What if ancient Greece hadn't invented the early version of democracy?

black213

Emperor
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
1,712
How would've that affected the rest of the world? Would all countries be monarchies/dictatorships or would there be another brand new political system similar to democracy?
 
Because the only way democracy could happen is if a specific bunch of dead Greeks "invented" it.
 
Their early democracy was just a form (actually, several forms) of direct (partial) democracy that many other city-states and even tribes practiced at some time in their existence. For a well-known example in the same area and age consider the roman republic which evolved on its own before close contact with the greeks. Classical Athens was a bit more "democratic" (less oligarchic) that Rome, of course , but the general idea of citizen's assemblies, voting by "tribes" within the territory of the city, even "professional politicians" (demagogues), was a common one.

Democracy was independently invested and reinvented many, many times.
 
We probably wouldn't call it "democracy". That's about it.
 
Socratic philosophy doesn't get a martyr and thus Western civilization is plagued by bizarre stuff like monism and atomism for another few centuries.
 
Well, most countries now are Republics, not actual Democracies (it's also arguable how Democratic any of the Greek cities were, what with the actual majority of the populace being slaves). Also, there were many ancient Republics which had little to no interaction with Greece apart from a variety of wars. Many of the cities of Kanaan were Republics, as were many of the offshoots like Qart-Hadast. Greece merely gets credited for 'democracy' because Western civilization likes to trace its origins to Ancient Greece.
 
What's the distinction between "republic" and "democracy" that you're drawing here?
 
What's the distinction between "republic" and "democracy" that you're drawing here?

US Conservatives and Libertarians would say the USA is republic and not a democracy because pure majority rule is checked by the seperation of powers, the indirect election of the president and the make-up of the senate.
 
US Conservatives and Libertarians would say the USA is republic and not a democracy because pure majority rule is checked by the seperation of powers, the indirect election of the president and the make-up of the senate.
Yes, we know the standard canards brought out by those ignorant of what either word actually means, but we would like to hear why this specific person thinks that way.
 
US Conservatives and Libertarians would say the USA is republic and not a democracy because pure majority rule is checked by the seperation of powers, the indirect election of the president and the make-up of the senate.
The reason why this definition doesn't matter is already in your post.
 
I'm neither conservative nor libertarian. Explain to me how that's wrong?
 
I'm neither conservative nor libertarian. Explain to me how that's wrong?
Because the definitions of the words "democracy" and "republic" have nothing to do with checks, balances, separation of powers, policy gridlock, or any similar topics?
 
My own outside impression is that it's an intentional mischaracterization of the terms by Republicans so their party's name alone already gives them some form of high ground (and accuse democrats of pandering to the uncontrolled masses).
 
I used to have the same impression and maybe there is some truth to that, but I think it also goes a lot deeper. In so far as that to label America a Republic instead of a democracy also serves to protect the status quo by denouncing any moves towards greater institutionalized emancipation of the people as contrary to what makes America great and all that.
 
In any case, in retrospect I'm very angry at Civ2 for perpetuating this false understanding of the term Republic.
 
Back
Top Bottom