THE ORIGIN OF DEMOCRACY

J. L. GILLIN
Universityof Wisconsin

I. WHAT IS MEANT BY DEMOCRACY?

Democracyis a termthatis ratherlooselyusedby manypeople

and coversa varietyof meanings. Used in a politicalsense,it
denotesdemocracyin the government in the sense that every
memberofthestatehas therightto controldirectlythedetailsof
thegovernment.This formofdemocracy is represented in theold
NewEnglandtownmeeting. Eventhen,ofcourse,it wasnotabso-
lutelydemocratic, becausewomanhad no voicein thegovernment.
Againthe termis sometimes used to denotedemocracy in the
state. By thistermis meantuniversalmanhoodor adultsuffrage.
Here the controlof the government may be democraticor repre-
sentative. We have thisform of government in onlya fewofthe
statesin the UnitedStates at thepresenttime. Beforethe Civil
War the black man had no part in the government of the state,
and untilveryrecently womanhad no partin politicalaffairs.
Again democracyindicatesthe equality of opportunityas
betweenindividualsand different classes,not onlypolitical,but
educational,social,and economic,opportunity.Nowhereas yet
has thisformofdemocracy beencompletely realized. This phase
ofthematter is sometimes called socialdemocracy in a broadway.
One aspectof it is knownas industrialdemocracy, as phrasedby
theWebbs. Otheraspectsofsocialdemocracy arethedemocratiz-
ingofthechurch, oftheschools,andofsocialintercourse.
Fromthesesuggestions it may readilybe perceivedthatwhat
mostpeoplemeanwhentheyspeakofdemocracy is politicaldemoc-
racy,and usuallytheymeanpoliticaldemocracyonlyas applied
to the government or the state. A real democracywill possess
the characteristicof participationby the people in all of these
relationships.A real democracyis therefore yet to be realized,
althoughgreatsteps have been taken towardthe realizationof
democracy in all phasesofoursociallifein thelast half-century.
704
 THE ORIGIN OF DEMOCRACY 705

II. THE ORIGINS OF DEMOCRACY IN PRIMITIVE SOCIETY

It is veryinteresting to observethatdemocracy has its rootsin
thefar-distant past. It is not thebirthof thelast hundredyears
oftheworld'shistory. A longseriesofworld-wars, incidentto the
buildingof states,obscuredthe democracyof primitivesocieties.
Onlyrecently, sincethe studyofprimitive peopleshas beenmore
diligentlypursued,havewe cometo a recognition ofthedemocratic
formofearlyhumansocieties.
If we remember that primitivesocietiesare small groupsof
peopleboundtogether by bloodtiesratherthanby politicalideals,
orresidence in a commonterritory, we shallhave littledifficultyin
reconstructing thelifeofthatearlyperiodand seeingat thefoun-
tainheaddemocracyat workand evolvingamongtheearlytypes
ofsocieties. All of themweretribalgroups. Eitherin factor in
fictionthe membersof thesegroupswererelatedto each other.
The largestsocial groupsin thesetimeswerecomposedof a few
hundred, or at mosta fewthousand,individuals.
Let us now turnto a fewrepresentatives of primitivepeople
organizedon the basis of blood relationship and get a glimpseof
democracyin its beginnings.Let us cite firstthe description of
Tacitusoftheprimitive Germantribes. Describingtheirmethod
ofdoingthetribe'sbusiness,Tacitussays:
On affairsof smallermoment, the chiefsconsult;on thoseof greater
importance, thewholecommunity; yetwiththiscircumstance,thatwhatis
referred ofthepeopleis first
to thedecision maturelydiscussed
bythechiefs.
.... Thentheking,or chief,and suchothersas are conspicuous forage,
birth,militaryrenown,oreloquence,areheard,andgainattention ratherfrom
theirabilityto persuadethantheirauthority to command.If a proposal
theassembly
displease, rejectit byan inarticulate
murmur; ifit proveagree-
able,theyclashtheirjavelins;forthemosthonorable expressionof assent
amongthemis thesoundofarms.'
ofthetribeconductedby theassembly
Here we see theaffairs
ofthepeople. He adds:
In theelectionofkingstheyhaveregardto birth;in thatofgenerals,
to
valor. Theirkingshavenotanabsoluteorunlimited
power;andtheirgenerals
command lessthrough theforceofauthority
thanofexample.2
I Tacitus, Germanyand Agricola(Oxfordtrans.),pp. I6-I7.
2
Ibid., p. II.
 706 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

