Students Again

Rise of the Modern Irish Nation Papers

 

Paper #1

 

Has Sinn Féin and the SDLP Become Indistinguishable?:

A Historical and Policy Analysis 1970-2001

 

 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction. 1

II. Sinn Féin: The Political Mouthpiece. 1

III. The SDLP: Born From the Civil Rights Era. 2

IV. Evident Policy Differences Up Until the 1990s. 2

V. The SDLP and Sinn Féin beyond the 1990s: The Difference in Policy Narrows. 2

VI. Conclusion. 2

VII. Bibliography. 2

 

I. Introduction

The Social Democratic and Lobour Party (SDLP) and Sinn Féin are two major nationalist political parties in Northern Ireland. These two parties have had immensely diverse views concerning policy issues up until the 1990s. They were extremely polarized on almost every key issue. However, beyond the 1990s many have claimed that the policy agenda of Sinn Féin has become comparable to the SDLP’s.[1] Has Sinn Féin evolved into a party difficult to differentiate from the SDLP? Do any differences presently endure? In order to answer these questions, a history of the two parties must be discussed. This will provide any historical difference that is apparent between the two parties. An analysis of the policy differences that occurred prior to the 1990s must also be uncovered. After analyzing the two political parties it will be evident that prior to the 1990s there were distinguishable historical and policy differences. Also, it will be clear that beyond the 1990s those differences became less distinguishable.

 

II. Sinn Féin[2]: The Political Mouthpiece

Sinn Féin[3] was a party that traditionally advocated for the use of abstentionism. During Sinn Féin’s Ard Fheis (annual party conference) in 1970 a vote was cast to end this customary stance. Many members were against this decision. Some of these members, Sean McStiofain and Rauri Ó Brádaigh[4], walked out of the conference to form Provisional Sinn Féin[5] and the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA). After the formation of Sinn Féin, the party did very little political organizing, they spoke on behalf of the PIRA, and they practiced abstentionism. These facts made it difficult for Sinn Féin to be viewed as anything more than the political division for the PIRA in its early years.[6]

Sinn Féin and the PIRA, the Provisional Republican Movement,[7] believed that the British could be removed from Northern Ireland through the use of a PIRA military campaign^[8]:

 

the Provisional IRA's strategy was to use as much force as possible to cause the collapse of the Northern Ireland administration and to inflict enough casualties on the British forces that the British government would be forced by public opinion to withdraw from Ireland.” A policy described by Sean MacStiofain as, "escalation, escalation and escalation". This was modelled on the success of the Irish Republican Army in the Irish War of Independence 1919-1922 and was articulated in slogans such "Victory 1972". However, this policy failed to take into account the strong unionist commitment to remain within the United Kingdom.[9]

 

By the mid-1970s, the idea of a quick military victory leading to British withdrawal was vanishing. Secret meetings between leaders of the Provisional Republican Movement and the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Merlyn Rees, concluded with a PIRA ceasefire. The ceasefire was to be in effect from February 1975 until January of 1976. During that time, Rees was trying to bring the Provisional’s into peaceful politicking. Critics of the PIRA leadership felt that the ceasefire was disastrous for the PIRA since it led to many difficulties within the organization. The ceasefire broke down in January 1976.[10]

 

One of the most prominent opponents of the ceasefire, Gerry Adams, would become the Vice President of Sinn Féin in 1978. A new strategy termed the “long war” would be applied under Adams guidance.  This strategy involved the restructuring of the PIRA into small units, acceptance that their campaign would last for many years before being successful, and increased importance on political activity through Provisional Sinn Féin. The PIRA would carryout an armed campaign while Sinn Féin would carryout a propaganda campaign. They also would be the public and political voice of the Provisional Republican Movement.[11] This strategy would move Sinn Féin towards an existence involved in full-time politicking.

