Athenian Democracy

Foreign Policy: A Democratic Empire

If freedom meant not being subject to anyone else, the way to guarantee this was to go conquer others. The Athenians could create a democratic system that would suppress the emergence of a tyrant, however, freedom also depended on the Athenians not being subject to others in external affairs. The building of relative power on the international field was the most certain way of guaranteeing freedom for Athenian citizens. It was a common Greek view of freedom to include freedom for oneself as the right to dominate over others. As Walbank states ‘the association of the ideas of love of liberty and love of domination over others is essentially Greek’ (Walbank 1970: 106). Thucydides exhibits typical realist thinking

Parrhêsia, to speak candidly, meant every man had the duty to speak everything and was a fundamental component of demokratia. This is very distinct from our modern understanding of free speech. Parrhêsia implied not only freedom of speech but as the obligation to speak the truth for the common good even at personal risk. Whereas free speech is an individual right, parrhêsia was an unprotected duty. The understanding of freedom from these mildly resembling principles is substantially disparate and highlights the collective sense of Athenian freedom. The realist thinking understood from the analysis of Athenian foreign policy provides an insight on this matter: for Athenians the preservation of the democracy overrides individual freedom. The fact that parrhêsia was seen as a duty for the betterment of the state suggests that freedom in Athens came from guaranteeing a strong state rather than individual liberties. Notwithstanding this, there was indeed a sense of free speech as an individual freedom in Athens. In the courts it was boasted that any man could say anything he wished and in the theatre the use of ridicule was used to communicate all sorts of ideas (Saxonhouse 2005: 86). The voiced, radical thinking of philosophers like Plato and Socrates leads to the conclusion that people were much freer in Athens especially compared to neighbouring states. Cohesive social tools such as aidos, or shame, and gossip existed and limited the use of parrhêsia for many Athenians. However, even when free from social reigns, free speech did indeed have a boundary, and quite a vague one: a man risked a lot by speaking contrary to the public opinion or acting immorally outside the court. What becomes evident in the analysis of free speech in Ancient Athens is that it existed in abundance but was not in any way ‘right’. It was omnipresent but hazily defined. The