This ancient democracy is even more clearly outlined by

Morgan. Describingthe Iroquois gens, he says:
The principleof democracy,which was born of the gentes,manifested
itselfin the retentionby the gentilesof the rightto elect theirsachem and
chiefs,in the safeguardsthrownaroundthe officeto preventusurpation,and
in the checkupon the electionheld by the remaininggentes.'
Describing the council of the gens, Morgan says:
The councilwas the great featureof ancientsociety,Asiatic,European,
and American,fromthe institutionof the gens in savagery to civilization.
It was theinstrumentofgovernment as wellas thesupremeauthorityoverthe
gens,the tribe,and the confederacy The simplestand lowestformof
the councilwas thatof thegens. It was a democraticassemblybecause every
adultmaleand femalememberhad a voiceuponall questionsbroughtbeforeit.
it electedKeepersoftheFaith,
It electedand deposeditssachemand chiefs,
it condoned or avengedthemurderofa gentilis, into
and it adoptedpersons
thegens. It wasthegermofthehigher councilofthetribe,and ofthatstill
each of whichwas composedexclusivelyof chiefs
higherof the confederacy,
of thegentes.2
as representatives
The same system of democratic control is to be seen in the
tribes of ancient Greece. Morgan says:
The instrument of governmentwas a councilof chiefs,withthe co-opera-
tion of an agora or assemblyof the people,and of a basileusor militarycom-
democratical.3
mander.The peoplewerefree,and theirinstitutions
Even after the great change of political organization under
Cleisthenes,democracywas characteristicof the Athenianpolitical
system, and Morgan writes:
When the Atheniansestablishedthe new politicalsystem,foundedupon
and uponproperty,
territory thegovernment was a puredemocracy.It was
no newtheory, or specialinventionof theAthenian mind,but an old and
familiar
system,withan antiquity themselves.
as greatas thatof thegentes
Democraticideas had existedin theknowledgeand practiceoftheirforefathers
fromtimeimmemorial, and now foundexpressionin a moreelaborate,and, in
many respects, in an improvedgovernment. The false element, that of
aristocracy,whichhad penetratedthe systemand createdmuch of the strife
in the transitionalperiod, connecteditselfwith the officeof basileus, and
remainedafterthisofficewas abolished; but the new systemaccomplishedits
thantheremaining
overthrow.Moresuccessfully theAtheni-
Greciantribes,
forward
answereabletocarry totheirlogicalresults.
theirideasofgovernment
I Morgan,AncientSociety,p. 73.
2 Ibid., pp. 84-85. 3 Ibid.,p. 2I6.
 THE ORIGIN OF DEMOCRACY 707

