Download What can we learn about Globalization from Ancient Athens?

First Draft: 19 December 2016
What can we learn about Globalization from
Ancient Athens? The Democracy Effect
Gregory T. Papanikos
President
Athens Institute for Education and Research
Abstract
This paper argues that only democracy, as was applied in Ancient Athens, can
maximize the economic benefits of globalization and minimize the social and political
frictions. This requires voters to decide on issues and not only on electing their
political representatives. Such citizens must possess a minimum level of pedagogy,
i.e. gnosis (knowledge) with arête (virtue). In Ancient Athens this was possible
because of its global culture of openness which promoted the acquisition of
knowledge and the understanding of different cultures. The reason that globalization
creates such antitheses today is because the process of implementing it is nondemocratic which was not the case in Ancient Athens. In contemporary states there is
a democratic deficit because they lag behind in terms of isegoria (equality of speech
before a democratic decision making body) and isocracy (equality of serving as
archon). And this democratic chasm exists despite their achievements on isonomy
(equality before the law) and isoteleia (equality of tax burden). Modern technology
permits the application of isegoria and isocracy as these were implemented in Ancient
Athens. Only then can the full benefits of globalization be materialized, including
peace, the most important of all.
Keywords: Openness, Globalization, Democracy, Education, Ancient Athens.
_____________________________________________________________________
Note: Opening speech at the 10th Annual International Conference on Global Studies:
Business, Economic, Political, Social and Cultural Aspects, 19-22 December 2016,
Athens, Greece.
1
1. Introduction
Globalization is a term used by economists to describe a process of integrating
national economies, including entire geographical areas, whereby goods, services,
capital, technology, information, knowledge, and labor flow, without barriers, from
one country to another1. This is the well known idea of “free trade”. The term
“globalization” was only recently coined – it is a 20th century concept2 – but as a
process is very old, going back to thousands of years.
In Ancient Athens, the term “openness” was used to explain exactly the same
process. However, the term meant more than free trade, even though international
trade was equally vital as is today3. First and foremost it included the free movement
of people; not only migrant workers. It certainly included refugees as this is
demonstrated by Aeschylus’ masterpiece, Iketides (the suppliants) who were begging
the King of Argos for an asylum, who, after asking his people’s general assembly
(ecclesia of demos), he granted it. And above all, it requires the free movement of
philosophers, who were the educators of the ancient world. Openness was almost
synonymous to democracy and freedom, as we shall show below, therefore it included
ideas, gnosis (knowledge) and culture.
This paper addresses the following question: what can be learned from Ancient
Athens about globalization? Is such a comparison possible? Or are these two
completely different and thus incomparable epochs? For the purpose of this paper,
1
Globalization is usually legitimized because (a) it increases world income and wealth
and (b) it contributes to the convergence of income and wealth among rich and poor
countries. It is also true that globalization (free trade) promotes economic growth.
These are well documented with all the exceptions that one can always find in this
type of research. However, it seems that this research has neglected income and
wealth distribution within the rich countries of the world. It is said that globalization
spearheaded an unequal distribution of income and wealth from poor households to
rich households. This gave rise to anti-globalism sentiments and movements which
were quickly represented by populist and demagogue politicians. Their rhetoric
resembles very much the pre Second World War period after the collapse of the first
modern wave of globalization of 1870-1914.
2
It is true that the concept has now been expanded to include ideas and culture. On the
genealogy of the concept see James & Steger (2014).
3
Athens would not survive, if she could not import grains and meat. This might
explain the initial need to openness. And if international trade brings people together
from different cultures, languages and way of living, then gnosis (knowledge) is
promoted which can be considered as a pre-requisite of democracy. This would have
been an excellent theory of the democracy building process if there were no numerous
examples of trade without the development of gnosis and of course democracy.
Historically, democracy is the exception rather than the rule.
2
such a comparison is considered useful. At the risk of oversimplification, the only
difference between Ancient Athens (5th-4th centuries BCE) and contemporary
countries is technology1 and democracy. Evidently, in Ancient Athens there was less
technology than today but, as argued below, they had democracy2. Today, there is a
democratic deficit which undermines globalization.
Technology is cumulative. Once discovered, it cannot be re-discovered. The best
example comes from Greek mythology. Prometheus discovered (the technology of)
fire - actually the myth states that the secret of fire was stolen from the Gods – which
has been beneficial to the whole world, from ancient times till today.
On the other hand, democracy is not cumulative. Even worse, it is quite possible
that an archaic “technology” of a political decision making process such as a
dictatorship or a tyranny can replace a democracy, even by free election as was the
case with many countries in the period between the two world wars.
