Category: Athens

Introduction:

Democracy, as a form of government, has evolved significantly over time. Athenian democracy, which emerged in ancient Greece, laid the foundation for modern democratic systems, such as the one practiced in the United States. While both Athenian and American democracies share the principles of citizen participation and popular rule, there are notable differences between the two systems. This essay aims to compare and contrast Athenian democracy and modern American democracy, highlighting their distinct characteristics and the ways in which they shape the political landscape.

Citizen Participation:

In Athenian democracy, all eligible male citizens participated directly in decision-making through assemblies and voting. This form of direct democracy allowed citizens to have a direct say in policy-making. In contrast, modern American democracy operates through representative democracy, where citizens elect representatives who make decisions on their behalf. While citizens have the right to vote and participate in elections, the decision-making power is delegated to elected officials.

Eligibility and Inclusivity:

Athenian democracy had certain eligibility criteria for participation. Only male citizens above a certain age and of Athenian descent were considered eligible. Women, slaves, and foreigners were excluded from political participation. In contrast, modern American democracy has expanded to include a broader segment of the population. Universal suffrage allows all citizens, regardless of gender, race, or social status, to participate in the electoral process and hold public office.

Size and Scale:

The size and scale of Athenian democracy were significantly smaller compared to modern American democracy. Athens was a city-state with a limited population, making it easier for citizens to gather in the assembly and participate in decision-making. In contrast, the United States is a vast nation with a diverse population spread across different states. The scale of modern American democracy necessitates the use of representative structures to accommodate the vastness of the country.

The Role of Institutions:

Athenian democracy relied on direct participation and decision-making by citizens in the assembly. Institutions played a minimal role in the system, and there were no separate branches of government. In modern American democracy, institutions such as the executive, legislative, and judicial branches have distinct roles and powers. The system is designed to provide checks and balances, ensuring the separation of powers and preventing the concentration of authority.

Legal Framework:

Athenian democracy did not have a written constitution but relied on customary laws and traditions. Decisions were made on a case-by-case basis. In contrast, modern American democracy operates under a written constitution that outlines the fundamental principles, rights, and powers of the government. The constitution serves as a legal framework that guides the functioning of the government and protects individual rights.

Representation and Political Parties:

Athenian democracy did not have political parties or formal mechanisms for representation. All eligible citizens had the opportunity to voice their opinions and vote directly. In modern American democracy, political parties play a crucial role in representing different ideologies and interests. Citizens align with political parties and elect representatives who advocate for their beliefs and concerns.

Conclusion:

While both Athenian democracy and modern American democracy share the fundamental principles of citizen participation and popular rule, they differ significantly in terms of citizen eligibility, the role of institutions, the scale of governance, legal frameworks, and the mechanisms of representation. Athenian democracy was characterized by direct citizen participation, limited eligibility, and a smaller scale of governance, whereas modern American democracy operates through representative structures, inclusivity, and a complex system of checks and balances. Understanding these differences helps us appreciate the evolution of democratic systems and their impact on shaping societies and governance in different historical and contemporary contexts.

In the United States and other parts of the world, we have the right to vote for people we believe in and it’s our responsibility. Being apart of a process where your options count is the definition to a political system known as democracy. Back in ancient times, the world was mainly ruled by tyrants and kings. It’s clear how different the idea of democracy actually is. But where did democracy originated? In this essay, I will talk about the beginnings of democracy in Ancient Greece and when the first examples of democracy occurred, how it developed into a true form of democracy, and why democracy is important.

Back in Ancient times, the world was run in a different way. One form of an extreme political system is Monarchy, which is Greek for ‘rule by one’ and this position is usually inherited within a family. Greek city-states were oligarchie, but around the 5th century BC in the Greek city-state of Athens, Greek pioneers set up an experiment of direct democracy, rather than having a representative democracy. This city state was one of “the first recorded and most important democracies in ancient times” (Cartledge, 2018). I believe that the citizens of Athens wanted to try something new because they didn’t agree with the forms of political systems. By having the villages of Athens and the city-state as a whole, the community became increasingly more important to the leaders. They believed the citizens should have the power, but with some expectations. The people really did like this new system, but during this time, the citizens were adult men.

