Chapitre 1: Démocratie directe et représentative

Página 1

NOTA: continuación de apuntes ya empezados en libreta (17-09)

-----------------

About the Council

Members of council = boule

Only the Council could indict (accuser, mettre en accusation) one of its members

Boule constituted the most decisive magistracy (malista kyria) because it prepared the agenda (ordre du jour) for the Assembly and carried out their decisions

External affairs: it gathered with ambassadors before bringing them to the Assembly

Military functions: responsible for Navy and Maritime administration

General supervision of public adm, especially finances

Conclusion: the boule was a central role in the Athenian admn.

About the Heliastai

Each year, 6000 persons were chosen of a pool of 30+ y/o volunteers

Heliastic oath: to vote in accordance with the laws and decrees of the Assembly and the Council, decide according to their own sense and give an impartial hearing.

Experience and maturity because they were older than the people in the Assembly

From here the people's courts (dikasteria, tribunal populaire) and later the nomothetai (group of citizens assigned to examine the proposals of law) were chosen)

They were assigned as judges or jurors (dikastai) for trials again, by lottery. There was no concrete number per trial; it depended on the importance of the matter.

It was the poor and the elderly who sat in the trials

The courts also conducted preliminary examination of magistrates before they took up office (dokimasia) and the rendering of accounts (euthynai)

The courts constituted a true political authority

About the courts in Athens

The courts performed important political functions

Disputes between individuals were arranged by arbitration, criminal cases were dealt with outside the people's courts.

Political trials were the main focus of people's courts

Criminal act of illegality (graphe paranomon): any citizen could bring an action against illegality to any proposal submitted to the Assembly. Only the initiator of the proposal was subject to the trial

About the action of illegality

Could still be presented concerning a decree or law that had been already adopted by the Assembly (ekklesia). In this case, it was suspended until the courts gave their verdict.

Not only for technical but also for substantive reasons. For example, if it was considered that the proposals were detrimental to the public interest.

The courts examined the proposal during one whole day, whereas the Assembly session lasted half a day and they made a number of decisions

Court procedure: the person that originally proposed the decree had the right to defend it and the plantiff was supposed to attack it. Both parts prepared their case. On the other hand, the Assembly made decisions without debate

Voting in the Assembly was by show of hands and no precise count was made; whereas in the courts secret ballot was the rule and the votes were precisely counted.

Conclusion: the courts constituted a completely different organ in terms of composition, size and method of operation.

If the verdict was in favor of the plaintiff, the Assembly's decision was quashed and the initiator was fined.

Fined could make the initiator a debtor to Athens for life, which meant stripping him from his civil rights (atimia). This meant all Assembly members knew that there were severe consequences for making a wrong proposal

The system is also designed to avoid frivolous accusations: if an accuser withdrew its accusation after the courts had pronounced on it, it was fined 1000 drachmas

The plaintiff was also fined 1000 drachmas and partial atimia if his complaint assured less than one fifth of the votes

About denunciations (eisangeliai)

Might be directed at magistrates accused of maladministration, in which case they passed through the Council first

Also could be directed towards any citizen for political offenses, in which case it passed through the Assembly first (eisangeliai eis ton demon)

Political offense: treason, corruption and attempted overthrowing of the government; although these were loosely interpreted

Eisangeliai eis ton demon was used especially against generals

About the Nomothetai

After the restoration of democracy (after oligarchic revolutions), it was decided that the Assembly would not pass laws but only decrees; legislative decisions would be left to the nomothetai

Distinction between the laws and the decrees. A law meant:

a written norm;

that enjoyed greater validity than a decree and;

applied to all athenian; whereas the decree might apply to only one person

other sources: valid for and indefinite period of time, whereas the decree might have a time period

Página 2