It is the purpose of this paper to demonstrate the democracy effect on
globalization. This paper is organized in five sections, including this introduction. In
the next section, globalization in Ancient Athens is briefly presented. Section three
analyses the concept of democracy and its relation to globalization. It is argued that
only democracy can maximize the benefits of globalization. Section four emphasizes
the role of pedagogy in a democracy and therefore globalization. Only citizens with
gnosis and arête who vote for issues and not only for representatives can make
democracy valuable to a given society. The last section concludes.
2. Globalization in Ancient Athens
This paper argues in support of an open society and therefore of globalization as
was described by Thucydides in the latter part of the 5th Century BCE, especially his
chapters on Pericles’ Funeral Oration. According to Pericles, Ancient Athens was an
ideal ecumenical and cosmopolitan city-state. It was the envy of the world and many
cities wanted to imitate her. There is no doubt that Pericles glorified the Athenian
1
Technology is defined as useful knowledge applied to a production process.
For a concise historical introduction to the concept of democracy see Crick (2002).
Bernard Crick rightly points out that it all started in Athens in about the 5th Century
BCE. The issue is whether it all ended there for democracy.
2
3
system of governance, praising his own contribution in between1. But there was a lot
of truth. In today’s terminology, Athens was really an ideal open city2. In Pericles
words “Our city is open to the world, we never expel a foreigner from learning or
seeing”3.
This statement by Pericles was made to distinguish Ancient Athens from other
Greek city-states. It was well known that in Sparta foreigners were not welcomed (see
Figueira, 2003). The word ξενηλασίαις, translated here as “expel a foreigner”, meant
more than that. It was categorically stronger than xenophobia. It could include beating
of foreigners similar to what we see today with migrants and refugees (primarily
women and children) who traverse through the “civilized” and “democratic” nations
of Europe.
Superior Cultures have nothing to fear from globalization
Why was there such a difference between Athens and Sparta? Or why is there
such a difference between Ancient Athens and contemporary democracies of the
western world? Superior culture is the answer. It should be kept in mind that both
Athens and Sparta were Greek cities but their culture was different. It is a mistake to
identify ethnicity (including language) with culture because Sparta was a Greek citystate. Pericles boasted that the Athenian culture was superior to any other existing
culture at the time and therefore it had nothing to fear from foreigners coming to
Athens. By foreigners he meant other Greeks as well. By culture he meant works that
satisfy the soul (ἔργα εὐψύχῳ) and above all the Athenian system of pedagogy
(παιδείαις) which combined gnosis (knowledge) and arête (virtue). Pericles claimed
that this superior system made his city-state stronger to repel any invader not because
of their military prowess but because its citizens believed in their city and valued their
freedom. Their superior culture increased their morale.
1
“… τὰ δὲ πλείω αὐτῆς αὐτοὶ ἡμεῖς οἵδε οἱ νῦν ἔτι ὄντες μάλιστα ἐν τῇ καθεστηκυίᾳ
ἡλικίᾳ ἐπηυξήσαμεν καὶ τὴν πόλιν τοῖς πᾶσι παρεσκευάσαμεν καὶ ἐς πόλεμον καὶ ἐς
εἰρήνην αὐταρκεστάτην”.
2
A global (open) city does not necessarily imply an ethical city. On the contrary,
Ancient Athens was an open city but this did not prevent her from using force on
other Greek and foreign city states and countries.
3
The actual ancient text states “τήν τε γὰρ πόλιν κοινὴν παρέχομεν, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτε
ξενηλασίαις ἀπείργομέν τινά ἢ μαθήματος ἢ θεάματος”. The phrase “κοινὴν
παρέχομεν” is translated as openness but it means more than that. Literally speaking,
it means we make (give) the city common (available) to everyone.
4
Thus, the first lesson to be learned from Ancient Athens is that superior cultures
have nothing to fear from opening up their borders. Societies which are afraid that
they will be overwhelmed by other cultures cannot be free societies. Such societies,
sooner or later, become xenophobic and exclusive. They close their borders. They
eulogize self sufficiency and a hate for foreigners. They build an inferior culture by
building walls and barbed wire fences at their borders. For these societies
globalization is not their best strategic alternative. It will harm them. They are not
prepared to be part of a global world because they have an inferior culture. If some
vested economic interests (i.e. big industrialists) force them to open up trade relations
through the political process, these will backlash as they did many times in the past.
They are better off to remain isolated pretty much like those who are quarantined
because of an infectious disease. They will do good to themselves and to the rest of
the world.