It is one reasonwhytheybecame,fortheirnumbers,the most distinguished,

the mostintellectualand themostaccomplishedrace ofmenthe entirehuman
familyhas yet produced. In purelyintellectualachievementsthey are still
the astonishmentof mankind. It was because the ideas which had been
germinatingthroughthe previous ethnical period, and which had become
interwovenwitheveryfibreof theirbrains,had founda happy fruitionin a
democratically constitutedstate. Underits life-giving
impulsestheirhighest
mentaldevelopmentoccurred.
How the political democracyof the tribal state was maintained
in the new political arrangementsbased upon territoryratherthan
upon blood kinship is indicated by Morgan's descriptionof how
Cleisthenesbroughtthe change about. He says:
Outofthenaucrary, a conceptionofa township as theunitofa political
system wasfinally
elaborated;butit requireda manofthehighest genius,as
wellas greatpersonal to seizetheideain itsfullness,
influence, andgiveit an
organicembodiment.That manfinally appearedin Cleisthenes (509 B.C.),
whomustbe regarded as thefirstofAthenian legislators-thefounderofthe
secondgreatplanofhumangovernment, thatunderwhichmoderncivilized
nationsareorganized.
wentto thebottomofthequestionand placedtheAthenian
Cleisthenes
politicalsystem
uponthefoundation on whichit remained to thecloseofthe
independentexistence of the commonwealth. He divided Attica into a
hundred demes,or townships,eachcircumscribedby metesand bounds,and
by a name. Everycitizenwasrequired
distinguished to registerhimself,
and
to causean enrollment
ofhispropertyin thedemein whichhe resided. This
enrollmentwas theevidenceas wellas thefoundationofhis civilprivileges.
The demedisplacedthenaucrary.Its inhabitants werean organized body
politicwithpowersoflocalself-government,
likethemodern American town-
ship. Thisis thevitalandtheremarkable featureofthesystem.It reveals
at onceitsdemocratic
character.The government wasplacedin thehandsof
thepeoplein thefirst
oftheseriesofterritorial
organizations.'
Everyone familiarwith Old Testament historywill recall that
the ancient Hebrew social controlwas based upon an assembly of
people and a council of elders. One scarcelyneeds to be reminded
that Saul was not only anointed by the priest Samuel, but was
elected also by the people. "Then all the eldersof Israel gathered
themselvestogether,and came to Samuel unto Ramah, and said
unto him,Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways:
now make us a king to judge us like all the nations."2 AfterSaul
IMorgan, op. cit.,p. 270. 2I Sam.8:4-5.
7o8 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

had proved his valor in the attack upon the Ammoniteswho were
besiegingJabesh-gilead,the people chose him as king.
Andthepeoplesaid untoSamuel,Whois he thatsaid,ShallSaul reign
over us? bringthe men, that we may put themto death... . . . Then said
Samuelto thepeople,Come,andletus go to Gilgal,and renewthekingdom
there. AndallthepeoplewenttoGilgal;andtheretheymadeSaulkingbefore
Jehovahin Gilgal.'
David himselfdid not take officeas the successorof Saul until
the approbationof the tribesmenhad been secured. When David
was firstcrownedat Hebron, the men of Judah had to sanction it.
"And the men of Judah came, and there[at Hebron] theyanointed
David king."2 Later all the tribessent delegates to ask David to
become theirking.
Then cameall the tribesof Israel to David untoHebron,and spake,
saying, Behold,we arethyboneandthyflesh. In timespast,whenSaul was
kingoverus,itwasthouthatleddest outandbroughtestinIsrael: andJehovah
said to thee,Thoushaltbe shepherd ofmypeopleIsrael,and thoushaltbe
princeoverIsrael. So all theeldersof Israelcameto thekingto Hebron:
andkingDavid madea covenant withthemin Hebronbefore Jehovah:and
theyanointed David kingoverIsrael.3
While Solomon obtained the throneby a coup d'etat, his suc-
cessor Rehoboam was refusedthe allegiance of the northerntribes.
AndRehoboam wentto Shechem:forall Israelwerecometo Shechem to
makehimking ... . Andwhenall Israelsaw thatthekinghearkened not
untothem,thepeopleanswered theking,saying,Whatportionhavewe in
David? neither in the son of Jesse: to yourtents,0
have we inheritance
Israel: nowsee to thineownhouse,David. So Israeldeparteduntotheir
tents.4
They called to the kingshipof theirnation Jeroboam,the son of
Nebat. "And it came to pass, whenall Israel heard that Jeroboam
was returned,that they sent and called him unto the congregation
and made him king over all Israel."5
In everyprimitivesociety that modernstudy reveals to us we
see the same democraticinstitutions. It is only as groupsbecome
largerand wars come to abound that democracybecomes limited
II Sam. II:I2, 14, I5.
2 II Sam. 2:4. 4I Kings I2: I, I6.
3 II Sam. 5: I-3. 5 I KingsI2: 20.
 THE ORIGIN OF DEMOCRACY 709

