1

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 non-democratic 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.

2

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, 1Globalization 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. 2It is true that the concept has now been expanded to include ideas and culture. On the genealogy of the concept see James & Steger (2014). 3Athens 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.

3

such a comparison is considered useful. At the risk of oversimplification, the only

difference between Ancient Athens (6th-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, countries

have no democracy 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 using the experience of Ancient Athens. 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

1Technology is defined as useful knowledge applied to a production process. 2For 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.

4

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 so called 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 city-

state. 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 only

because of their military prowess but because Athenian 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”. 2A 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. 3The 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.

5

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 well 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 Pseudo-

Xenophon, 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 an amalgam 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 an

amalgam 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”.

6

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 a high standard deviation and quite few extreme

values (i.e. cynic philosophers) which are also accepted as being part of the culture.

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

1Metoikoi were something between landed immigrants and foreign workers with a permanent working visa. For example, Aristotle and many other philosophers were metics. 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. 2In 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).

7

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

not so much on exports but on imports 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, ship-

owners 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“… 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”. 4In contrast, the 16th century CE mercantilism emphasized exports and the creation of a trade surplus. This is equivalent to proclaim an economic (trade) war, which, sooner or later, becomes a real (military) war.

8

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, educators-

philosophers, 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. Democracy 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”3. 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

all decisions, including the implementation of new laws, had to be voted (approved)

1There 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 which praised peace. 2Ancient Greeks had Gods and Goddesses almost about everything. The Goddess of Democracy was Peitho which means persuasion. 3My translation of the original «Χρώμεθα γὰρ πολιτείᾳ …. καὶ ὄνομα μὲν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐς ὀλίγους ἀλλ’ ἐς πλείονας οἰκεῖν δημοκρατία κέκληται».

9

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

sex appeal. They spend more time talking to social and other media, than governing.

1The 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.

10

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

affect them without ever debating the topic during their electoral campaign. In the

1There 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.

11

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).

Globalization cannot be sustained without democracy. But unfortunately non-

globalization (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.

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

1These 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 non-democratic means. It requires some sort of violence or the threat of violence. 2It 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.

12

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

1In 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 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

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

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

Pedagogy = Encyclopedic Gnosis (includes education) + Arête

Democracy = Freedom + Voting on Issues + Selected for Public Office

Openness =

Globalization = free trade & gnosis + multicultural individuals

14

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,

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 anti-

15

globalization 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

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

1The 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.

16

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

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.

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

1After all, today many citizens are free not to vote. They can abstain.

17

(knowledge) of the political issues”1. 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

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. Andrews, J. A. (2004) “Pericles on the Athenian Constitution (Thuc. 2.37)” The

American Journal of Philology, 125(4): 539-561. 2. Crick, B. (2002) Democracy: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. 3. Figueira, T.J. (2003) “Xenelasia and Social Control in Classical Sparta” The

Classical Quarterly, New Series, 53(1): 44-74. 4. Grossman, G.M. and E. Helpman (2015). "Globalization and Growth" American

Economic Review, 105(5): 100-104.

1“… τὰ πολιτικὰ μὴ ἐνδεῶς γνῶναι”.

18

5. James, P. & M. B. Steger (2014) “A Genealogy of ‘Globalization’: The Career of a Concept” Globalizations, 11(4): 417-434.

6. Schlaifer, R. (1936) “Greek Theories of Slavery from Homer to Aristotle” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 47: 165-204.