A superior culture must be an eclectic one
But what was this superior culture of Athens all about? The so called PseudoXenophon, writing about the Athenian Constitution during the second half of the 5th
Century BCE, gave an excellent description of the superior culture of Athens “…and
the other Greeks have pretty much the same dialect, lifestyle and dressing style but
the Athenians have a mixture of all Greeks and barbarians”1. A superior culture is
not a different culture but one which has elements of all other cultures. It is an eclectic
culture. It is a smart culture because it is free to choose the best ingredients of all
available cultures. But this requires openness and inclusion. It requires the acceptance
that other cultures have some elements that are useful (better), which, if accepted, will
contribute to the creation of a superior culture.
In the above excerpt, the ancient Greek word κεκραμένῃ is translated as a mixture
but it means more than that. The meaning is similar to an alloy that cannot be
distinguished into its different substances (ingredients). The Athenian language was a
Greek dialect but it had incorporated many elements from other Greek dialects and
non-Greek (barbarian) languages as well. It became a rich and beautiful language.
Modern English can be considered as a κεκραμένῃ language with many elements from
ancient Greek, Latin and other languages.
1
“…καὶ οἱ μὲν Ἕλληνες ἰδίᾳ μᾶλλον καὶ φωνῇ καὶ διαίτῃ καὶ σχήματι χρῶνται,
Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ κεκραμένῃ ἐξ ἁπάντων τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ βαρβάρων”.
5
This idea of a κεκραμένῃ culture is not similar to the melting pot concept even
though today it can be better described as a boiling pot that never melts. The
difference is that the melting pot argument seems to support a homogeneous culture.
The idea of a multicultural society is also dissimilar. Ancient Athens favored not a
multicultural society per se but a society with multicultural individuals. A society
with multicultural individuals is not a homogeneous society. A κεκραμένῃ culture
does not mean a homogeneous global culture either. For a given society, it means a
more diversified culture which is accepted by all its members. In statistical terms, it
has a central tendency but it has high standard deviation and a few extreme values.
Ancient Athens accepted all these multicultural individuals as being members of the
Athenian culture. Each individual is different and because they are different from
anybody else all of them belong to the same culture which permits differentiation.
Thus, the second lesson to be learned is that an open (global) city must have a culture
which has elements of all other cultures of the world.
Globalization requires a fully-fledged open boarder policy
But the book which shows the extent of Ancient Athens’ globalization, primarily
as an economic integration process, is Xenophon’s “Ways and Means” written in the
mid-fourth century BCE. The English translation does not do justice to its content.
The Greek title of the book is Poroi or peri Prosodon. A better translation would have
been On (Public) Revenues. In this book, Xenophon describes Athens as an open city
and proposes measures to make it more open. Firstly, he makes an argument in favor
of more foreigners and refugees (ἀπόλιδες) such as metoikoi1 and douloi2. He suggests
measures so that metoikoi would feel welcome, e.g. honor them and allow them to
1
Metoikoi were something between landed immigrants and foreign workers with a
permanent working visa. For example, Aristotle and many other philosophers was a
metic. They had to pay a fixed fee to the Athenian state. Xenophon supports the idea
of accepting all refugees to come to work in Athens whereby increasing public
revenues. In Xenophon’s mind there was no question that migrants and refugees could
help the Athenian Economy to grow and the Athens city-state to increase its revenue.
Today (after 2500 years), economists still debate the same issue.
2
In the Greek vocabulary, ancient and modern, the word doulos, douleia and douleuo
are used to mean “a hard working worker”, “job”, and “I work” respectively. The
word for slaves is sklavos. I prefer to interpret the world doulos as workers. Free men
in antiquity meant men who did not work (plenty of leisure time to do other things).
On the theories of slavery in Ancient Greece see Schlaifer (1936).
6
acquire property. Xenophon stated that “…if all those who have no country wanted to
move to Athens its public revenues would increase” 1.
Secondly, he suggested policies to attract foreign businessmen and merchant
ship-owners in order to promote the international trade of Athens. Xenophon could
not put it more explicit “…the more they come and arrive, it is obvious that more will
be imported and exported and more will be sold abroad increasing the revenues from
rents and taxes”2. Similarly, Pericles, in his Funeral Oration, praises international
trade as well “… they are coming to our city everything from all over the world and
we enjoy them as much as our own products” 3. It should be noted that the emphasis is
on imports and not so much on exports which is a characteristic of an open society4.
For the promotion of international trade, Xenophon argued that Athens should
develop its own resources to exchange them for goods in need such as grain and meat.
The most important resource was the silver mines which were used for coining. The
Athenian coins were the international currency of the time.