and is finallycrushedout by that undemocratic doctrineof the

"divinerightofkings."
Very earlyin the developmentof tribalsociety,limitations
began to be put upon democracy. The firstof theselimitations
was thatof theprestigeof age. We have alreadyseen in Greek
societyand in Hebrew societya councilof elders. The same
councilexistedamongtheIndian tribes. At thebeginning it was
notundemocratic.It was merelydemocracy under theleadership
ofage,whichwassupposedtogivewisdom. In a stationary society,
however, likethatoftheHebrewor Chinese,age tendsto encroach
upondemocracy.
Anotherlimitation upondemocracyaroseout ofwar. Among
the Germantribes describedby Tacitus militarychiefswere
electedby thepeopleon thebasisoftheirvalor. Withthefurther
development ofwar,however, and thegrowthofmilitary powerthe
militarychieftain tendsto becomethe hereditaryking,governing
by "divine right." When that happens,the ancientdemocracy
ceasesto be evena memory.
Still anotherlimitationupon ancient democracywas the
prestigeof themedicineman and his successors,priests,sorcerers,
and prophets. Thesemen,dealingin theoccult,came to exercise
a powerthatin manycases entirelyovertoppedthe votes of the
people. In some cases, however,a compromise was effectedby
whichtheinterests ofthepeopleand theinterestsofthemedicine
manwereharmonized.
Still later in the developmentof ancientsociety,wealth in
cattle,or lands,or slavesgave pre-eminence
to one individualand
put a limitation uponthedemocracy oftribalsociety.
Democracywas finallycrushedout in the developmentof
societyonlywhenwar and superstition and wealthcombinedto
givea prestigeto one personthatmade himabsolutelythe domi-
nantfigurein society. This occurredin theWesternworldunder
thatpeculiarconcourseofcircumstances whichwe call theMiddle
Ages. Unsettledconditionsgave the opportunity for constant
warfare. The invasionof the barbariansbroughton the period
ofdenseignorancewhichwe knowas theDark Ages. A growing
churchgoing out to convertthe barbariansand adaptingher
7IO THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

messageand herrequirements to theirmentaland moralcapacities

suppliedthesupernatural element. The buildingof statesout of
the numerousprincipalities and dukedoms,underthe leadership
of a successful concentrated
warrior, powerand wealthin certain
handsand broughtthe churchunderthedominionof themilitary
class. The churchtookcontrolof the ignorantlayman through
his fearof the morelearnedand supposedlymorepowerful cleric.
The military statefinallycapturedthe cleric. The concentration
of powerin an autocracywas complete. Democracyhad all but
perished. The voice of the people had ceased to be the voice
of God.
III. THE ORIGIN OF DEMOCRACY IN CIVILIZATION

How thendid democracy, bornin tribalsocietyand throttled

in thenation-making stageofhumandevelopment, everriseagain?
Paradoxicalas it mayseem,its rootsare to be foundin thestruggle
betweenclasseswithopposinginterests. Whetherit be in France
or in Britain,thebaronsbecamethefirstchampionsoflibertyand
theharbingers ofmoderndemocracy. That, however,is onlythe
beginning.Step by step fromRunnymedeto the presentthe
ofinterests
conflicts ofdifferent classeshaveworkedforthedevelop-
mentof the enfranchisement of the people. Now one class has
extendedthefranchise to a classfromwhomtheyhope to gethelp
in theirconflictwiththeirpoliticalenemy. In Englandit was on
one side a partyworkingfor the franchisefor the agricultural
workersbecause it was to theiradvantageto do so, and on the
otherhandtheotherpartycheckmated thismoveby extending the
franchiseto theinhabitants oftowns. In AmericatheRepublicans
obtainedthe upperhand by givingthe franchise to the negroes;
and the Democrats,by extendingit to foreigners.Withinthe
nextfewyearswe shallsee one partyor theothergivewomenthe
franchiseforthesamenoblereason.
What I have just said refersof courseto politicaldemocracy.
The same thingis partlytruealso of industrialdemocracy. Out
of the conflictof partiesthe downtrodden and the oppresseddo
getsomehelp. Anotherconditionoftheriseofthespiritthatlies
back ofdemocracy is an abundanceoffreeland. Withouta doubt
 THE ORIGIN OF DEMOCRACY 7II