Not everyone who lived in Athens were considered citizens. The women, slaves, and children Athens were not considered citizens and therefore could not participate or vote. I think that the women of Athens at the time should of had the ability to participate in voting. These women could of made Athens a better society, but we have to consider that these were ancient times. Furthermore, every year, there was a drawing of five hindered names that were drawn from a group of citizens of Athens. These five hundred names were part of the Council of 500 and it was part of a body of government. During their one year term, they had the responsibility of creating new laws and adjusting the new laws to their current standards. Nothing they did became a law until the citizens, all adult males, had their chance to participate in voting yes or no. Once the date was posted, citizens had to attend an assembly on the day the vote was taken.

Within the final votes, the majority number of votes ruled. According to history, ancient Athens had the direct form of democracy where all citizens vote on the rules and laws that lasted for roughly one hundred years. Their experiment with direct democracy came to an end after Athens lost a war with Sparta, known as the Peloponnesian War. For a small period of time, Arthens was ruled by a small group of Spartans.

Furthermore, democracy was developed thanks to the ancient Greeks. They were the first to create the government form of democracy. The word democracy is a Greek word that means people (demos) and rule (kratos). From 460 BCE to 320 BCE, the Athens started to use their own version of a political system. Other Greek allies and colonies began to copy their form of democracy. Depending on the population during the period of Athens, any male citizen of Athen could participate in the main democratic body of Athens. Once they were voted in, thanks to the male citizens, they were to meet at least once a month on the Pnyx Hill.

The Pnyx Hill is located in central Athens. The Athenians began to gather in the hill and host their meetings. The Pnyx Hill is considered to be one of the most “most important sites in the creation of democracy” (Greeka, 2019). A simple rise of the hand was the from that any citizen to speak to the assembly and vote. I find it interesting to see how easy it was to vote on something but just raising the hand, unlike today where there is a whole process in order for someone to vote. Those who vote today, at least in the United States, people don’t reveal who they voted for. The final decision was made by the most votes. Within these meetings, nine presidents (proedroi) were elected and they were held in office for one time only. Other issues were also discussed in the assembly. They made decisions in control of the military and finance. If there was a situation where a citizen were to become too powerful and dangerous for the Polis, the assembly could vote to avoid this. A ‘Polis’ is a structure of a community in Ancient Greece. It is translated as ‘city-state’ and was built on a natural acropolis.

The smaller body of government in Athens, the boulē, decided and proposed on what topic needed to be discussed in the assembly. The people within the boulē were 500 who were chosen by voting. In times of crisis and war, the boulē can make decisions without the assembly meeting. Participation was encouraged and in certain periods, the attendance in the assembly was paid for. This was a measure to motivate citizens who lived far away and could not afford the time off to attend. I far as I can tell, the assembly played a major role in making decisions and voting for certain things. It was like the House of Representatives or The Senate that is known as today in the United States.

In global politics, mentioning of the Athenian democracy and American democracy is common. Interestingly, the world’s first democracy developed in Athens at a time when it was growing imperial. However, major differences and similarities occur between the Athenian democracy and American democracy. For instance, a ‘lot chose a leader in Athens’ while a leader in the US is elected (Athenian democracy 1). The major similarity between the two is that the legislative branch passes the law. However, the following discussion will delve into some of these variations and similarities to better understand the Athenian democracy and American democracy. On the onset, democratic strategies were much varied in Ancient Athens than it is experienced in contemporary countries such as the US. One of the features of the Athenian democracy is that it was elusive. In simpler terms, ‘slaves, women, and children, as well as resident aliens, lacked citizenship’ (Paul 1).

They were denied the opportunity to vote. Such a group of persons lacked any effect on the government during this time. Hence, a few privileged individuals filled with the government. For example, the Archons occupied most of the government seats thereby limiting equality. Besides, males above 20years were ‘allowed to vote and go to Ekklesia’ (Rubenstein 245). In the United States, equality is stressed and seeks to limit exclusion and violation of the fundamental human rights. Persons not born in the US, but acquire citizenship through legal ways enjoy the same rights enjoyed by the natives (Patterson 267). For instance, Barack Obama went to the point of becoming the US president. The other feature of the Athenian democracy is the estrangement of political power was absurd to the Greek people. The Greeks had elections via a ‘chance method and they personally selected their military leaders,’ which are known as the ‘selection by lot’ (Athenian democracy 1). Random selection was experienced in Athens believing that they gave everyone the chance to serve in government. However, in the US, the citizens elect their leaders in free and fair elections. Notably, the ‘Athens democracy was direct’ while the American one is ‘representative democracy’ (Hudson 67).