 

In 1977, PIRA prisoners were stripped of their political status. In response, over five hundred prisoners refused to wash or wear prison clothes in an incident known as the Dirty Protest. The Dirty Protest evolved into the 1981 Irish Hunger Strike. This strike involved seven PIRA members starving themselves to death in an effort to reclaim their political status. Also, there were work stoppages and large demonstrations all over Ireland in support of the hunger strikers. Bobby Sands was the first of the hunger strikers to die and over one-hundred thousand people attended his funeral. After the success of PIRA hunger strikers in mobilizing support and helping to win elections in 1981, Sinn Féin increasingly devoted its time and resources to electoral politics. This policy became known as the "Ballot Box in one hand and the Armalite in the other." This was a strategy where elections were contested by Sinn Féin, while the PIRA continued to pursue a paramilitary action against the British army.[12]

 

In the 1980s, the PIRA attempted to escalate the conflict. The attempted escalation did not prove to be successful; movement leaders increasingly looked for a political compromise to end the conflict. Gerry Adams entered talks with the SDLP leader, John Hume, and secret talks were also conducted with British officials. At this time Adams increasingly tried to endorse separation between Sinn Féin and the PIRA. Within the Provisional Republican Movement, the new strategy was known as the tactical use of armed struggle.[13] A strategy devoted to ending the reliance on the use of arms and placing Sinn Féin into a position devoted to full-time politicking. In 1986, the idea of full-time politicking would become a reality at the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis when the vote to drop abstenionism was passed.[14]

 

III. The SDLP: Born From the Civil Rights Era

The SDLP party was founded on August 21, 1970. The party grew as an advocate for civil rights after incidents such as the Belfast Curfew[15].[16] The party was formed from members of various nationalist and socialist political parties such as: the Republican Labour Party, the National Democrats, and Northern Ireland Labour Party. The founder of the party was Gerry Fitt. Fitt had a history in politicking and would become the leader of this newly founded party.[17]

 

The SDLP had a “radical programme of wealth distribution, civil rights, friendship between Catholic and Protestant and cross-border co-operation, leading to eventual unity.”[18] The party also adopted the use of non-abstentionism[19]; it planned to represent its constituents at Stormont[20].  The party hoped to gain Catholic and Protestant support by adopting these policies in its early years.

 

The party argued for a constitutional change to reconcile the problems created from partition with the consent of the North. The SDLP’s argument was made in 1972 through a policy document titled Towards A New Ireland. In this document, the SDLP declared:

 

It follows from all of this that Britain must not again attempt to impose a settlement on this country. The key to her role now lies in her making an immediate declaration that she believes that it would be in the best interests of all sections of the Communities in both Islands, if Ireland were to become united on terms which would be acceptable to all the people of Ireland. Such declaration should contain no hint of coercion but should make it abundantly clear that this is Britain's view and it is the one that she will positively encourage. No one in Ireland has demanded that such a declaration be translated into immediate Irish Unity. There are too many problems inherent in its implementations which will take time to resolve and which will require the setting up of democratic machinery [agreed and consented by both the North and South] for their resolution. In the meantime an interim system of Government for Northern Ireland should be set up which is fair to all sections.[21]

 

The SDLP firmly believed that Unionist consent was necessary for any future stance on the future of Ireland.

 

By 1974, the SDLP was involved in a power sharing executive with Ulster Unionist. This was an attempt to put an end to the troublesome past by creating a situation where Unionist had to share power with Nationalist. This agreement emerged from the Sunningdale Conference held between December 6 and 9 in 1973.[22] During the conference “the SDLP was promised a share in executive power, and the development of all-Ireland institutions.” In an effort to carryout these promises “the British and Irish governments … agreed to set up a Council of Ireland, with representatives from north and south to administer matters of common interest.”[23] Sunningdale would not prove to be the last of the peace process: “There may have been some slender unionist support for, or at least resignation to, power-sharing. There was virtually none for a Council of Ireland.”[24] In 1979, John Hume[25] would become the new SDLP leader due to Fitt’s resignation “on the grounds that the party was becoming too nationalist.”[26]

