the Boule and was designated by the body of
members of the Boule*1 by sortition (the definition of the term “Boule”
can be found in paragraph 4, which follows). His responsibilities were
numerous and highly significant, such as, for example, the holding of
the keys to the city and to the treasury. Thus, we have here the example
of one and only one citizen with very high offices. That is why the
duration of the exercise of his duties was extremely limited. It was for
just one day!
1
* see Glossary, page 76.
14
Other characteristics. We mention the following:
1. The highest principle of Democracy. Democracy is a
political system where all citizens have the same responsibility for the
common good of society.
2. Athenian Democracy is based on equality. It is based on
participation and collaboration. In particular, as far as the
administration of the city-state is concerned, all citizens over thirty
years old, have equal opportunities to participate in the administration.
Such equality was safeguarded by sortition. That is why it would not be
an exaggeration to say that Athenian Democracy = sortition =
equality. It cannot be overemphasized that the political system of
Athenian Democracy did not depend upon the virtue of the city
administrators, because man is prone to greed, fraudulency (i.e.: dirty
interweaving of interests) and corruption. Sortition was the “key” to
preventing such unpleasant occurrences. There was no leading class in
Athenian Democracy.
3. The Assembly of the Demos [picture 1.1 (b)]. It is the
sum total of citizens (= voters) of the city-state. It is the supreme
political organ of the Democracy of the city. Apart from its
Legislative work, it decided on matters of great importance for the city,
such as the declaration of war. Note that the terms citizen and voter
are equivalent.
4. The Boule was a Body which has no counterpart in
present-day Parliamentary Democracy. In particular, the Boule of
ancient Athens bears no relationship to any of today’s Administrative
Bodies of Parliamentary Democracy. It was made up of 500 members
and had many significant duties. One of these duties was the drafting of
legislation, i.e. it formulated the laws which were then proposed to the
Assembly of the Demos, i.e. the Legislative Body of the city, for
approval or rejection.
5. The Legislative Body. It is the Assembly of the Demos,
which decided, by voting of its members, on the approval or rejection
of the laws proposed by the Boule. This role of the Assembly of the
Demos clearly shows the deeper meaning of Athenian Democracy,
which is that power was truly in the hands of the citizens, since all the
citizens together, and they alone, were the legislators of the city.
6. The Executive Body. It was made up of ten citizens,
named archons, as also of the Boule and of all the lower clerks. Their
object was the Administration of the city. They were selected by
sortition and their term of office was one year.
15
7. The Judicial Body. Every year 6,000 potential jurors
were selected by sortition and were called the Heliaia. For each trial,
500 jurors were chosen by sortition from among the 6,000. These 6,000
were not professional judges (as is the case with modern jurors). The
selection of the 500 jurors was done in the very early hours of the day
in which the trial was to take place, so that the person accused would
not have the opportunity to bribe any (or almost any) of the jurors. The
trial lasted one day. It began at sunrise and ended at sunset. By sunset
the court was obliged to pronounce judgment and there was therefore
no possibility of postponing the trial. Obviously, this procedure secured
the conducting of a fair trial. For each new case other new jurors were
selected by sortition. The most renowned of trials in ancient Greece
was that of Socrates in 399 B.C. For unimportant trials, only two or
three jurors were selected. In the case more important trials, about ten
jurors were selected. However, 500 were selected in cases involving
serious criminal offences.
8. Power to the common man. Athenian Democracy is the
only form of government that suits human nature because power is
exercised through sortition by the common man.
9. It does not have religious holy books. It has no taboos.
10. It does not have prohibitions and any interference in
private life.
11. There is no marginalization.
12. Elections. By way of an exception, there were a few cases
in which selection was done not through sortition, but by voting. Two
of these cases were the ten generals and the treasurers.
 The generals. Candidates had to have many qualifications,
such as: to be wealthy, to be good orators, brave, be experienced in
warfare. The requirement that they be wealthy was based on the
following thinking: in a battle, in case of defeat, the property of the
generals was confiscated. Note that at that time, Athens was divided
administratively into ten districts. Once a year, each district elected one
of these ten generals. In the course of the battle, the head of the army,
i.e. the “commander-in-chief”, was one of the ten generals. The
commander’s term of office lasted just one day. No general could
become commander-in-chief for a second time, if all ten generals had
not themselves become commanders first. In the case of the generals,
re-election was permitted. Well-known examples of generals are
Miltiades, Themistocles and Pericles. Note further that, because they
16
were elected and had also political duties, the generals were under
constant (!) inspection.