The above arguments suggest that the third lesson to be drawn from Ancient
Athens about globalization is that open societies have an open border policy for (a) a
free and welcoming flow of refugees (ἀπόλιδες), foreign workers, merchants, shipowners etc and (b) a free flow of imports and exports of goods and services. Important
services were banking and education. It was considered that an open border economic
policy benefited the city-state of Athens. It is not an accident that in Ancient Athens
there was not a single reported revolt of non-Athenian citizens as it happened in
Sparta with helots.
Globalization requires peace
Finally, globalization cannot flourish without peace. And Xenophon was very
clear about this precondition. He devoted quite a few paragraphs of his small book
1
“… πάντες ἂν οἱ ἀπόλιδες τῆς Ἀθήνησι μετοικίας ὀρέγοιντο καὶ τὰς προσόδους ἂν
αὔξοιεν”.
2
Xenophon wrote “… ὅσῳ γε μὴν πλείους εἰσοικίζοιντό τε καὶ ἀφικνοῖντο, δῆλον ὅτι
τοσούτῳ ἂν πλέον καὶ εἰσάγοιτο καὶ ἐξάγοιτο καὶ ἐκπέμποιτο καὶ πωλοῖτο καὶ
μισθοφοροῖτο καὶ τελεσφοροίη”.
3
“…ἐπεσέρχεται δὲ διὰ μέγεθος τῆς πόλεως ἐκ πάσης γῆς τὰ πάντα, καὶ ξυμβαίνει
ἡμῖν μηδὲν οἰκειοτέρᾳ τῇ ἀπολαύσει τὰ αὐτοῦ ἀγαθὰ γιγνόμενα καρποῦσθαι ἢ καὶ τὰ
τῶν ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων”.
4
In contrast, the 16th century CE mercantilism emphasized exports and the creation of
a trade surplus. This is equivalent to proclaim an economic war and later a real war.
7
praising peace over war. His arguments were economic. War destroys production and
peace increases it1. Thus, the fourth and last lesson is that globalization cannot be
sustained in war situations.
Humanity must first create an environment of peace and then open up to
globalization. The problem is the cause-effect relation is not clear. It is quite possible
that globalization promotes peace and not vice versa. Or to put it differently, the
European experience of the last century shows that economic integration was the
result of one of the most catastrophic wars in human history. Was this war the price
for the long European peace? Quite possible is the answer. And has the European
Union (economic integration) contributed to peace promotion? Most probably it did.
Summing up the above discussion, globalization requires a superior culture, open
borders for the free movement of people of all statuses (migrants, refugees, educatorsphilosophers, etc) and free flow of goods and services within a stable international
framework which only peace can provide. How can the other countries be persuaded2
to open up their boarders given the peace precondition? It seems that there is only one
solution: democracy. Without democracy no country can benefit from globalization.
But what is democracy and how does it relate to globalization? The next section
attempts to answer this question.
3. Democracy3 and Globalization
In Ancient Athens, but not in Ancient Sparta, openness was possible because its
political system was a democracy. The best simplest definition ever given of
democracy was by Pericles in 431 BCE “Our political system’s name is called
democracy because not the few but the many rule”4. The essential word in the ancient
document is οἰκεῖν which means rule, manage, administer. And by no means had it
implied the election of people to represent (vote on behalf of) the citizens of Athens.
This would never qualify as democracy in Ancient Athens. Practically, this meant that
1
There were many in Athens who preferred war over peace because it brought them
economic benefits and new lands for the poor Athenians. And this despite the
excellent theatrical plays by the tragic poets of ancient Athens who praised peace.
2
Ancient Greeks had Gods and Goddesses almost about everything. The Goddess of
Democracy was Peitho which means persuasion.
3
Papanikos (2017) examines in detail the concept of democracy in Ancient Athens
and compares it with the political systems of contemporary world.
4
My translation of the original «Χρώμεθα γὰρ πολιτείᾳ …. καὶ ὄνομα μὲν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐς
ὀλίγους ἀλλ’ ἐς πλείονας οἰκεῖν δημοκρατία κέκληται».
8
all decisions, including the implementation of new laws, had to be voted (approved)
by the Athenian citizens’ General Assembly (ecclesia of demos). The role of
parliament (vouli) was to prepare and introduce the draft resolutions (psifismata) to
the people’s General Assembly and not to have the final verdict as it does today in
many so called representative democracies.
In modern political systems, the people’s “general assembly” votes for people
and not for issues. They are called general elections. Also, and most importantly,
these representatives appoint those (the archons) who will implement these laws1. For
example, if a free trade agreement is not debated in the people’s “general assembly”
before its implementation, then nobody should be surprised by the anti-globalization
sentiments when they become vocal and are being exploited by demagogues and
populists. Sycophancy dominates any logical voice. The majority voting to elect
people is not what was meant by democracy in Ancient Athens. And this is the
democratic deficit between Ancient Athens and the modern political systems of the
advanced countries.