 

During the 1980s the SDLP would take a new approach in discussing ways to bring peace and stability to Ireland. John Hume was also fearful of the growing power of provisional Sinn Féin.[27] To remedy these issues and to strengthen the party’s governmental position the New Ireland Forum was setup to take place at Dublin Castle.[28] The result of this forum was a published report outlining three options: “a confederal Ireland, a united Ireland (unitary state), or joint sovereignty.”[29] Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (UK) during this time, completely dismissed the findings of the forum stating “that is out” after each proposal. The “out … out … out speech” severely damaged Anglo-Irish relations.[30] This blunder would lead to another component of the peace process. That component was the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985. This agreement gave the Irish government an advisory role in Northern Ireland’s government while confirming that Northern Ireland would remain part of the UK unless a majority of its citizens agreed to join the Republic.

 

From the 1980s and beyond many of Hume’s ideas have been implemented into various aspects of the peace process. For his contributions to the peace process and advocacy for non-violence during that process he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1998.

 

IV. Evident Policy Differences Up Until the 1990s

A historical difference from the inception of the SDLP and Sinn Féin up until the 1990s is evident. It has become clear that the SDLP grew out of the civil rights movement, the policy of non-abstentionism, and devoted to bringing peace to Ireland. Also, it has become clear that Sinn Féin was born out of disagreement with Official Sinn Féin concerning the use of abstentionism. Sinn Féin went on to play a propaganda role in the PIRA’s campaign of violence devoted to withdrawal of the British by any means necessary.

 

Now policy differences must be exposed to continue analyzing the difference between the two political parties. The policy differences between the two parties center around five main issues: their focus, their views of Britain’s role in the conflict and its future role, their views of Unionist, their views regarding Unionist consent, and their positions on the use of violence.

 

The focus of the SDLP and Sinn Féin has been significantly different. The SDLP was focused on the concept of divided communities. The party believed that the most important thing was to reconcile the two communities in order to make progress. The SDLP has focused less on the idea of an Irish nation; “it focuses on people rather than territory; it speaks of a legacy of conflict which must be transcended…”[31] However, Sinn Féin was focused on the concept of a divided island. The party believed that partition is the problem and if Northern Ireland and the Republic were made into one Irish nation progress will follow: “The party is dedicated to the achievement of a united Ireland.”[32] For Sinn Féin the reconciliation of the divided communities will naturally occur once territorial partition is abolished.

 

Britain’s role in the conflict and its future role is another source of debate between the SDLP and Sinn Féin. The SDLP blames Britain for the partition of the island and believes that they should stay to help reconcile the problems:

 

John Hume of the SDLP said that the British government should consider…in its search for a political solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland…an ‘agreed Ireland’ where the British government would declare that its objective was to bring the two main traditions in Ireland together in reconciliation and agreement.”[33]

 

Sinn Féin is convinced that Britain has selfish reasons for remaining and should leave as soon as possible: “The only solution to the present political conflict in Ireland is the ending of partition, a British disengagement from Ireland and the restoration to the Irish people of their right to sovereignty, independence and national self-determination.”[34]

 

The view of Unionist is another issue that differs between the two parties. The SDLP accepts Unionist as being British if Unionist viewed themselves as being British. The SDLP’s solution to political settlement in Northern Ireland is to recognize the divisions of national identity within the community.^[35] According to the SDLP, the division of identity cannot be ignored. The SDLP believes that until the differences in identity are recognized little can be done to mend the situation: “The Party has acknowledged the presence of an alternative Ulster-Protestant-British tradition on the island, endorsing a two-tradition, equal legitimacy approach. The primary objective is national reconciliation not liberation.”[36] Sinn Féin’s approach to their view of Unionist is quite different. Sinn Féin views Unionist as Irish with their own set of peculiar traditions: “the position of Sinn Fein towards formal institutional recognition of the Ulster-Protestant identity [as British] has not shifted…There is to be none.[37] Sinn Féin refuses to recognize the Unionist view of being British. According to Sinn Féin, Unionist are Irish and do not deserve recognition as British regardless of their beliefs.