 The treasurers. Candidates had to have just one
qualification: to be wealthy. In cases where the financial management
of the city failed due to the treasurers, it was they who had to make up
for the losses.
Obviously, the selection of the generals and the treasurers
could not be done by sortition, because sortition would not have
ensured that those who were chosen would be wealthy enough to pay
for their mistakes.
13. Imputation of liabilities (accountability) with respect to
officials: at the end of their term of office, officials were examined by
ten controllers who had been chosen by sortition on the morning of
the inspection. For any actions that had been detrimental to the Demos,
their property was confiscated. For any actions of a criminal nature,
they were severely punished by the Judicial Body, even to the point of
being sentenced to death.
14. Ostracism. This is the removal from the city of
undesirable individuals. Ostracism was considered to be a great
punishment because it was a major affront.
15. Percentage of voting and of sortition. On the whole, the
choosing of generals and of the treasurers through voting, together with
some minimal cases of appointments which were of little significance,
came to just 1%, while all the rest of the city administrators were
selected by sortition and these constituted the 99%.
In Figure 1.2 we provide a graphic description of the operation
of Athenian Democracy.
Election of the Pope. In order to further facilitate the
understanding of the idea of sortition, we will present a wellknown representative example. This refers to the way in which the
Pope of Rome is selected, both with respect to the way it is done today,
and also to the way it could be done in accordance with Athenian
Democracy. Nowadays, the Pope is elected by secret ballot by the body
of all of the approximately eighty cardinals, where each one has the
right to elect and to be elected. If on the first ballot no cardinal has
received a majority, the elections continue until such time as one of the
cardinals receives the majority. This cardinal is named Pope and from
that day until he dies or resigns, he remains head of the Catholic
Church.
17
Rumor has it that there were and continue to be plenty of
behind-the-scenes dealings before the voting, which in any case is what
happens in almost all similar situations when a leader of other churches
is elected. Similar backstage negotiations, and much worse, take place
in the elections of laymen, by laymen, to high positions.
If sortition were used, as it was done in ancient Athens, the
situation would be as follows: every year, by sortition, the Pope would
be selected for a one-year term. This would continue every year, and
those who had served as Pope could not be re-elected. Thereby, most of
the cardinals would be elected as Popes, for a period of just one year
with absolutely no backstage negotiations, and we would not have one
Pope until he dies and with all the dealings behind the scenes. And the
worst thing is that, although the office of Pope is held by just one
person and, therefore, his term of office should be very short, even less
than one year, we have the exact opposite: his term of office lasts until
his death.
Slavery in ancient Athens. We shall refer to slavery in ancient
Athens in order to correct a great misunderstanding about what slavery
really was like and what role it played in the multi-faceted development
of the Demos of Athens.
The population of ancient Athens was about 150,000, not
including the slaves, whose number came to approximately 35,000, and
the metics (emigrants), who were about 10,000. The slaves were not
Greeks. They originated from different countries. As we have already
mentioned, of the 150,000, the citizens numbered around 30,000, while
the remaining 120,000 were women and children. We should note that,
since the beginning of human history, the right to vote on the part of
women as well only became a reality in the twentieth century.
The main characteristics of slavery in ancient Athens were the
following: owners did not have life and death rights over the slaves.
The slaves were protected by the law just as was every citizen of
Athens. When Athens was at war and certain slaves joined the
Athenian army and fought against the enemy, they were granted citizen
rights.
Since ancient times, whenever there were slaves, they lived
under inhumane conditions and that is why they rose up in revolt
against their masters and tried in bloody wars to gain their freedom
(e.g. Spartacus). It is therefore not by accident that in ancient Athens
there was never any such slave revolt, since the conditions of slavery
there were humane.