the democracyofAmericaof a hundredyearsago was partlythe

resultof theindependence and untrammeled conditionssurround-
ingthesettlersin a newcountry. Withthedisappearance offree
land and thegrowthofsocialand economicclasses,doubtlessthat
rootofmoderndemocracy willceasetofunction.
Similarityof blood also makesfordemocracy. The firstsign
of the disappearanceof earlyAmericandemocracyfollowedthe
comingof vast numbersof alien peoples to our shores. Class
distinctionsgrewup. The "Dago," the"Sheeny,"the"Bohunk,"
the"Polack," and the"Hun" weretermsofopprobrium by which
the Americanshowedhis consciousnessof unlikenessto these
strangepeoples. While the politiciansextendedthe benefitsof
politicaldemocracy to thesenewarrivalsthrough thenaturalization
laws, societyinevitablybecame less democratic.The American
withAnglo-Saxon idealsfelthissuperiority.The foreigner no less
keenlyfelttheassumedsuperiority ofthenative. Prejudiceswere
engendered;feelings thatoftenled to conflictweregenerated, and
the simplicityof our earlyAmericandemocratic lifedisappeared.
It was earlyseenthatone ofthegreatagenciesofdemocracy is
universaleducation. Givepeopleequal trainingand theprestige
of thelearnedis gone. Consequently thepublicschoolsystemof
thiscountryhas done muchto generatea spiritof democracyin
ourhybridpopulation. It has overcomethelack of homogeneity
of blood to a considerable extent,and couldnew floodsof immi-
grantsbe shutout,in thecourseofa shorttimeourpublicschools
andplaygrounds andbusinessassociations wouldmoldto a common
typethegreatvarietyofracesand peoplewithinourborders.
Democracycan risein societyonlywhenthereis a similarity
ofideals-political,economic, and social. The educationalsystem
just mentioneddoes muchto generatesuch ideals. Newspapers
and the public forumhave also contributed much. Their con-
tributions,however, havebeenmostimportant whentheyhave set
up idealsthatcouldbe assimilatedby all.
Whiledemocracyis realizedsometimesin the clash of castes
and classes,especiallyif theybe somewhatequally balanced in
power,a condition thatmorereadilypromotes theriseofdemocracy
in all its phases is the absence of classes and castes. All the
7I2 THE AMERICAN JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

agenciesalreadymentionedtend in the directionof levelingthe

differences betweengroups. Thus theconflict ofeconomicclasses
-especiallyina rapidlychanging economic order,orin thechanging
conditions incidentto immigrationand settlement in a newcountry
-the spreadofuniversaleducation,and thelikenessofbloodand
race all tend to wipe out the naturaland acquireddifferences
betweenclasseswhoseinterests are hostile. We have alreadyseen
in primitive societythateitherreal or assumedrelationship in the
tribalgroupsmade fordemocracy. These,however,weresimple
societiesandsmallinnumberofindividuals. In ourhighlycomplex
civilizedsocietyconditionsare quite different.In the divisionof
laborindustrially, theinterestsofworking classesclashwiththose
of employing classes. The interestsof officeholders collidewith
theinterests oftaxpayers. The interests ofone sectsometimes are
in oppositionto thoseof the other. The interestsof the young
sometimessuffer because theydo not coincidewiththoseof the
aged. The learnedsometimes assumeto themselves a superiority
whichwas made possibleonly by the educationthey received.
And on the otherhand,the unlearnedsometimesassumea supe-
riority ofruggedhonestyand a disdainforculturewhichset them
at variancewiththelearnedand thecultured.
What, then,are the conditionsunderwhichdemocracycan
existin the face of theseclashesof interests, of purpose,and of
culturalreactions ?
These oppositionscan be reconciled onlyin thatconception of
socialsolidarity whichwe findexpressed in thesloganthatWilliam
Stead gave to the worldas a definition of the Kingdomof God:
"The unionof all wholove in the serviceof all who suffer." In
otherwords,so longas mendo notsee thesocialobligations which
theirwealthimposesupon them,the clash of interestswill be
perpetual. So longas menare unableto believethat-to use the
termsof a man whohad greatforcein humansocietylongago
" God hathmadeofone bloodeverynationofmento dwellon all
the faceof the earth,"and untilmensee thatculturaldifferences
are accidentsthatimposeobligations as wellas rightsuponthoseof
differingcultures, democracy willhave a precarious history. Only
as theconceptionof theresponsibility thatwealth,education,and
 THE ORIGIN OF DEMOCRACY 7I3