Every person in Athens had an equal say in what the government would do. The citizens directly made new laws. Interestingly, they could act as judges and decide when to go to war. In the US, democracy is representative (indirect) such that ‘citizens elect officials to represent them and such representatives do the majority of lawmaking and governing’ (Patterson 257). The other distinguishing factor between the two democracies is that Athenians had to look for particular qualifications before making a selection of judges, but none could reflect professional legal experience. In the US states, the selected person has to ‘demonstrate professional legal experience’ and would be either selected by existing officials (Rubenstein 367). Citizenship in Athens was determined using different criteria contrary to what is experienced in the US today. The right to citizenship was not derived from socioeconomic status, but the ‘power of appropriation’ as well as the ‘relations between classes’ was directly influenced by democratic citizenship (Gill 1). In the US, those who meet the legal prerequisites meet the right to citizenship. In the criminal justice system, the citizens had to represent personally themselves in court than getting a lawyer (Hudson 67). However, in American Democracy, a person is needed a lawyer to represent him in the court of law.

The other major key to note between the two is that ‘Athens lacked a formal system of balances and checks’ (Paul 1). Athens could not make firm institutional bodies. It is noted that government bodies had a stable membership only for a very short time. In the US, formal systems of checks and balances survive where accountability is advocated. However, there are notable similarities between the two democracies where both of them have three branches of government, which is inscribed in the philosophy of the separation of powers. The Athenian government had three arms of government namely ‘Boule, Ekklesia, and Dikasteria’ (Paul 1). In the US, there is the legislature, parliament, and judiciary. The other similarity between the two types of democracy is the presence of patriotism and nationalism. In Athens, the Athenians were always ‘free in welfare ‘such that they related well with their neighbors such as Sparta (Paul 1).

The Americans are known to be nationalistic and patriotic such that is seen with respect for each other. The other noted similarity between the two is the concept of assemblage. In the Athenian democracy, the citizens ‘Assembly witnessed meetings at least forty times every year’ to discuss and mitigate issues threatening their survival (Athenian Democracy 1). Such meetings solved political, social, and economic problems. Meetings in the US are done regularly to mitigate economic, social, and political issues. It can be related that Athenian democracy and American democracy have similarities and variations. Some of the similarities between the two are that they enjoy three arms of government in addition to having regular meetings to discuss issues affecting the nations. However, major differences are witnessed between that are witnessed in voting, eligibility to vote, and the appointment of judges.

Works Cited

1. Athenian Democracy. 2019. http://www.uvm.edu/~jbailly/courses/clas21/notes/atheniandemocracy.html
2. Hudson, William E. American Democracy in Peril: Eight Challenges to America’s Future. , 2016. Print.
3. Paul Cartledge. History: Critics and Critiques of Athenian Democracy. BBC. 2017. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/greekcritics_01.shtml
4. Rubenstein, Harry R. American Democracy: A Great Leap of Faith. 2017. Internet resource.
5. S.L. Gill. Democracy Then and Now. ThoughtCo. 2019. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/democracy-then-and-now-111997
6. Patterson, Thomas E. The American Democracy. London: McGraw-Hill Education – Europe, 2003. Print.

The Assembly and the law courts were democratic institutions. These institutions were political and contributed to the empowerment and betterment of the Athenian state. This essay will discuss how the law courts were the most important democratic institution in Athens through its executive role. By exploring how the Assembly and the law courts operated as independent institutions and how the Assembly by the 4th century BC was incredibly governed by the law courts. In addition, the weaknesses of the Assembly and the rise in power of the law courts as the highest institution of the state. Conversely highlighting its shortcomings.

