Democracy before Greece: how regions around the world gave their citizens a voice

BarcelonaThe debate about what to understand by "democracy" is not new. No one questions that the Greeks invented the word. of mokratywhich means that political decisions are made by the people. However, long before the Greeks, other societies had participatory or assembly-based governments that represent forms of collective governance. Moreover, democracy has not followed a linear trajectory from Greece to the present day, but has been reinvented in different times and places. A new study, published in Sciende AdvanceBased on archaeological and textual data from 40 historical cases in 31 societies worldwide, the study argues that assemblies and councils existed in Europe, the Americas, and Asia to make community decisions, often related to resource management, agriculture, and collective defense. These institutions were not democracies in the modern sense, but they did allow for participation and a degree of collective deliberation.

"People often assume that democratic practices began in Greece and Rome," says Gary Feinman, lead author of the study and curator at the Negaunee Integrative Research Center at the Field Museum in Chicago. "Our research shows that many societies around the world developed ways to limit the power of rulers and give a voice to ordinary people." In an autocracy, only one person or a small group holds all the power; this includes absolute monarchies and dictatorships. In a democracy, decision-making power is shared among the people. Elections, according to this study, do not guarantee democracy because many autocrats have been elected. “Elections aren’t exactly the best indicator of what counts as democracy, so with this study we tried to draw on historical examples of political organization,” says Feinman. “We defined two key dimensions of governance. One is the degree to which power is concentrated in a single individual or institution. The other is the degree of inclusiveness—how many citizens have access to power and can participate in some aspects of government,” he adds. Comparable examples of collective self-government were found among the Haudenosaunee and Zuni (North America); in Mesoamerican cities such as Teotihuacan and Monte Albán; and in Mohenjo-daro in the Indus Valley (in present-day Pakistan). Some of these societies maintained collective structures for centuries, even more than a millennium, demonstrating that inclusive governance is neither ephemeral nor unstable. The study analyzes various factors based on both architectural findings and written sources. For example, it evaluates and compares the scale and spatial arrangement of monumental architecture to examine centers of power and central decision-making institutions. Rituals are another aspect to consider. There are grandiose displays that reinforce the grandeur of a leader and appeal to emotions. In these societies, death also distinguishes the most powerful, with monumental tombs. In contrast, there are more participatory rituals that have a greater impact on cultural identity as a group.

"The use of space is very revealing"

“I think the use of space is very revealing,” Feinman says. “When you find urban areas with large, open spaces, or when you see public buildings with large spaces where people can meet and exchange information, these societies tend to be more democratic.” On the other hand, some architectural and urban planning features indicate a society in which fewer people concentrate power. “If you see pyramids with a very small space at the top, or urban plans where all the roads lead to the ruler’s residence, or societies with very little space for people to meet and exchange information, you can conclude that these are more autocratic cases,” Feinman explains. According to the study, neither population size nor geographic location is the determining factor. The most decisive factor is how government institutions are financed. Societies that depend on external resources—such as control of mines, trade routes, or war booty—tend to concentrate power in a few hands. In these contexts, rulers have less incentive to share power with the population, and officials often tend to protect the rulers' interests. Conversely, when funding comes primarily from taxes and internal contributions, citizens gain bargaining power and participation. The study reveals that autocracy depends not only on who governs but also on how societies are organized. Among the characteristics of autocracy are bureaucracies based on personal loyalty. That is, family members, clients, or allies are often appointed to positions of power. However, more egalitarian societies tend to have meritocratic institutions. Competencies count, not personal connections. The study also shows that societies with more inclusive political systems generally have lower levels of economic inequality. “These results challenge the idea that autocracy and great inequality are natural or inevitable outcomes of complexity or growth,” says Feinman. “History shows that people around the world have created inclusive political systems, even under difficult conditions.” At a time when many contemporary democracies are facing difficulties, the study argues that looking to the past can offer valuable lessons. “When you do archaeology, you look for patterns that contain potential lessons for today’s world,” Feinman asserts. The study explores alternative paths to governance and confirms the importance of funding, institutions, economic equality, and rituals in shaping political power. “By broadening the historical and global perspective, we can challenge entrenched ideas born in the context of European colonialism, which presented democracy as an exclusive Western invention. Our results show that forms of collective governance have existed in multiple regions and eras,” the authors state.