BMCR 2025.06.37

Demokratie und Populismus in der griechischen Antike und heute

, , , Demokratie und Populismus in der griechischen Antike und heute: Akten der ersten internationalen Tagung des ZAZH - Zentrum Altertumswissenschaften Zürich, UZH 2020. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2024. Pp. ix, 512. ISBN 9783111323558.

Open access

 

Bruno Snell once likened the braying in Apuleius’ Golden Ass to the donkey noises of referendum politics.[1] Though risqué, Snell’s quip seems to have passed over the heads of his political masters. More recently, the rise of populism across Europe and North America has sparked historical comparison with the ancient world. This timely volume of twenty essays is the byproduct of a conference held in Zurich (12-14 February 2020) on the similarities and differences between modern populists and their ancient ‘equivalents’. The contributors pull no punches when describing contemporary bêtes noires, notably Donald Trump. Though most readers will probably sympathise with feelings expressed about the present lamentable state of world politics, disagreement will arise over the usefulness of some of the historical analogies.

Riccarda Schmid, Christoph Riedweg, and Andreas Victor Walser lay out populism’s defining characteristics. Whereas in European contexts the term tends to be evaluatively negative because of historical associations with racist and xenophobic ideologies, American usages have been less overtly pejorative. Modern theorists dispute whether populism should be defined as an ideology sui generis, a style of communication, or a multifaceted phenomenon entailing anti-elitism, self-conscious ideologies, and charismatic methods. This is taken forward in successive chapters.

Edward Harris, pointing to the key institutional differences between modern representative and ancient democratic systems, shows that in the absence of an identifiable political class, efforts to describe Athenian politicians as ‘populist’ invariably encounter difficulties. If there is one Athenian public figure who may qualify, it is Cleon who, like a modern populist, defied the normal rules of political engagement and, inter alia, usurped the judicial process for political ends. Nevertheless, as an analytical term, ‘populist’ does not map on to demagogos.

Josine Blok understands modern populism to be an assault on representative government, often through referendums that circumvent parliaments. By contrast, populism in Classical Athens entailed the abuse of an institution that operated by referendum. In modern systems, an antidote to populism is to ban parties which threaten democracy. Lacking ‘parties’ in the modern sense, the Athenian antidote was to instal legal checks on rogue leaders, which included ostracism, the graphe paranomon, and the graphe nomon me epitedeion theinai/einai.

Daniel Kübler identifies populism as an ideology with three dominant traits: a belief in the antagonistic relationship between a ruling elite and ruled populace, rhetoric of sovereignty, and anti-pluralistic proclamations that all right-minded people think alike (Blockdenken). Populism is a ‘thin ideology’, needing ‘filling’ with doctrinal matter lifted from more coherent intellectual traditions. The recent rise of populism originates in a belief that mainstream politicians do not represent the will of the people and is exacerbated by social media and unregulated newsfeeds.

Marc Bühlmann, drawing on the modern example of Switzerland with its balance of direct and representative democracy, argues that dangerous populist tendencies might be tempered if entrenched polarities between elitism (Elitismus) and populism (Populismus) vanish. The old binary debate over where political decision-making should reside, with experts or non-experts, has generated false dichotomies, often with damaging consequences. To the ancient question of who should govern, the few or the many, the answer should be not ‘either/or’ but ‘both/and’.

Georg Kohler addresses the paradox that whilst ancient political theorists broadly disapproved of democracy, as a political catchphrase democracy has, in modern times, been requisitioned by all systems that aspire to respectability. Adopting Robert A. Dahl’s conception of polyarchy as an approximation to ideal (non-existent) democracy, this approach speaks of a ‘political culture’, corresponding to Montesquieu’s ésprit général, which defines the character of a nation and guides government. Plato’s critique is thus more fitting for ancient (direct) democracies than modern (representative) ones, though it can be readily transposed to modern populism.

Giovanni Giorgini, recognising that ‘populist’ is a modern term that cannot be directly mapped on to the Greek demagogos, identifies the rise of populism sensu stricto in Athens with Cleon, even though Cleon is not the first politician in the sources to acquire the label demagogos. For these purposes, populism is defined as a selfish use of the people (demos) for personal ends instead of for the common good. Pericles, Cimon, and Cleon all ‘loved’ the people, but the love they showed was of a different kind: with Cimon, it was philanthropy; with Pericles, patriotism; with Cleon, the promotion of one group, the poor (phauloi), over the rest.