18
City-State Administration
Accountability
10 controllers
Executive Body
10 Archons
Jurors
500
City-State Laws
Assembly of
the Demos
Boule
500 members
Sortition
Judicial Body
(Heliaia)
6,000 citizens
Annual Sortition
Assembly of the Demos
The sum total of the city-state citizens
(= voters)
The Legislative Body of the Demos
Figure 1.2. Athenian Democracy.
19
Slavery was abolished fairly recently. We mention the
following characteristic cases: in France slavery was abolished in 1789,
in England in 1833, in Russia in 1861 and in the U.S.A. in 1862. In
these four countries, the number of slaves per slave-owner was very
large. Especially in the Southern States of the USA, where cotton was
produced, many masters had some scores (!) of slaves and whichever
master had the right of life and death over his slaves.
Comparing, in terms of the results, the contribution of these
four aforementioned countries with the contribution of ancient Athens
to the spiritual and cultural elevation of mankind in the period when
there was an active slave-ownership system, we observe that the
contribution of ancient Athens is by far much more superior. Such great
difference was achieved despite the fact that ancient Athens:
(i) Preceded these countries by almost 2,500 years.
(ii) It had a population of 150,000, whereas the sum total
population of the four aforementioned countries came to hundreds of
millions.
There is a widespread view that because the ancient Athenians
had slaves, it was thanks to them that they had a great deal of free time
and that is why they were able to develop their philosophy, science,
theater,
architecture
and, in general, their unparalleled
civilization. However, as we can see from all of the above, this view is
a serious distortion of the truth, which may be due to ignorance, but
may be biased for other reasons, so as, for example, to denigrate and
undermine the unsurpassed success of the ancient Athenians.
The overall conclusion regarding slavery in ancient Athens is
that the greatness of ancient Athens is not due to its slaves. It is due to
its Democracy. The ancient Athenians and generally the ancient
Greeks would have achieved all that they did, which today we call
“the miracle of ancient Greece,” even if they had no slaves. That is
why any distortion of such truth is surely objectionable.
Finally, we pose the following reasonable question: What was
the quality of the ancient Greeks which led them to “the miracle of
ancient Greece”? Many believe that this quality was their great
intelligence. But, as we know, all people have more or less the same
level of intelligence. However, the ancient Greeks had something that
other people did not have. They had Democracy. In short, the
achievements of ancient Athens and, more generally, of ancient Greece,
are thanks to their political system, which they called DEMOCRACY.
20
1.3 PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
Parliamentary Democracy has elections as its basic
characteristic (picture 1.3). Parliamentary Democracy is not the same in
all the countries which implement it. There are differences. In very
general terms, we can make the following points about Parliamentary
Democracy:
1. Elections take place every four years.
2. The period of administration is four years.
3. Re-election is permitted. In nearly all countries there is no
restriction as to that. For example, someone can be elected as a member
of the Legislative Body for an entire lifetime. The exception to this is
the position of President of a country, where re-election, in some
countries, is allowed just once.
4. In nearly all countries it is just the Legislative Body and
the Executive Body that are elected. All the rest (the Judicial Body,
Police, civil servants, armed forces, etc.) are appointed. In most
countries, appointments last as would a full career, i.e. around 35 years.
An exception to the above is when elections are not merely limited to
the Legislative and Executive Bodies. From what we know, such cases
are preeminent in the USA where – at state level and in certain states –
elections are held for the Legislative, the Executive, the Judiciary and
the Police (known as sheriffs), while most of the rest are based on
appointment following a competition.
5. Accountability of officials: on paper there is much, but in
practice there is little to minimal, or even none at all.
1.4 PREVENTION AND CATASTOLY
In this section, we will concern ourselves with the terms
prevention and catastoly, the definitions of which are as follows:
 Prevention is taking the necessary measures in order to
deter in advance something wrong from happening.
 Catastoly is correcting the wrong that happened due to the
fact that we did not take the necessary preventive measures.
A note for the English translation. In English, when we want
to say that we do something to deter something wrong from happening,
we use just one word, the word prevention. When we want to correct
the wrong thing that has happened due to the fact that we did not take
the necessary preventive measures, there is not just one word in
21
English, such as prevention, but a series of words, where each word is
chosen to suit the particular situation, as in the three examples that
follow. Specifically, in example 1, we use the word cure or remedy; in
example 2, we use the word suppress; and in example 3, we use the
word overcome.