This democratic deficit is defined by the chasm between the direct decisions
made by all citizens and the decisions taken in modern political systems of the
advanced countries by people’s representatives, however these representatives are
chosen (elected). In a democracy, what is said is more important than who said it. And
as a corollary, who rules is not as important as the implementation of people’s
decisions. In contrast, in modern advanced countries who says it has become more
important than what is said. Who rules is more important than the political issues.
An important issue becomes newsworthy only if a “star” proclaims to be
important due to his/her appeal through the modern means of communication. The
“star” does not have to be a known scientist or an honest politician. Popular football
players or singers get more attention when they talk about inflation and
unemployment than a Nobel laureate in economics. Even in cases where such “stars”
are used for a good cause (i.e. protect the environment), it simply shows that many
people today do not have the encyclopedic gnosis required to become citizens with a
vote. In many cases, these “stars” become political leaders due to their photogene and
1
The President of the USA appoints all the secretaries (archons) of the various
portfolios. The fact that the Congress approves them does not make any difference at
all. Similarly, in many other countries the Archons (Ministers) are appointed by the
President of the Republic or the Prime Minister.
9
sex appeal. They spend more time talking to social and other media, than governing.
More time to do social appearances rather than seating and working at their office.
Their everyday life as leaders is to spend hours for international trips, meetings and
dining with foreign leaders at various occasions. No wonder why the world today is at
such turmoil despite the great advantage of information technology which would have
permitted more effective world governance. The advancements in the technology of
information and communication reduce the need to travel and see because you can
have “face-to-face” communication with anyone in the planet seating in your office.
In Ancient Athens, and for certain public offices, the “who” was not important
and this is the reason why archons were not elected but were drawn from a list of all
qualified citizens. And this justifies the short duration (usually a year) of their
appointment1. If people vote for people to represent them (vote on behalf of them),
then this process degenerates itself into a mockery of democracy. In many cases,
though the constitution of modern advanced countries is such that even the majority
of votes do not always elect a candidate as this has happened in many countries
including Greece in 1963 and the USA in 2016. This results to an obsolescence of
democracy as was practiced in Ancient Athens.
The idea of democracy has been misused not only by the modern advanced
countries but by many others throughout the history, including brutal dictators who at
the initial state came to power through the so called democratic elections. The ancient
philosopher Plato was well aware that there is always the danger that demagogues
will come to power and then become tyrants. The solution of the philosopher king is
an excellent one but utopian. The key question is whether all people should be
allowed to vote. Is it democratic to have one person one vote? Should only people
who have a basic knowledge of the political issues be allowed to vote? Should people
be allowed to vote for someone to represent them for such long periods of time and
their “representatives” vote for all issues on their behalf? In a nutshell, is what is
called “representative democracy” a democracy? Ancient Athenians would answer
“no” to such a question. Even today, many people who vote in a “representative
democracy” feel betrayed either because (a) their representatives do not do what they
promise to do on various issues and (b) they decide (vote) on important issues that
1
There were exceptions throughout the long period of Athenian democracy which
related to military leaders and later with archons responsible for the public finances of
the city.
10
affect them without ever debating the topic during their electoral campaign. In the
first case they are common liars and the citizens cannot change their decision at least
for a long period of time which exceeds the year. In the second case, they are
hypocrites because they have a secret agenda which was not revealed. Both would
have been impossible in Ancient Athens during its two centuries of democracy.
As Aristotle pointed out there are many types of political systems and all of them
might have some elements of democracy, i.e. people’s participation in decision
making and implementation. Reviewing the ancient Greek documents on democracy
four criteria must simultaneously be satisfied for a democracy1: (a) freedom of speech
in front of all citizens who must convene to decide and rule (isegoria); (b) all citizens
and non-citizens should be equal before the law (isonomy); (c) all citizens have the
same chance, i.e. actually the same probability to be selected as archons in a lottery
type of a system (isocracy); and (d) every citizen should contribute according to his
income and wealth to public works-spending (isoteleia). These criteria are discussed
in detail in Papanikos (2017).
Globalization cannot be sustained without democracy. But unfortunately nonglobalization (closed borders), sooner or later, may lead to wars. At the outset, it
might start as an economic war. But history teaches us that it is a prelude to an actual
(military) war. Can democracy stop this inevitable process?2 As mentioned above,
Xenophon, in Ancient Athens, praised peace and called upon Athenians to avoid war.
