What does the idea of sovereignty applied to Ancient Greek tell us about us?
When comparing Ancient Greek with modern times we should be very careful to not compare theory of one period with facts of other period. The case of sovereign is an example.
The etymology come from Latin meaning Supreme power, and develops around 1600 (Brittannica.com). The Westphalia treaty in 1648 consolidates the system of sovereign state in a top down recognition process in which the concepts of State and Sovereignty were definitively linked. We assume that states are sovereign when they are recognized by internal and international actors the supreme authority over a territory and the people living in it.
Sovereignty belongs to the realm of rights not facts. So when we talk about sovereignty we should have in mind that it is a concept that denotes a right and a recognition of that right, not de facto situation. This is why we consider that States (or people represented in the government that controls the State) can decide to keep or share sovereignty to international treaties or internal sub-units.
Sovereignty doesn't really fit as a concept of Polis or Koinon or other political arrangement of Ancient Greek. Bearzot (2015) writes about the Ancient theoretical reflections on federalism and she shows that Ancient Greeks were not that much worried about supreme power (at least in their writings about federalism) but rather they theorize about:
Regarding the Hellenic leagues of Hellenic and Classical times, the worries were about autonomia, eunoia (voluntary acceptance), koine airene, eleutheria (freedom), hegemon. This is because the IV century Leagues were backed by presence of the persian king's power or the makedonian king's army. (Smarczyk 2015)
Of course, the concepts mentioned above are about about the structure of power but in different terms that sovereignty. Greeks refer to a bottom up process of cohabitation where power needs to be constructed out of citizens and primary assemblies support. While as we mentioned sovereignty relates to a top-down proces where power is delimitated and reorganized.
We cannot deduce that the reference of Aristotle to "self-sufficient cities" or "politeia capacity" mean supreme power. May be they just refer to the ability to create law in the sense of self-government. Not even the word "hegemon" can be traduced as "sovereign" because “hegemon” is a relative term (more power that others, controlling others), while "sovereign" is an absolute term (the hole supreme power, no one can be recognized as superior). Supreme power is something that may be the Persian King had, that Philip II and Alexander The Great wanted, but it is not something that Ancient Greeks mention.
Bearzot (2015) cites Hell 6.5.6-9
"The followers of Kallibios and Proxenos were making efforts to the end that all the people of Arkadia should unite, and that whatever measure was carried in the common assembly should be binding on the several cities as well".
She interprets that
"cities are explicitly requested to renounce part of their sovereignty in order to align themselves with common provisions".
Bearzot (2015) takes from granted that the ancient cities are sovereign in modern terms, however it seem to me that cities are expected to "live under the laws of their fathers", to have "autopoliteia" or "politeia capacity" in Aristotle expression. Cities have not sovereign rights (realm of rights), they expect to express govern capacity (realm of facts).
Sovereignty is very easy to imagine (rights realm) but very difficult to put in practice. In practice being sovereign means doing what you want. Every time a political unit has to behave in a way it doesn't desire is not complete sovereign. Tucidides make this point very clear when he descrives Athenians ambassadors telling Medenians “..right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power...”. De facto sovereignty is a question between equals even today. How do we explain military actions to Irak, Afganistan and recent threatens to Taiwan by China? Aren't all these countries sovereign? Sovereignty is subject to violation every time there is a difference of power. The facto power is well analyzed by international relations theory, for example K. Waltz (1987).
In conclusion, I prefer to avoid the sovereignty discussion in Ancient Greek because it refers to a right of modern international order that Greek did not know or share. Instead I prefer to analyze "legitimacy" because it is not a right, it is a concept that describes the situation in which power is created. Legitimacy is difficult to describe but it is everywhere in practice.
Let's go back to the question at the beginning of the post: What does the idea of sovereignty applied to Ancient Greek tell us about us?: That we need to escape from the trap of Nation-State. After all sovereignty is an historical concept linked to the system of States. If we want keep our minds open to solve conflict we need to focus on alternative ways of legitimatizing authority and stop thinking in rigid ways of justifying sovereign power.
Bibliography
Bearzot, C. (2015) “Ancient theoretical reflections on federalism” in Hans Beck and Peter Funke “Federalism in Greek Antiquity” Chapter 28 Edited by Cambridge University Press
Smarczyk, B. (2015) “The Hellenic leagues of the late Classical and Hellenistic times and their place in the history of Greek Federalim” in Hans Beck and Peter Funke “Federalism in Greek Antiquity” Chapter 25 Edited by Cambridge University Press
Waltz, K. (1987) “Teoria della politica internazionale” Bologna: Il Mulino
Commenti
Posta un commento