Carlo Scardino likens ancient demagogues to modern populists in terms less of ideological proposals and more of their rhetorical strategies. Except for Athenagoras of Syracuse who, like modern populists, pushed motifs of popular sovereignty and postulated an antagonism between the people and the elite, the essence of ancient demagogy lay in its use of emotionalism and its tendency to simplify more complex political realities. Such tropes are identifiable not only in the strategies deployed by notorious figures like Cleon, but also by Themistocles and Pericles.

Christian Mann, from a different theoretical perspective, argues against the analytical relevance of a term such as ‘populist’ to distinguish one politician from another in Classical Athens. In its ideological self-justification, Athenian democracy turned on political, not socio-economic, equality, in consequence of which the rift between democracy’s leaders and the generality of the population was less about political empowerment and more about divisions of wealth. The anti-elitist rhetoric deployed in Athenian political discourse resembles that of modern populism in certain respects but, in others, it is difficult to draw meaningful parallels, because the divide between pluralist and anti-pluralist ideologies bears little relevance in a direct democracy.

Gunther Martin, in a study of Aristophanes’ Wasps, suggests that in pillorying political leaders, most especially Cleon, as he does, the playwright postures as a ‘friend’ of the people. Fifth-century satirical comedy appropriates the oratorical strategies of populists, whereby the author adopts the rhetorical tropes of demagogues and, thus, casts himself as a popular champion.

Riedweg identifies some distinguishing features of Athenian society, which include a polarity between a wealthy elite and an impoverished people, the latter exercising complete sovereignty over the constitution. Aristophanes in the Knights characterises the people (demos) as a tyrant and, in this sense, prefigures the discussion in Aristotle’s Politics of the variant species of democracy, in the last of which the demos behaves tyrannically and without legal restraint. Against older habits of viewing the Knights as farce, observable parallels between the character of Aristophanes’ Cleon and American populists in recent times urge a more literal reading of a comedy whose buffoons are not distorted caricatures but historical representations.

Rosalind Thomas defines modern populism by six main features: claims to represent the popular will, belief in popular legitimisation, anti-elitism, anti-establishment rhetoric, anti-pluralism, and anathematisation of opposition. Some of the populist leaders represented by Thucydides fulfil most of these criteria, some few, others none, for which reason it is appropriate to speak of different ‘degrees’ of populism in operation. One feature of modern populism, however, that is not evident in Athens is anti-institutionalism. Though often characterised as the archetypal ‘demagogue’, Cleon is atypical in one vital respect, namely his ‘anti-democratic undercurrent’.

Schmid locates populism in a style of political communication. Demosthenic speeches which relate to political trials reveal all the familiar tropes of populist rhetoric, such as popular self-determination, anti-elitism, and sovereignty, known among modern populist counterparts. The heliastic court was a battleground for political leaders, who plied the populace to suit their own personal gain. One key difference, however, emerges, viz. that populist communication at Athens was restricted by locality, and so populism – defined as a communicative act – became part of the political fabric of society and was therefore not a destabilising influence.

Cinzia Arruzza examines passages from Plato’s Republic and Symposium which focus upon the shamelessness of the tyrant. On this model, a distinguishing characteristic of tyranny is an inability to self-assess or submit to any kind of moral self-judgement, since tyranny arrogates to itself a position above the law and, therefore, cannot evaluate itself through any objective or self-critical lens. The era of shamelessness heralded in by Donald Trump bears these trappings.

Georgia Tsouni, focusing on theoretical discussions in Aristotle’s Politics, argues that populism in Athens entailed an unwillingness to think or act in the interest of the whole polis and is seen as a deviation from political wisdom (phronesis). Populism arises when extreme divisions emerge between the elite and everyone else and is remedied when those gaps are closed.

Matthew Simonton, in contradistinction to some of the definitions of populism elsewhere in the volume, argues that ancient manifestations of populism in both the Classical and Hellenistic periods find their legacy less with right-wing movements, which are better described as ‘ethno-nationalist’, and more with their left-wing counterparts, best exemplified by Podemos in Spain and Syriza in modern Greece. Demagogues in the ancient world are distinguishable by three main traits: prosecution of wealthy citizens for redistributive purposes, warmongering against the advice of the social elite, and playing to the gallery in a way that more educated citizens found tasteless and offensive.

Christel Müller searches for evidence of populism in Hellenistic Sparta, with a focus on the reforms of the second half of the third century BCE. This included debt cancellation, re-division of land, and the admittance of the perioikoi to citizenship. These measures entailed charismatic leadership, direct appeal to the masses, anti-elite rhetoric, use of force, and the circumvention of the law. In place of the historicising term ‘populist’, this approach recommends ‘popularist’.