1
These four criteria are not issues to be debated and voted upon. If they change, then
this political system ceases to be a democracy. In Ancient Athens, the four criteria
were “imposed” through non-democratic processes such as struggles between the
aristocrats and the working people of Athens. Aristotle states, in his Athenian
Politeia, “Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα συνέβη στασιάσαι τούς τε γνωρίμους καὶ τὸ πλῆθος πολὺν
χρόνον”. To avoid a civil war Athenians asked one of the seven wise men of
antiquity, Solon, to draft a new constitution which will give rights to non-aristocrats.
Aristotle considers him the first legislator which protected the people (demos) and
made them participants in the political decision making process. Not all members of
the demos were allowed to participate but it was the beginning that Cleisthenes and
Pericles build upon to create the Ancient Athenian Democracy. This process
resembles very much the French and American Revolution in establishing their own
version of democracy. In other words, democracy cannot be established with nondemocratic means. It requires some sort of violence or the threat of violence.
2
It appears that there is strong historical evidence that political systems which allow
for free elections do not engage in wars between themselves and rarely intervene
militarily with so called non-free nations. However, exceptions can be found
especially for the military strong countries such as USA.
11
In a democracy citizens decide on every single issue. Today citizens vote more
for people rather than for issues. In many cases, it is very similar to a beauty contest.
In Ancient Athens people were voting for all issues that concerned them and only in
some cases they voted for people. The most known of all was ostracism. The analogy
(difference) between democracy and the modern political system of advanced
countries such as the USA can be given by a thought experiment. If the ancient
system of democracy was to be applied in the USA of 2016, the president elected not
only would never have been elected but most probably would have been ostracized
for ten years as being dangerous for the USA society.
But these electoral results occur because there is another deficit: the deficit of
pedagogy (education). No society can benefit from globalization if it is not
democratic, i.e. people vote for issues and not for people. No society can have a
democracy if its citizens do not have adequate gnosis (knowledge) of the issues. This
requires encyclopedic gnosis because the issues are diverse. Democracy requires
citizens with pedagogy which is an optimal combination of gnosis and arête (virtue).
The word pedagogy describes it better: it literally means education with virtue. Never
before the world had so many educated people but how many of them have the
necessary arête? In many case, if these people turn out to be demagogues they are
very dangerous to modern societies. Thus, democracy requires gnosis. It requires
encyclopedic gnosis with arête.
4. Gnosis and Democracy
Democracy requires encyclopedic knowledge (gnosis) which is different from
formal and informal education. This issue was raised by Plato in Ancient Athens in
the 5th-4th Century BCE, and after 2400 years by John Stuart Mill in the 19th Century
CE. The idea is very simple. People should know what is at stake before they allowed
to vote. And in order to have a gnosis of the issues they should have attained some
level of education. Thus, people without education should not be allowed to vote. An
interesting question is to see whether people vote according to their education since
both educated and non-educated people are allowed to vote. Most empirical evidence
confirms this. People vote differently according to their level of education1. But more
1
In the 2016 USA presidential elections and the British referendum of 2016 people
voted differently according to their educational level. It seems the less educated voted
for the issue or for the person characterized as populists and demagogues. Plato once
12
than (formal) education is required for democracy. It requires pedagogy, i.e. gnosis
with arête.
As Aristotle stated all human beings are by their nature political animals. And as
such, the best way of organizing their politeia is with democracy. But democracy
demands citizens with gnosis and arête. This is the difference between pedagogy and
today’s formal education. Formal education can make an individual great but
pedagogy can make a politeia great. In such a politeia, democracy can flourish. And if
democracy flourishes, then this politeia can sustainably accept globalization by
opening up its society. An open society means more and better opportunities for
gnosis. We have come to a full circle. A picture of this eudemon politeia will show
the existence of all three: gnosis and arête (pedagogy), democracy and openness
(globalization) as in Diagram 1. Unfortunately, no “video” exist to show their
dynamic (historical) development and evolution which would allow to ascertain
cause-effect relations. Ancient Athens shows that all three co-existed and most
probably, co-varied. But we do not really know their casual relation. This is better
depicted in Diagram 1.
Diagram 1. Democracy, Pedagogy and Globalization
again is vindicated! Actually, the real test would have been not their formal education
but their knowledge of the issues or what economists call stylized facts. My
introspection tells me that in this case Plato’s vindication would be stronger.
13
Openness
=
Globalization =
free trade & gnosis
+ multicultural
individuals
Pedagogy =
Encyclopedic
Gnosis (includes
education) + Arête
Democracy =
Freedom + Voting
on Issues +
Selected for Public
Office
The causal relations of Diagram 1 are a matter of interpretation because no
concrete evidence exists. A persuasive scenario could have been the following.