Athens was the definitive example of direct democracy the Assembly allowed for male citizens to participate directly in the running of the state. The decree of the Assembly began with the formula “it was decided by the people” (Hansen,1991:125). Therefore, it provided an important public space for people to come together. Meeting of the Assembly was held on the Pnyx, “the Pnyx was almost a symbol for the Assembly, and even for the democracy itself” (Hansen,1991:129). All male citizens were able to attend the Assembly but women, slaves, metics and people who forfeited their rights (atimoi) were excluded, foreigners could only be present as spectators (Hansen,1991:129). It is evident that the Assembly was pedantic on who could participate as a Council oversaw arresting any unauthorized persons at the Assembly (Hansen,1991:129). The Assembly was summoned by the Prytaneis (presidency) (Hansen,1991:133). They met frequently, 30- 40 times a year. The objective of the Assembly was to pass decrees and laws all binding on Athenian citizens. Decisions of the Assembly were in three types: decrees, judicial sentences, and elections (Hansen,1991:155). Most of the decrees consisted of honorary decrees granting citizenship, during the 5th century BC and mid-4th century BC the Assembly had power as a court of law to try cases and they elected magistrates and other officials (Hansen,1991:158). Briefly, the process is that a member of the Assembly proposed decrees, which were forwarded to the governing body of the Assembly and included in the agenda. The proposition was voted on and if majority was in favor of the rule, the decrees was passed and publicized through an inscription and the stone publicly displayed in the Agora, the Athenian civic center (Hansen). Specific decisions of the Assembly were required by law to be approved by a quorum of 6000, voting by ballot. Hence why 6000 people needed to be present at the Assembly to meet quorum requirements (Hansen,1991:130). Notably the desire to attend the Assembly diminished. Aristotle says there are 2 ways to stimulate participation in the Assembly, punish those who do not attend and reward those who do. They began paying people to attend the Assembly, this increased participation significantly. They were paid 3 obols and pay this was granted for the first 6000 people (Hansen,1991:150). Through participation, the Assembly shaped policy and the Athenian political body.

Athenian democracy was based on the principle of total participation. The law courts were used to make political decisions. They were the hallmark of the democracy (Hansen,1991:178). Distinctly, the courts in Athens and modern times differ. In Athens personal matters were dealt with by an arbitrator and only brought to the court if the party involved appealed against them, criminal matters were dealt with, without the court. The court mostly handled political trials and “the political powers of the courts included a long series of administrative responsibilities” (Hansen,1991:178). They can be considered the highest organ of the state. The court took a democratic approach by ensuring that no professional or expert ran the law court, this meant it would not turn into an oligarchy. The approach was applied to everyone; as judgement was not given by a professional judge, administration of the court was run by magistrates, there were no state prosecutor, every charge had to be carried out by an ordinary citizen and parties were expected to carry their suits through in person, no one else could appear as your advocate in the court (Hansen,1991:180). In Athens “all lawsuits were judged by the courts of the kind called dikasteria” (Sealey,2007:244). Each lawsuit had two stages, a hearing before a public officer and the second stage was a hearing among the 501 dikastai who would pass judgement by vote. If a citizen thought a decree passed contravened with the laws, they could prosecute the proposer in the dikasterion (Sealey,2007:249). The specific qualifications to become a juror were as follows: the male citizen had to be at least thirty years, they had to have been picked by lot at the beginning of the year, they had to swear the Heliastic Oath and had to be picked by lot on a given day to serve that day (Hansen,1991:181). Mainly the poor occupied the People’s Court and the daily pay was 3 obols.

By the 4th century the capability of the Assembly was considerably limited as every matter that came to the Assembly was already discussed by the Council (Hasen,1991:152). The Council was an organ of the Athenian politics and was the governing body of the Assembly. After the defeat in the Peloponnesian War, “they limited the powers of the Assembly of the People” (Hansen,1991:151). The power of the Assembly was confined, and the people’s capability was reduced to passing decrees, electing magistrates, and passing concrete measures for particular situations (Hansen,1991:151). Decrees of the Assembly were “treated in principle as decisions of the entire Athenian people” (Hansen,1991:130), but in practice a small fraction of the population. The limitations of the Assembly were the following:

1. Power to pass laws was repealed and transferred elsewhere. The Assembly limited to electing magistrates, passing decrees and give judgements to certain political prosecutions.
2. Decrees had to be consistent with the laws.
3. The Assembly had less influence over finances.
4. All political prosecutions had to be judged by the People’s Court. The Assembly lost traces of its jurisdiction.
5. Every matter had to be considered by the Council before it could be put to the Assembly.
6. Every decree from the Assembly could be appealed against by the People’s Court.
7. Election of magistrate was subject to appeal of the Court (Hansen:1991,152).

