8- On legitimacy- Draft

 What does the idea of legitimacy applied to Ancient Greek tell us about us?

In modern times, nation-states give us a complete ready-to-eat political menu, like fish&chips of legitimacy and power. In this combo the State is the super-power machinery to govern over territory and people. It is assumed to be sovereign. The Nation is the legitimating ingredient that enables to take control of the state.

In Ancient Greek we don't have the State. We have many political arrangements instead. In the studies of  Ancient Greek, Polis is no doubt the main one.

"Early Poleis thus have a communal will and voice, begin to regulate their government apparatus and relations among citizens, and are on the way to formalizing institutions and 'institutionalizing' the polis." (Raaflaub 2015)

Polis compete among themselves like the states do, they probably assume themselves independent (autopolitai, wlwutheria, autonomia, Bearzot 2015) like the States do, they are fascinating government apparatus as states are, but they are far from being super-power machinery of control. Sovereignty doesn't really fit as a concept of Polis or other political arrangement of Ancient Greek (I don't even know whether there is a word that means sovereignty in Ancient Greek). 

Not only Polis

Other political arrangements are villages, sympoliteia, alliances in the form of symmachies or epimachies, leagues-type arrangements, anphyktyonies, treaties of common peace, Koinon, ecc So in terms of political menu, Ancient Greek does not offer only one type of institution for the organization of power as the State states for moderns, but many. And rather than control machinary Greek arrangements are much less powerful.

"Archaic Greece thus lacked the potential for empire building and, with few exceptions, its wars, though frequent, were not about conquest for the sake of subjections and permanent exploitation (Raaflaub 1994:114-18)" in Raaflaub (2015)

In classical and hellenistic periods we find that some cities grew in power and aspired to domain others but they never become empires, they always need the legitimazing power of the respective alliances. 

The need for legitimation

Sparta may have abused on it power over the league, imposing military campaigns or interfering in the internal organization of the poleis and Athens abused of the Delian League using its resources for its interest and preventing that poleis leave the league. Also Thebes used extra power on the Beaotic Koinon specially after Leuktra 371BC. But all these examples of the exercise of domination were originally backed by a previous construccion of complex legitimazing systems and it is difficult to think of the power of Athens, Sparta and Thebes without the Dealian League, the Peloponesiann League and the Beaotic Koinon*. Power alone can do little, specially if power is as scarce as in Ancient Greek, legitimation creates its own enforcement power.

Legitimation at Primary Assembly (Ekklessìa): paticipation

I personally don't care much about how hegemon a polis is, what I find interesting is the efforts that greek make in the creation of power through rational- giuridic legitimation (weber). Greeks use many instruments to contruct legitimation of authority out of individual freedom. They developed the idea that in order to live in society we need to take decision through pubblic discussion and then obbey those decisions.

"In fin dei conti furono i greci che scoprirono non solo la democrazia ma anche la politica stessa, che è l'arte di conseguire decisioni mediante la discussione pubblica e poi di obbedire a quelle decisioni in quanto condizione necessaria di una convivenza civile" Finley 1973

There is a rationality that links "pubblic discussion" -> "common decisions" -> "obbedience" -> "peaceful cohabitation" that does not need enforcement because the power of the common decision is backed by the pubblic discussion and by our will of peaceful cohabitation.

In fact, the basic most used institution are the primary assembly. The primacry assembly was the meeting of all the citizens of the Polis (one in the case of the Polis assembly and many in the case of alliances or Koinon). In early periods this assemblies treated issues related to war but as time passed they become more and more complex and other insitutions and magistrates were added. The combination of a series of magistrates and council and assembly are usually a basic legitimating element.

Legitimation in Multilateral Symmachia: rappresentation with fix mandate

Politics was also part of inter-Polis life because Polis had “communal will and voice” and they could enter into “biding agreements” on behave of that will. Agreements were very common all through Ancient Greek history (philia, epigamia, enktesis, proxenia, epimachia, synmacchia) and they constitute the basis for the Hellenistic international law but they don't create new insitutions, they just re-organize Polis's powers (an exception is the uniton between Argo and Corinto in 392-386 BC).

However, when these treaties -symmachias- become multilaterial (Anphiktyonies, Peloponnesian League, Hellenic league, Delian League) they usually create new entities (leagues' assembly) that can act in the name of the Polis in a way that the decision taken become compulsory for the citizens of all member Polis. I do not forget that Thessalies controlled the Pylaian- Delphic Anphiktyiony, that Spartan controlled the Peloponesian League and Athenians controlled the Delian League. Of course these cities' powers were an enforcement element of these multilateral treaties, but this is not the novelty they present.