Ancient Athens needed imports to feed its population. Because of its geographical
position, shipping was an effective way to bring grains and meat from all over the
known world. Exploring the unknown world opens up not only boarders but minds. It
contributes to gnosis because trade gets people together from different cultures. Thus,
the traders’ wealth increased along with their knowledge. They were bringing both
(wealth and gnosis) into the city-state of Athens. Wealth and gnosis was the dynamite
that shattered the foundation of the existing political order of Athens at the time. After
a period of many adjustments, democracy seemed as a “natural” outcome. This is a
very beautiful scenario but unfortunately there were many exceptions. For example,
14
Corinth which was very close to Athens and with similar geography started its trade
explorations much earlier than Athens. Corinth never developed into a democracy.
Also, the island of Chios might have been the first city-state to have democracy but it
never became a global state. Ancient Athens might be a good example but we have
many counter-examples of city-states and empires without democracy but with trade
and knowledge. Thus, there is a variable missing from the whole story of democracy.
One reason which might explain the difficulty in disentangling the cause-effect
relation is because they are intermingling in a cycle of virtue as in Diagram 1. More
trade brings together more people, more ideas, more education and more encyclopedic
gnosis. But striving for more spherical gnosis makes the citizens friends (Philoi) of
wisdom (Sophia). No doubt then that in Ancient Athens philosophers were in high
demand and their schools attracted students from all over the known world. All great
political leaders of Ancient Athens had great philosophers who were teaching them in
their youth. In a way, this was the second best solution to Plato’s idea of a philosophy
king. But again the exceptions are troublesome. One of the brutal leaders the world
has ever known was Alexander the Great. His teacher was one of the best of the
world: Aristotle. He gave him gnosis but unfortunately no arête. If he had arête, he
would have never destroyed the Greek city state Thebes and Persepolis later. No
respect for human beings and no respect for monuments of great art and architecture.
There is no doubt though that gnosis is required to take beneficial democratic
political decisions. For example, we know that the benefits (not only economic) of an
open border policy far outweigh the costs. Problems are created only if the benefits
and costs are not analogously distributed to various segments of society. Recently,
this has created a global anti-globalization movement which started as a reaction to
the Great Recession of 2007/8. The greatest manifestations of such a global antiglobalization sentiment are the recent Brexit vote in Britain and the presidential
election in USA.
Ideologically speaking both results have been supported primarily by far right
political arguments which were very similar to those which brought fascist regimes to
power in continental Europe in the 1930s. The return to national populism and the
apparent political hegemony of adulators using anti-globalization emblems such as
“Making America Great Again” and anti-free trade rhetoric is at least worrisome. The
growth of human welfare including the production of more goods and services that
15
have saved millions of lives from hunger and diseases can be only achieved by the
production and diffusion of new knowledge, i.e. technology. The modern Hermes to
spread the new knowledge is free trade. Only globalization can save the people of the
poor countries from absolute poverty. Globalization increases income and wealth of
the advanced countries as well. If it creates inequality of income and wealth in the
advanced countries, then democracy can be used to ameliorate this as it did in Ancient
Athens. But this issue also requires gnosis with arête. Demagogues and populists
might have graduated from the best Universities of the world and were excellent
student in a very restrictive scientific area but they definitely lack encyclopedic gnosis
and most importantly arête. They have very good education but not pedagogy. Such
demagogues can be found in the entire political spectrum from left to right1.
The world today needs more Prometheus (technology) and Argonauts (traders).
The titans Iapetus and Clymene had four sons: Prometheus (the “robber” of Gods
secrets), Atlas (the holder of the planet from falling apart), Epimetheus (the
blunderer), and Menoetius (the trouble maker). The globalized world needs more than
ever before titans like Atlas and Prometheus. The world needs Atlases to keep the
globe from falling apart (peace). Also, the world needs “thieves” like Prometheus to
steal all the secrets that Gods hid from the human race. World wealth and income will
increase. And then it is up to democracy to share the benefits of globalization inside
and outside individual countries. But democracy with isegoria and isocracy
minimizes the probability to have political leaders like Epimetheus and Menoetius
who will ever emerge to power. In such a democracy, a way can always be found to
distribute what globalization produces but the world gains nothing from destroying it
(e.g. by wars) or never producing it (restricting international trade).
This again requires gnosis and arête and globalization can help on this as well.