abilityimposeupononebecomesa realpossessionofeachoneofus
can this clash of interestsbe reconciledin the interestsof real
democracy. Then the strugglefor the enfranchisement of dis-
franchised classeswillsoonbe settled. The denialoftherightsof
childhoodwill cease. The bitternessthat marksthe dealingsof
employers and laborerson each side will disappear. The preju-
dices-and the superstitions that give themforce-betweendif-
ferentsectsand partieswilllose someoftheirpower. Democracy
willthenbecomea thingborn,notout of thestruggleofopposing
interestsand clashingprejudices,but out of thebodyof common
opinionand mutualfeelingsthat will enableus to conceiveof a
commontask,commonprivileges, and commonresponsibilities.
You willask me, "Is not thisa dreamthatcan neverbe real-
ized?" I replythatit seemsto me thattheforcesare at workin
the worldthatwill ultimatelymake real thisconception. From
thestandpoint ofhomogeneity of race,certainly
notonlyAmerica
but theworldis graduallybecominga greatmelting-pot in a sense
in whichit has neverbeen before. Admixture of racestherehas
alwaysbeen, but untilrecentlyit was chiefly underthe influence
of war and as an incidentof conquest. That, we knowall too
painfully,is still the practicein the presentwar. The racial
prejudiceswhichhave separatedmenaregraduallyyielding as they
come to know each otherbetter. Travel and means of com-
munication arereducing theprovincialismofmankind. Education
is breakingdown the middlewall of partitionbetweenrichand
poor, learned and ignorant,culturedand boorish. Even the
presentwar has createda sense of kinshipbetweenthe various
classesin our countrysuchas we have neverseenbefore. Under
theimpulseofthecommonidealpettydifferences are sweptaside.
If we could shut out the great horde of immigrants from
oppressednationsin Europe this processof buildinga unified
American nationwouldbe verymuchhastened. If we couldmake
our schoolsystemsuch that all boys and girlsshouldhave that
degreeof trainingnecessaryto make themeffective workersand
that degreeof culturethat would enable themto hold up their
headswithothers,muchof theculturaldifferences wouldbe done
away with. Finally,if war can be abolished-war,that matrix
7I4 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

of hate and prejudicebetweenenemies-thedifferences between

nationscan be lessenedand a betterunderstanding and greater
co-operation willresult.
Perhapsyousay to me," Thiswouldproducea dead leveloflife
whichitselfwouldbe deadlyto progress, and whyshouldwe have
democracy does notmeanprogress I replythatif we can
if it ?"
once get the fortunatemembersof societyto realizethat their
fortune, ofwhatevercharacter it be, is themeasureoftheirrespon-
sibilityforserviceto theirless fortunate fellow-beings, we shallbe
able thento use thedifferences thatexistbetweenmenin natural
ability,and evenin education,forthewelfareofall. Thisproposal
of democracydoes not contemplatethe destructionof the
superiority in equipmentor ofthenatural-born leader. It means,
on thecontrary, thatrealsuperiority and theleadercomeintotheir
ownin theway ofservice.
Theseforcesand perhapsothersthatI have notmentioned are
struggling to bringto birtha betterdemocracythanany we have
everhad-better even than that whichcharacterized the society
of primitive man. Theirswas largelythe resultof chanceforces
whichthey neitherunderstoodnor were able to control. The
democracy thatwe enjoyin part,and thatwe seekto realizemore
and more,is a democracy thatis built,not onlyuponthe clashof
naturalforces,but uponthedreamsofmenwhoare able to direct
forcesfortherealizationof thosedreams; uponidealsconsciously
and forcefully directedby humanminds. Such was the dream
thatour Colonialforefathers realized,politicalin part,whenthey
foundedour great nation. Step by step this dream has been
extendedto everwiderreachesofourcommonAmericanlife. Let
us hope that out of the presentdreadfulwar theremay come a
greaterconsciousness of the value of democracyand a greater
impetustowardtherealizationofdemocracy in all thewiderange
ofourAmericansociallife.