 

Unionist consent[38] is a highly contested issue between the two parties. The SDLP believes that Unionist consent is necessary for any constitutional change to take place regarding the status of Northern Ireland.[39] This is considered a precursor for a united Ireland within the party. On the other side of the spectrum, Sinn Féin believes that reconciliation of partition and British withdrawal should be the priority. As a result of the success of that goal, Unionist consent will come naturally:

 

In effect, Sinn Fein’s historical view appeared to remain intact, namely that Unionist consent and allegiance would be a consequence of the creation of Irish unity [partition and withdrawal]. For the SDLP, such consent was a prerequisite for the establishment of a united Ireland.[40]

 

The view on the issue regarding the use of violence was another policy difference between the SDLP and Sinn Féin. The SDLP was opposed to the use of violence as a means to reconcile any of the problems within Northern Ireland. The SDLP states, “Throughout the course of the last thirty-five years, the SDLP has never deviated from its core values. We have always stood completely opposed to all violence, arguing that it was not only morally wrong but politically bankrupt as well because violence always destroys that which it claims to defend.”[41] Sinn Féin was the political arm of the violent PIRA organization for much of its early existence. Sinn Féin was devoted to the creation of a united Ireland by any means necessary, including violence.[42]

 

V. The SDLP and Sinn Féin beyond the 1990s: The Difference in Policy Narrows

In this section, a brief history of the SDLP and Sinn Féin starting in the 1990s is explored to show any historical difference in the modern era. After the current history has been discussed an analysis of any current policy differences that remain will be conducted.

 

During 1988 John Hume held a series of talks with Gerry Adams, then President of Sinn Féin, in an attempt to convince Sinn Féin that the PIRA should end its campaign of violence. In 1993, the party supported the Downing Street Declaration[43]. In 1996, the SDLP concentrated on multi-party talks that were being conducted. In April of 1998, these talks ended with the Good Friday Agreement[44] (GFA). In 2001, John Hume retired as leader of the party and was succeeded by Mark Durkan. As the new leader, Durkan had to deal with the growing electoral challenge by Sinn Féin, which became the largest nationalist party in Northern Ireland.[45]

 

In 1993, Sinn Féin entered into renewed talks with the SDLP. After the announcement of a second PIRA ceasefire in 1997, Sinn Féin was allowed to participate in the multi-party talks leading to the GFA. Sinn Féin’s growing participation in the political process gave an increased electoral threat to the SDLP. In 2001, Sinn Féin became largest nationalist party in Northern Ireland.

 

The policy changes from the 1990s to the present have led many to believe that Sinn Féin’s agenda is virtually the same as the SDLP.[46] The main policy agenda of the SDLP has remained intact. However, Sinn Féin has implemented policy changes regarding their view of Unionist, Britain’s role in the conflict and its future role, and its position on the use of violence. These policy changes are virtually the same as the SDLP’s long-standing policies. Sinn Féin has traditionally viewed Unionist as Irish with peculiar traditions. This policy has shifted to an acceptance that there are two competing traditions on the island. Sinn Féin has even gone as far as to admit that Unionist have a distinct identity.[47] The traditional view of Sinn Féin regarding Britain’s role in the conflict and its future role has been that Britain has had selfish reasons for remaining and should leave immediately. Sinn Féin’s “demands for immediate British withdrawal have been superseded by calls for ‘constructive disengagement’.”[48] This is merely a restructuring of words. In the end, this policy matches the SDLP’s policy for Britain to help reconcile some of the problems before a complete withdrawal. Regarding the policy of the use of violence; Sinn Féin was born as the political wing of a violent organization. The party advocated for the use of violence as a means to an end for most of its existence. The party has slowly disengaged from its involvement with the PIRA over the years, but this policy has undergone an even greater shift: “This has also meant a greater separation of the political from the military, exemplified most startlingly in Adams’ assertion that ‘Sinn Féin is not the IRA. Sinn Féin is not involved in armed struggle. Sinn Féin does not advocate armed struggle.’”[49] In the end, Sinn Féin has managed not to change their position on Unionist consent. To Sinn Féin this remains to be the consequence of a change rather than a prerequisite:

 

In arguing that the consent and allegiance of Unionists were ‘essential ingredients for a lasting peace’ Sinn Féin was not stipulating that Unionist consent was a precursor for the exercise of self-determination. Rather, Sinn Féin was in effect acknowledging that the result of the exercise of self- determination, presumably a unitary Irish state, could only be successful once it enjoyed the allegiance of unionists.[50]

 

The current leader of the SDLP, Durkan, stated it best when he said: “…that anyone wanting to gaze into a crystal ball to predict future Sinn Féin policy, only need look at the present SDLP policy to see what it is going to be.[51]

 

VI. Conclusion

Up until the 1990s there were many historical and policy differences between the SDLP and Sinn Féin. The SDLP was born out of the civil rights movement while Sinn Féin grew out of a campaign of violence. The two parties were polarized on many policy issues including their focus, view of Unionist, Britain’s role in the conflict and its future role, Unionist consent, and the use of violence. After the 1990s the historical differences began to fade as the two parties participated in many of the same milestones. The polarization on policy issues also became virtually nonexistent; the only exception being the issue of Unionist consent. What is the difference between the SDLP and Sinn Féin? The answer to this question has become clear. Up until the 1990s the differences between the two parties were huge, ranging from historical to policy differences. After the 1990s, the two parties have become virtually indistinguishable from a modern historical and policy perspective.

 

VII. Bibliography

All Experts Encyclopedia, BETA ed., s.v. “Provisional Irish Republican Army,” http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/pr/provisional_irish_republican_army.htm (accessed April 7, 2007).

 

Brendan Lynn, “Abstentionism: Sinn Féin Ard Fheis, 1-2 November 1986
- Summary of the Issue,” http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/abstentionism/sum.htm (accessed: April 8, 2007).

 

Democratic Dialogue, “British? Irish? Or What,” http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/dd/report7/report7c.htm (accessed April 6, 2007)

 

Eamonn Hughes, ed., Culture and Politics in Northern Ireland 1960-1990 (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1991).

 

Encyclopedia Britannica, Online ed., s.v. “Sinn Féin,” http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9067944/Sinn-Fein (accessed March 24, 2007).

 

J.J. Lee, Ireland 1912-1985 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989).

Agnès Maillot, New Sinn Féin: Irish Republicanism in the Twenty-first Century (New York: Routledge, 2004).

 

John Pike, “Irish Republican Army (IRA), Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA, the Provos, Direct Action Against Drugs (DAAD),” Federation of American Scientists Intelligence Resource Program, http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ira.htm (accessed March 31, 2007).

 

Jon Tonge, “The Political Agenda of Sinn Fein,” in Stanyer, J. and Stoker, G. (eds) Contemporary Political Studies, Nottingham: Political Studies Association, 1997.

 

Mark Simpson, “Nationalism: ‘Split on Policing’,” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2207460.stm (accessed April 10, 2007).

 

Martin Melaugh, “Abstracts on Organizations – ‘S’,” http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/sorgan.htm#sf (accessed April 8, 2007)

 

Martin Melaugh, “A Chronology of the Conflict – 1978,” http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch78.htm (accessed April 8, 2007)

 

Paul Mitchell and Rick Wilford, ed., Politics in Northern Ireland (Colorado: Westview Press, 1999).

 

Sinn Féin, “The Sinn Féin/SDLP Talks,” http://www.sinnfein.ie/pdf/SF_SDLP_talks.pdf  (accessed April 1, 2007).