Globalization promotes gnosis through its international spillovers of knowledge. As
1
The 1% argument is demagogic. It is persuasive for the mass of people without
gnosis coming from people with restrictive education but without arête. But even is as
a scientific argument is false. In real life what counts is not what the 1% makes but
whether the poorest of the 99% can benefit from globalization. In a democracy,
policies can be designed whereby the poorest of the 99% improve their economic
situation along with an increase in the relative wealth of the 1%. But it is quite
possible that this policy would not make the poorest of 99% better off. On the
contrary, a higher share of the top 1% might be beneficial in absolute terms for the
poorest of the 99%. This is an argument of isoteleia which is not the real problem of
the modern world. The real political problems relate to isegoria and isocracy as
explained in Papanikos (2017).
16
Grossman & Helpman (2015, p.100) put it “[S]cientists exchange ideas when they
meet at international conferences. Knowledge flows in the course of business
transactions and in other human interactions. And learning from abroad can occur
without personal contact via publications and reverse engineering”. All these can be
achieved only if societies are open like Ancient Athens so scientists can see and learn.
Today’s information and communication technologies permit the learning even
without seeing, i.e. being physically present.
Encyclopedic gnosis today can be acquired faster and much cheaper. Therefore,
there is no excuse for citizens who vote not to be able to learn about the political and
social issues. Never before in history were citizens at such a privileged situation to
acquire such knowledge. However, everybody should be free to get or not to get the
necessary knowledge. But the politeia should be protected from all those who want to
vote without gnosis1. They are perfect candidates to become victims of demagogues
and populist politicians. In Pericles words these people are useless and cannot be
considered citizens. Those citizens who are not interested in learning about the
political issues should not be allowed to vote. Democracy needs a new process on
voting which modern technology can make very simple as explained in more detail in
Papanikos (2017).
Book 2, Chapter 40 of Thucydides History which is part of Pericles Funeral
Oration analyzes citizens’ active political participation in a democracy. These are
some key points. First, wealth is considered necessary to have time to acquire gnosis.
Second, poverty was not something to feel ashamed about but people should be
ashamed if they do not work to get out of it. Third, each one’s private affairs to create
income and wealth should not be an excuse “not to have a satisfactory gnosis
(knowledge) of the political issues”2. Fourth, those who do not participate in the
political affairs are not only indifferent but useless. Fifth, those who participate should
“study correctly the issues” (ἐνθυμούμεθα ὀρθῶς τὰ πράγματα) and they do not cause
any harm (βλάβην), if they learn before deciding to take any action for all the works
that should be done (προδιδαχθῆναι μᾶλλον λόγῳ πρότερον ἢ ἐπὶ ἃ δεῖ ἔργῳ ἐλθεῖν).
But this is the crux of the matter. In a democracy, you cannot decide and act
without knowledge (gnosis). To repeat, in Ancient Athenian democracy people voted
over issues and not on people to represent them. It was more important to know the
After all, today many citizens are free not to vote. They can abstain.
“… τὰ πολιτικὰ μὴ ἐνδεῶς γνῶναι”.
1
2
17
issues and not so much to know the people. And this is the fundamental difference
between democracy in Ancient Athens and the modern political systems of the
advanced countries. Today, the citizens are anxious to know the personal details, all
kinds of details, of their representatives, and they ignore the acquisition knowledge of
issues. The details include all kind of “news” which is a combination of useless
personal information, fake news and sycophancy.
5. Conclusions
Ancient Athens was a great open society with democracy as the cornerstone of its
politeia. Only a small part of such openness had to do with trade and investment in
goods and services. The larger part had to do with people and ideas. Athens developed
a system of democracy where all four criteria of democracy were, to a great extent,
satisfied: isegoria, isocracy, isoteleia and isonomy. All four are needed for a
democracy. Whatever less creates a democratic deficit. Societies with democratic
deficits cannot and should not be open societies. Globalization can be sustained only
if this process is decided and implemented by democratic states.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Andrews, J. A. (2004) “Pericles on the Athenian Constitution (Thuc. 2.37)” The
American Journal of Philology, 125(4): 539-561.
Crick, B. (2002) Democracy: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Figueira, T.J. (2003) “Xenelasia and Social Control in Classical Sparta” The
Classical Quarterly, New Series, 53(1): 44-74.
Grossman, G.M. and E. Helpman (2015). "Globalization and Growth" American
Economic Review, 105(5): 100-104.
James, P. & M. B. Steger (2014) “A Genealogy of ‘Globalization’: The Career of
a Concept” Globalizations, 11(4): 417-434.
Papanikos (2017)
Schlaifer, R. (1936) “Greek Theories of Slavery from Homer to Aristotle”
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 47: 165-204.
18