The shift in power from the Assembly to the court illustrated that the Assembly may not have been as powerful as previously thought. The courts had great influence over the Assembly and the decisions they made, not only could the courts appeal against every decree but the Assembly lost traces of its jurisdiction.

A prime example of the strength of the court were the various accountability measures they had in place to ensure things ran efficiently and swiftly. The courts could call magistrates to account for their administration. Dokimasia was an examination, to test whether a man was formally qualified to hold a public office to which he had been appointed. Individuals had to pass the dokimasia before they could hold the office. It gave the courts “the chance to offset the more unfortunate consequences of selection by lot and to control, and if necessary, overturn, an election made by the Assembly” (Hansen,1991:218). At any given time, any citizen can impeach a magistrate to the People’s Court (Hansen,1991:220), if a magistrate was bias, the court allowed citizens to exercise their democratic rights. The “fate and fortunes of individuals rested in the hands of the citizen jurors” (Sinclair,1988:132). Jurors had the power to block any proposal made by a member of the Assembly on the grounds that the proposal was unconstitutional. From the above statement it is evident that the law courts served as robust checks and balances in Athenian polis. The law courts essentially had the final authority, at the beginning of 403 BC the law courts were left to examine and approve new laws or change the existing ones (Sinclair,1988:132). Lysias speech ‘On the Murder of Eratosthenes’, illustrates how citizens appeared before the court and advocated for themselves. Euphiletos is accused of murdering Eratosthenes but according to Athenian law if your wife is caught with her lover in the act of adultery you could either kill him or demand compensation. He begins by stating “All I seek to gain is the requital accorded by our laws” (Lysias 1.4). Lysias speech depicts how the courts held the law in high regard. Euphiletos cross-references the law in his speech and reminds the juror that the law states “whoever takes vengeance on an adulterer caught in the act with his spouse shall not be convicted of murder” (Lysias 1.30), because “every city makes its laws on any matter which perplexes us as we may resort to them and enquire what we have to do” (Lysias 1.35). It is evident that jurors needed to support the laws of the state because if they failed to do so they encouraged criminal behavior and their judgement was of the utmost importance as it could either escalate or deescalate criminal activity.

The Assembly retained an important role in the initial phase of legislation and criminal proceedings (Hansen,1991:158). Despite its important role initially, the law courts “had unlimited power to control the Assembly, the Council, the magistrates and the political leaders” (Hansen,1991:178). In the courts the demos had the power. Because the court had incredible power it “was competent to judge every lawsuit and condemn every sort of crime” (Hanen,1991:203). The court also “exercised its political role by giving judgement in political trials” (Hansen,1991:203). There are 3 prosecutions that formed the basis of the political powers of the People’s Court, the first is Graphe paranomon – against the orators, the second – Eisangelia eis ton demon – for treason or bribery – against the generals, and the last Euthynai – questioning of magistrate- against all magistrate (Hansen,1991:205). The Athenian Constitution details how the law courts were structured and how jurors judged cases. It also outlines their authority in Athens and its importance as a democratic institution. The law courts consisted of 500 members and for important cases members could reach 1000 and for extremely important cases 1500 members (Aristotle, Athenian Constitution: part 68). The law courts oversaw all other political organs within the state. In the constitution it stated “if they detect any magistrate in embezzlement, the jury condemn him for theft, and he is obliged to repay tenfold the sum he is declared to have misappropriated” (Aristotle, Athenian Constitution: part 54). Additionally, “If they charge a magistrate with accepting bribes and the jury convict him for corruption, and this sum too is repaid tenfold” (Aristotle, Athenian Constitution: part 54). The law courts were especially particular about who became a juror, they needed to meet the requirements and “if any unqualified person serves as a juror and information is laid against him and he is brought before the court and if he is convicted; the jurors assess the punishment all fine which they consider him to deserve” (Aristotle, Athenian Constitution: part 63). These observed practices were not only evident within the law courts but was extended into the democratic sphere and other institutions.

