GOVERNMENT BY ALL THE

PEOPLE

CHAPTER I

CONDITIONS THAT INVITE A PARTIAL REVIVAL OF PURE DEMOCRACY IN THE PRESENT AGE

ATHENS in its golden epoch is the joy of history. All men are glad in her glory. Even after the flight of twenty-four centuries we are proud to live on the same planet where she flourished. In spite of her paganism, in spite of the primitive status of the physical sciences in her day, in spite of her narrow territory and comparatively small population, her primacy in art, letters, philosophy, and general culture remains undisputed. Even the proud Saxons of the present day, whose dominions encircle the earth, are constrained to admit that nowhere else in history has the average value of human life by reason of the intelligence and culture of the people reached so high a level as in ancient Athens under the democracy.

We speak of the form of government that prevailed in Athens and in certain other city-states of ancient and medieval times as a "pure democracy." By this we mean that these city-states were governed by

3

popular assemblies. It was only their narrow area and their limited population that made this possible. Yet in the modern sense even these democracies were limited. Slavery existed everywhere and it is believed that the slaves were at least half of the entire population. Moreover, political rights were not easily acquired by aliens, who also formed a considerable proportion of the inhabitants. Women, also, were much more strictly excluded from participation in public affairs than they are in modern cities. The most important of these limitations upon democracy, as contrasted with modern conditions, was slavery, which insured to the ruling citizen-class freedom from menial occupations, and leisure to devote to culture and politics. Yet, even under these circumstances, democracy led a rather turbulent life. The Athenians manifested wonderful political intelligence and self-control. Yet they in common with all city-states governed by mass meeting were subject to quick fluctuations of public opinion and the influence of eloquent demagogues. In ancient and medieval times democracies, oligarchies, and tyrannies followed each other in rapid succession in many of the free cities.

With the growth of national states pure democracy as a mode of government came to be discredited, partly because of its supposed instability, and partly because it was physically impracticable in wide territories with scattered populations. Even in cities it was rendered less and less practicable by the growth of population, by the admixture of aliens of many tongues, and by the widening of the basis of citizenship. It is noteworthy that when the American Re

public was established pure democracy found its only practical refuge in the New England town-meeting, where a virile citizenship in small rural communities made it practicable as a mode of government in local affairs, and its only theoretical refuge in the brains of the Virginia aristocracy, which like the ancient Athenians dwelt upon a high plateau of privilege supported by the institution of slavery. In writing the constitution, the fathers did not give pure democracy a serious thought as a mode of government in the nation or in the separate states. The political areas involved were of an extent too vast and the population was too widely dispersed. Nevertheless, the success of the town-meeting soon attracted the attention and excited the admiration of statesmen and publicists. Indeed, the town-meeting has had a profound influence upon the political thought of America and as a practical institution has spread over a considerable portion of the country. But early in the nineteenth century its unsuitableness as a mode of government for large cities became apparent. It is distinctively a rural institution, and with the growing predominance of urban and national problems its relative importance has been much diminished, until now the town-meeting is a sort of national memory, a regret of days gone by and conditions that have passed. Even yet it occasionally happens that some ardent civic reformer, his soul burdened with the political failures of American city government, brings forward some complex and curious plan for reëstablishing town-meeting methods in a metropolis. But these schemes are so manifestly visionary and impracticable that they hardly attract a

X

passing notice. The town-meeting belongs essentially to the past.

It is not to be wondered at that the writers and orators of the conservative or reactionary party, which attributes the failures of popular government in America to too much democracy in our institutions as they are, should deem "pure" democracy to be more and more hopelessly consigned to the limbo of discarded political theories as the years go by. Not discerning that the times have changed, they are filled with disgust when they find themselves confronted in the political twilight of the present day by this ancient ghost which they had thought to have been exorcised long since from the haunts of practical politics. To them democracy is a terrifying spectre of ignorance in power, of political vagaries applied, of public disorder, of confiscation of hoary privileges, of mob-rule, of social ruin. Pity the sad soul of a Tory who dreams of democracy as his country's fate!

But the old weapons of attack are impotent. Against them the new democracy is fully armored. Printing was invented some time since. The free school stands at every cross-roads. The newspaper flourishes wondrously. The telephone and the telegraph send the voices of debate to the ends of the continent. The railroad conveys books, magazines, and men a thousand miles in a single day. The voting-booth and the ballot-box enable millions of individuals simultaneously to pass judgment upon candidates and measures of the highest import to the state. There is no longer any territorial limit to the action of a democracy. There is no longer any population limit. There is no