The novelty of the multilateral symmachias is the fact that the decisions of the League's Assembly were legitimated on behaf of their representative character. Here the news is in the “representation” term because Polis Assembly were not representative, they were the hole citizenship. Citizen in the Polis Assembly did not represent Polis as our diputies and senators represent the citizen of our country. Citizens in the Polis Assembly were the Polis itself. But the case of multilateral symmachias were different by the fact that the polis (more or less freely) exercize their traditional autopolitai (capacity to be govern by native laws, Bearzot 2015) through an upper level institution in which the Polis itself (not the citizens) is rappesented.

I don't think that Polis loose power in favor of the league's Assembly, they exercize they power in those leagues. Differences in power capacities are part of every anarchical system and it is natural that they will be reflected in interpolis treaties. Weaker polis will have less power in League's Assembly bis a bis an hegemon city when the last one impose its will by abusing of the leagues. However weaker polis may use the Leagues assembly to make hear its voice that could not be heard otherwise.

Representation is a strong term that has at least two implications: the Polis has one single will and that will is presented in the upper level assembly, even when the Polis (its citizens) is not present. The will of the Polis is embodied by one delegate which is the only present in the upper level assembly.

In the case of these V century Leagues we probably don't have a complex system of rappresentation. It is highly probable that the Assembly discusses few arguments regarding war or war preparation, and it is highly probable that the delegate has a fixed mandate to vote on the assembly. So the election of the Polis representatives was not relevant because whoever was a delegate the mandate was the same.

In the representation process the legitimation formula becomes longer and distant than primary assembly: "pubblic discussion in local Assembly" -> "common decisions in local Assembly" -> “delegate mandate” → “Leagues Assembly” → “League's decision” → "obbedience" -> "peaceful cohabitation". Rappresentation offer influence on broader issues but less influence of many important issues.

Legitimation for the domain of Attica through democracy: participation and lot

Other instrument for legitimation was developed in Athens for the domain of Attica and was democracy. Democracy was not just the meeting of an assembly, it was a very complex system that from Solone's system to Clistene's reforms made the citizen the main actor of the social and political life.

Here the legitimation formula es quite complex because Athens assembly was not exactly primary since the participation on it was regulated by a complex selection based on demografic statistics and lot. We can reassume the formula in the following terms: “complex system of demographic demarcation” → “participation positions on the bases of statistical calculaitons” → “lot: everybody who wishes has the same probability to participate” → “common decisions in Athens Assembly”→ "obbedience" -> "peaceful cohabitation".

It is paradoxical that in modern time democracy is about elections and representation but in classical Athens was about direct participation and lot.

Legitimation in Koinon: Representation and election (?).

Finally the Koinon was an extraordinary legitimation structure.

La representación supera la democracia directa en muchos aspectos.

doble ciudadania

In all this, ethnicity can be of some help but not necessarily a legitimating element as in the Nation-States, rather supporting the sense of fraternity, communality, truth in the institutions, facilitating element for exchange. In particular ethnicity is a resource for power creation if it favours communication, interaction, commerce, agreements on issues like weight & measures, epigamia (exchage of rights of marriage), enktesis (exchange of rights of property), ecc.

We noticed that the Achaean League was strong in terms of political power bis a bis the polis but not ethnically homogeneous because it incorporated many non Achaean cities. And the Beaotic League was weaker in terms of political power bis a bis the constitutient units although it can be traced since….. and is ethnically homogeneous with an antique ethnic identity*. I think this can be explain by the fact that ethnicity is not a legitimating element of Ancient Greek political institutions as it is in Nation-State. It is a resource for political formation and power creation.

*Lakedaimonioi Kai Hoi Symmachoi (Lacedemoni and its allies), Athenaioi Kai Hoi Symmachoi (Athenian and its allies) were the formula cited to name the Peloponesian and Delian League which means that even in the literally tradition to name Sparta and Athen's power it was necesary to name the "allies" too. The institutions of this "leagues" such as the assembly are concrete expression of the need of the allies no matter how much control had Spata and Athens over them. The Peloponessian war was wanted by Sparta's ally Corinthos and the treasure of the Delian League was kept in Delos for more than 20 years (477-454 BC)

Finley, I Moses (1973) "La democrazia degli antichi e dei moderni" Bari:Laterza