Be that as it may, no institution is perfect, and the law courts did have its deficiencies. Athenians did not have the modern concept of the law, “they did not recognize an underlying body of the law” and so the Athenian “dkastias swore to vote in accordance with the most just opinion” (Sealey,2007: 249). This meant that judgement was irregular. “Lysias also claimed that it was common for juries to convict but then to impose no penalty” (Sinclair,1988:133). Personal interest of jurors could affect their judgement hence why it could be understood as capricious. Aristophanes, a Greek playwright commented on how jury work only attracted a certain type of individual who may not be attracted to the job description but to the pay (Roth, 2020). Jurors were also said to abuse their power as they were amateurs who in some instances could muddle political systems and procedures, further the system was opened to abuse (Roth,2020) and those who could took advantage of that.

Conclusively, Athenians did not entrust power to a single organ. Authority was divided between the Assembly and the law courts; however, the law courts wielded more power. They served as robust checks and balances over other political institutions. The Assembly, magistrates and other officials were accountable to the law courts. The court ensured these organs operated alongside the laws of the state, they had power to overturn any unconstitutional decisions and behaviors. The court was a necessary and paramount democratic institution, it enforced democratic ideals and limited despotism and coercion.

References

1. Aristotle, Athenian Constitution. Translated by Sir Frederic G. Kenyon. Available online: http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/athenian_const.html
2. Hansen, M.H. 1991. The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes. Oxford. 125-224.
3. Perseus.tufts.edu. 1930. Lysias, On The Murder Of Eratosthenes,Section 1.Translated by W.R.M Lamb, M.A. Cambridge. MA. Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. [online].
4. Roman, R. 2020. SLL2055S. Athenian History: Lecture Notes/Slides. Unpublished.
5. Sealey, R. 2007. Democratic Theory and Practice, The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Pericles, 238-257.
6. Sinclair, R,K. 1988. Democracy and Participation in Athens. Cambridge. 106-135.

Introduction

Athens and Sparta were one of the most important city-states of Ancient Greece. Although, they were close on the map, they had different values and different lifestyle (York, Smart and Richards, n.d.). However, they also had few similarities and one can be seen in their form of government. In fact, both Athens and Sparta had an assembly which was elected by the people (York, Smart and Richards, n.d.). Another similarity is that both these city-states had slaves, and even if Athens was a democracy, it also practiced slavery (Brand, n.d.). Moreover, in both Athens and Sparta, women, slaves and non-citizens could not participate in the political life and could have no influence on their community.

The differences between Athens and Sparta were present particularly in the structure of government. The main difference was based on the fact that Athens was a democracy where it was the rule of the ‘demos’ which means of the people. Sparta, instead, was an oligarchy which means rule of the few (Brand, n.d.).

In Athens the government was made up of the Boyle or legislative council which was responsible for the legislative agenda. The population assembly which was made-up of all free male Athenian citizens passed or rejected laws the Boule-council proposed (Brand, n.d.). Male citizens could participate in the public life and influence the community by serving on juries and by serving as public officers and jurors. The main rules that governed the selection of public office-holder, such as jurors and minor officials, were based on the lottery system which means they were chosen randomly (Brand, n.d.). The selections were also based on wealth and age, for instance a citizen who wants to serve as a public officer had to have a certain wealth and had to be at least 30 years old. Athens was a class-based society where the few wealthy who were often the aristocrats, known as the ‘500-bushel men’ had the privilege of becoming one of the 10 annually elected generals, who were the primary military and civilian officers. The Athenian system shows was held by male citizens but mostly by the wealthy (Brand, n.d.).

On the other hand, Sparta was an imperial state with a warrior society as it had aligned its entire culture and political system along military lines (Brand, n.d.). In Sparta public office was held by the two kings who came from two separate royal tribes. However, the true power and the ability of making decisions that affect the community rested with the Ephors, who were five magistrates elected every year, and the Gerousia composed of 30 members who were at least 60 years of age and they remain in power until death (Brand, n.d.). Finally, all free male citizens of Sparta were part of the popular assembly but their rights were very limited and whether they became part of the assembly was based on their social class (Brand, n.d.). The Gerousia was selected by the acclamation of the citizens (Britannica, n.d.) and the Ephors were selected by the popular assembly.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Athens and Sparta were two powerful city-states since Sparta’s military strength and Athens’s political strength allowed them to be influential in ancient Greece.

References

1. Brand, P. J. (n.d.). Athens & Sparta: Democracy Vs Dictatorship.
2. York, Swart and Richards. N.d. The Same yet Different.
3. Britannica. N.d. Gerousia. Retrieved from: https://www.britannica.com/topicgerousia