So as to facilitate the discussion, we take the liberty of
proposing the term catastoly (from the Greek word καταστολή) which
shall express the terms remedy, cure, suppress, overcome, etc. in just
one term in English. As a result, the term catastoly alone expresses
these three terms, as well as any other term that suits each situation, as
in examples 1, 2, and 3. For this reason, and henceforth, we shall use
the term catastoly in its broad sense.
Example 1. It is better not to smoke (prevention) than to try
desperately to cure lung cancer (catastoly).
Example 2. It is better to have organized and trained the police
so that it will be in a position to peacefully control a demonstration
(prevention), rather than, in the event of any disturbing behaviour on
the part of demonstrators, to have the police trying to defuse such
situations through violent and bloody measures (catastoly).
Example 3. It is better to wear a seat belt when we drive
(prevention) than, if we find ourselves involved in a serious car
accident, to be rushed to hospital with broken bones (catastoly).
The optimal choice of prevention and catastoly. Suppose
that the cost of the preventive measures is P and that of catastoly is
C. Then the cost C is, in almost all cases, much greater than the cost
P. In some cases, C, in comparison to P, reaches unexpectedly high
levels. It also applies that, as P increases, so does C decrease, and
vice versa. Therefore, the optimal choice is to implement preventive
measures as much as possible, so that we will need as little catastoly
as possible.
From the above, it can justifiably be asserted that Athenian
Democracy was a mainly preventive and much less a catastolic
Democracy. In other words, it was a political system which averted the
temptation of corruption. In general, it was a political system which
implemented the saying: “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure (catastoly).” In this way, something very important was achieved:
the deterrence in advance of bad management of the Demos.
22
(a). The building of Congress in U.S.A, Washington.
(b). The building of Parliament in England, London .
Picture 1.3. The buildings of Congress in U.S.A. and of Parliament in
England.
23
1.5 COMPARISON OF ATHENIAN AND PARLIAMENTARY
DEMOCRACY
ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
Thanks to sortition, Athenian Democracy succeeds in limiting
man’s weaknesses. Very concisely, we present below the basic
advantages and disadvantages of Athenian Democracy.
Advantages of Athenian Democracy.
1. It is a par excellence preventive political system, since
the structure of Athenian Democracy is such that it gives city
administrators no room to deviate and thereby achieves the deterrence
in advance of bad management of the city to the point that abuses and
offences be from minimal to none at all. This structure of Athenian
Democracy is also its great advantage.
2. It does not rely on the ethicality of the administrators of
the Demos, a fact which is secured by its preventive political system.
3. It minimizes, almost eliminating vices, where the term
vices refers to every mischievous activity against society, such as
greed, immorality, fraudulency, corruption, absence of meritocracy,
professionalism, nepotism, political patronage. The list is endless.
4. It rules out tenure.
5. It distributes political power as follows: a little power to
many, for a short period of time and without the right of re-election to
the same office.
Aristotle: in addition to the above and with the aim of
providing a more complete picture of Athenian Democracy, we quote
the view of Aristotle, which very briefly is the following:
What citizens should offer the state (citizens’ obligations):
 Participation of citizens in public affairs.
 Protection of Democracy from those who want to harm it.
What the state should offer its citizens (citizens’ rights):
 Relative equality for all.
 Reasonable and adequate property for all.
 Prosperity for all.
 The common good of all.
24
Disadvantages of Athenian Democracy.
1. The Achilles’ heel of Athenian Democracy is demagogy and
populism, which, in some cases, significantly harmed ancient Athens.
2. It is not implementable in countries with a large population.
PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
Due to the system of elections, Parliamentary Democracy and
particularly in capitalist societies, breads and magnifies many of man’s
weaknesses. We present very concisely the basic advantages and
disadvantages of Parliamentary Democracy.
Advantages of Parliamentary Democracy.
1. Its basic advantage is elections, but on condition that they
are conducted with transparency and meritocracy, something which
unfortunately happens very rarely.
Disadvantages of Parliamentary Democracy.