Walser, in a study of the late Hellenistic world, notes that traces of populism are hard to detect at a time when democratic structures came increasingly under threat, and aristocracies were solidifying their grasp over the internal politics of the Greek cities. One feature that stands out at this period is benefaction (euergetism) which, though not ‘populist’ in a strict definitional sense, nevertheless bears resonances of populism in a world where the formal structures of the democratic polis were being overtaken and usurped by narrower elites.

Claudia Tiersch examines the political career of Athens’ great benefactor in the second century CE, Herodes Atticus, and the relevance of the Athenian citizenry in its formation. Himself a charismatic figure who drove an intellectual, cultural, and architectural revival in Athens at the time of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, he clashed with the ordinary citizenry, as well as with the elite families who controlled Athens. Unlike other political figures studied in this volume, what marks out Herodes Atticus is that he did not make sufficient use of available populist methods.

Eric Robinson draws comparisons between Donald Trump and Cleon. In several important respects, the two figures correspond, both in their private lives and as public personalities: hatred of the elite, grandiloquent rhetoric, and an assault on the regular and established rules of political engagement. The one area of difference, however, is that whereas Cleon operated through the ordinary constitutional mechanisms that were available to him, Trump attacks the very political and constitutional fibre of the United States of America.

These twenty essays understand populism and its applicability across historical epochs differently. This raises a key problem: what does it mean to be ‘populist’, and how is the term relevant to the ancient world? As several of the contributors point out, the hermeneutical challenges in trying to find a modern equivalent to demagogos are insurmountable, and perhaps it would be best to eschew language that tends towards anachronism. Without an agreed definition, it becomes difficult to study a phenomenon whose boundaries are open to dispute and, upon every application, requires careful conceptual scaffolding. Is ‘populism’ self-evident, or is it a weapon of abuse? If the former British Tory leader, William Hague, can anathematise Trump for not being a ‘conservative’ because his stance on tariffs, trade, and migration is not in the tradition (e.g.) of Ronald Reagan (though Hague conveniently forgets that absence of protectionism has not always been a ‘conservative’ value, as the Tory Party in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries illustrates), it seems obvious that, without such scaffolding, labels are merely labels. I agree with those contributors who argue for terms that fit institutional realities within which ancient political figures operated, not those with which their modern counterparts converse.

 

Authors and Titles

Riccarda Schmid, Christoph Riedweg and Andreas Victor Walser, ‘Einleitung’

Edward M. Harris, ‘Ancient Demagogues and Modern Populists, Comparisons and Contrasts. A New Institutionalist Approach’

Josine Blok, ‘The Challenge of Representative Government, Ancient and Modern’

Daniel Kübler, ‘Populismus – Perspektiven der Politikwissenschaft’

Marc Bühlmann, ‘Populismus, Elitismus und direkte Demokratie – die Schweiz als Beispiel’

Georg Kohler, ‘Autonomie und Polyarchie. Über die Demokratie und ihre Konturen’

Giovanni Giorgini, ‘The Emergence of Populism in Classical Athens’

Carlo Scardino, ‘Demagogen als Populisten ante litteram im klassischen Athen? Überlegungen zur politischen Rhetorik bei Herodot und Thukydides’

Christian Mann, ‘„Ich bin einer von Euch!“ Zur sozialen Distanz zwischen Politiker und Volk und deren rhetorischer Überbrückung’

Gunther Martin, ‘Komischer Populismus’

Christoph Riedweg, ‘Zum Phänotyp des Populisten, in Athen und heute. Aristophanes’ Ritter als Testfall’

Rosalind Thomas, ‘Populism and Demagogy in the Late 5th C. and the Political Thought of Thucydides’

Riccarda Schmid, ‘Populisten im Gerichtshof? Populismus und politische Kommunikation im Athen des 4. Jh. v. Chr.’

Cinzia Arruzza, ‘Tyranny and Shamelessness in Plato and Today’

Georgia Tsouni, ‘Populism and Athenian Democracy’

Matthew Simonton, ‘Civil Strife and the Persistence of “Populism” in Hellenistic Greece: Democracy, Demagogues, and Contemporary Theories of Populism’

Christel Müller, ‘A View from Hellenistic Sparta: Populism and the Revolutions of the 3rd C. BC’

Andreas Victor Walser, ‘Populismus im späten Hellenismus’

Claudia Tiersch, ‘Scheitern durch Mangel an Populismus? Herodes Atticus und die Bürger Athens im 2. Jh. n. Chr’

Eric W. Robinson, ‘Populism Ancient and Modern: of Government, Demagoguery, and Donald Trump’

 

Notes

[1] ‘Das I-Ah des Goldenes Esels’, Hermes 3 (1935), pp. 355-6.