1. It is mainly a catastolic political system, because the
structure of Parliamentary Democracy is such that it offers much room
to the administrators of the country to deviate to the point of being able
to commit serious ethical, financial and political crimes against their
country. In retrospect, very few criminal offences, fraudulency and
corruption, are detected, and even fewer are punished. Even in cases of
punishment, the country seems to by crying over spilt milk, since the
harm has already been done. This structure of Parliamentary
Democracy is its greatest disadvantage.
2. It cultivates professional politicians and the domination of
family dynasties.
3. The most capable, to some degree, are selected, the vast
majority of whom are elected from the mire of fraudulency and
corruption, and they thereby rule with corrupt and amoral means. One
of the truly most detestable examples is that of the financial support of
the pre-election campaign of a candidate by big companies which, in
case the candidate they supported is elected, the benefits they shall reap
will be much greater than those they had offered.
4. The party which governs considers its country as its own
spoils (partyocracy). Such thinking leads, at times a bit or at other times
much more so, to the mutilation of the State by those who govern.
25
REBIRTH OF ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
Athenian Democracy was the political system of ancient Athens. It is based on
sortition (lottery) and prevention and its structure is such that it limits and even nullifies the
development of vices in politics (such as greed, immorality, the absence of meritocracy,
fraudulency and corruption). Athenian Democracy was the outstanding political system
invented by man, something verified by the fact that ancient Greece came to function as the
Big-Bang of civilization on our planet, which influenced and continues to decisively
influence humanity.
Parliamentary Democracy is the present-day political system. It is based on
elections and on suppression (“catastoly”) and its structure is such that it allows for the
development of many and very serious vices in politics. The selection of leaders is
influenced by such vices, a fact which leads to the election of leaders who are not always of
the most competent and of the most ethical, but often enough leads to the election of leaders
with moderate capabilities and even with lowered moral standards.
Given the large populations of almost all countries nowadays – in contrast to that
of ancient Athens which was in the order of 150,000 – the implementation of Athenian
Democracy in our epoch is rendered almost impossible. We overcome such difficulty by
implementing a new form of Democracy, which we name Philocosmic Democracy.
Philocosmic Democracy has as its major characteristic the union of
Parliamentary Democracy with Athenian Democracy, or otherwise the union of elections
with sortition. Philocosmic Democracy is composed of a relatively simple structure which,
put very briefly and rather simplistically, is characterized as follows: it is divided into two
phases, whereby in the first phase elections are conducted and in the second phase sortition
takes place. Such procedure has the following novel element: in the course of the election
phase, we select many more candidates than we need for the manning of positions – as, for
instance, those of Parliament – and next, in the course of the sortition phase, we only select
however as many we need for the manning of the positions of Parliament. For instance, let
us suppose that a country has 5 million voters, and that the number of its members of
Parliament is, for example, 300. Then, the 5 million voters select through elections not 300,
but 300a potential members of Parliament. Indicatively, parameter a can range, for example,
from 3 up to 30, and as for the selection of the specific value of a, this will depend on the
choice of each country. From the pool of 300a, we select through sortition only those we
need, i.e., the 300 members of Parliament. This means that the possibility for someone to go
from the 300a to the 300 is very limited since it is one to a.
Philocosmic Democracy is a preventive political system. Such attribute, on the
part of Philocosmy Democracy, is also its greatest asset, for it shields politics from wrong
doing, as it forestalls them well before these make their appearance. Once adopted, it will
effect a radical change of our lives for the better. It is a proposal the implementation of
which would be appropriate to our emerging new world.
The Golden Rule of Philocosmic Democracy is as follows: Philocosmic
Democracy is a political system where, on the one hand, elections are held on the basis of
merit while, on the other hand, political power is distributed a little power to many, for a
short period of time and without the right to re-election to the same office.
It is a fact that Athenian Democracy is reborn from within Philocosmic
Democracy. However, the regeneration of Athenian Democracy is not fully achieved, though
it is achieved in many of its main characteristics, especially as regards its nucleus, which is
sortition. The complete regeneration of Athenian Democracy and its implementation could
possibly be examined in the distant future, but only after Philocosmic Democracy has been
implemented with success.