 

Social Democratic and Labour Party, “Towards a New Ireland: Proposals by the Social Democratic and Labour Party,” March 31, 2007, http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/crights/sdlp1972.htm#declar.

 

Social Democratic and Labour Party, “A Short History of the SDLP,” http://www.sdlp.ie/about_us.html (accessed April 1, 2007).

 

Tim Pat Coogan, Ireland in the 20^th Century (New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 2004).

 

Tim Pat Coogan, The Troubles: Ireland’s Ordeal 1966-1996 and the search for Peace (Colorado: Roberts Rinehart Publishers, 1996).

 

T.W. Moody, The Course of Irish History (Colorado: Roberts Rinehart Publishers, 1995).

 

Paper #2

Response Paper: The Wind That Shakes The Barley

 

The Wind That Shakes the Barley, written by Paul Laverty and directed by Ken Loach, is a dramatic portrayal of the period surrounding the events during the 1920s leading to partition which is presented in a personal format. This film is thought provoking on many levels which includes political and historical elements.  In viewing the film one must be comatose to avoid asking themselves questions regarding bias or regarding the justification of the use of violence. In the end, this film proved to be powerfully moving, but the overall quality is left to the eye of the beholder.

 

To add a personal aspect to the film aside from the overall historical aspect the film focuses on two brothers: Damien and Teddy. Damien is on his way to London to pursue medical studies while his brother Teddy is and active member of the Irish Republican Army (IRA). After witnessing the brutal murder of a seventeen year old friend for refusing to divulge his name in English rather than Gaelic, Damien decides to stay and fight against the British occupation. Damien joins the IRA in a guerilla fight against British paramilitary forces. When the Anglo-Irish treaty is agreed the two brothers find themselves on opposite sides: Teddy is involved in the organization of The Irish Free State which wishes everyone to support peace while Damien feels that the treaty is not what he has fought for and will not bring relief to the oppressed. This is the outbreak of the Irish Civil War. In an effort to promulgate their views of the treaty, both the Irish Free State and the anti-treaty IRA resort to violence akin to the previous violence between the occupation and the guerilla forces. The difference in the violence at this point can be attributed to the fact that it is directed between past allies. At the end of the film Damien is executed by the Irish Free State. Teddy offers to release Damien if he would divulge the location of the IRA’s weapons cache. Damien refuses and is executed via firing squad commanded by Teddy.

 

This film has a definite political aspect. Loach and Laverty show an occupied country rising up to thwart an invading army. In this attempt the film appears unabashedly one-sided. The British are portrayed as a bunch of aggressive thugs. On the other side the Irish are shown to be nothing more than protectors of their homeland. While there might be an inkling of truth to this view, it can not be disputed that there were insidious acts perpetrated on both sides of the fight. This film could easily be compared to current political thought regarding the war in Iraq; The United Stated playing the role of the British while the Iraqi regime playing the role of the Irish drawing parallels regarding imperialists occupation. The one-sided nature creates a film that is best viewed in straight forward fashion by someone who can identify with the emotional aspect of the Irish viewpoint, when ordinary Irish men and women are compelled to armed struggle and murder. The script was written in such a way to lend sympathy to the Republican cause which is again left to the individual viewer to decide if this is justified.

 

In viewing the film with an open mind and avoiding the emotional vacuum sucking the audience towards the Republican side of the argument one must wonder if retaliatory violence is ever warranted. It is clear in this film that Irish use of violence was presented as retaliatory in nature. However, just because it is retaliatory does that make it justified? This is a difficult question to address. One could make the argument that when attacked it is compulsory to attack in kind. However, that seems to be an overly childish view of the world. On the other hand, one might refer to figures such as Gandhi and his practices in thwarting violence by using his body as a battlefield. This practice seems to be an increasingly mature view and nevertheless a more difficult philosophy to adopt. As a personal preference, Gandhi philosophy is superior. Retaliatory violence repeatedly proves the old adage of violence only begets more violence to be true. The cycle has to be broken somewhere or this world will remain to be a struggle between the privileged and oppressed. This film clearly shows the viewpoint of retaliatory violence, but what was the reward? Fighting for a just cause does not necessarily make the violence associated equally just. Walter Benjamin stated in Theses on the Philosophy of History:

 

The story is told of an automaton constructed in such a way that it could play a winning game of chess, answering each move of an opponent with a countermove. A puppet in Turkish attire and with a hookah in its mouth sat before a chessboard placed on a large table was transparent from all sides. Actually, a little hunchback who was an expert chess player sat inside and guided the puppet’s hand by means of strings. One can imagine a philosophical counterpart to this device. The puppet called ‘historical materialism’ is to win all the time. It can easily be a match for anyone if it enlists the services of theology, which today, as we know, is wizened and has to keep out of sight.

 

This statement can be applied to the two polarized theories on the use of violence. The statement seems to show that illusion is the key to victory. Retaliatory violence can be that illusion preventing victory. However, if a stance such as Gandhi’s is employed illusionary violence can be avoided therefore always achieving victory.

 

The Wind that Shakes the Barley is an excellent film that everyone should view. It is thought provoking. Through the biased views of the film maker he is actually making the film more intuitive. People with different viewpoints on politics, history, and violence could enjoy this film each attaining a different level of satisfaction.

 

Ancient Greek Civilization Papers

 

Paper #1

To What Extent Was Solon the Founder of Democracy at Athens?

 

To be considered the founder of something, the founder is required to conceive something new. Future success of that which was conceived is not a prerequisite in the naming of a founder. Solon had a personality that lends itself to democratic ideals. Solon founded new ideas regarding the polis of Athens. These new ideas had an effect on justice, law, economics and money, and foreign policy. However, it must be examined whether Solon’s new ideas were democratically minded to expose the extent that he was the founder of democracy at Athens.  Solon’s new ideas as applied to the polis shape the extent to which he was the founder of democracy at Athens, regardless of the longevity of those new ideas.

 

Solon’s personality made him destined for democratic politics. What are the traits of a democratic person? Some of the more important traits of a democratic person consist of a moral good, a need for social fairness, a need for recognition, and the presence of analytical skills. Solon demonstrated all of these characteristics. Solon was most concerned with applying morals to politics. Solon believed that a moral good in politics was a necessity. Social equality was another concept that was inherent to Solon. Solon implemented laws in such a way as to both please and displease different segments of society. In doing so he created a social fairness for all parties. Solon relished the thought of receiving recognition for his efforts. He did not enjoy recognition to the extent that he expected it or that it was the motivation behind his actions, but he appreciated recognition when it was offered. This is evident in that Solon highly valued his great reputation. Solon possessed a set of analytical skills that were beyond reproach. He was clearly a philosopher, which is to say that he had a life-long love of learning.

 

Solon’s concept of justice was much different from other leader’s concept of justice. Draco, for example, liberally used the death penalty for even the smallest of offenses. Solon repealed all of the Draconian laws due to their harsh penalties; the only exception being laws relating to homicide. Solon had a belief in the certainty of justice. He achieved the implementation of worship throughout the city to make people agreeable to justice and strive to live in peace with each other. As for the citizen’s that would test the resolve of this harmony, Solon made force and justice work together. Solon’s concept of force and justice working together is the idea that he could achieve his goals through the use of persuasion or enforce it by authority. The intertwining of worship and the concept of force and justice working together leads to the idea of justice as a divine power. Solon was the deliverer of that divine power which was considered a gift from the Gods.

 

Solon’s dealings with the laws of Athens were a deviation from the norm; he posted written laws. Within these laws were many reforms. Some of these reforms included disbursement, formation of classes based on wealth, and citizen’s use of courts. Solon’s first major reform is called disbursement. Disbursement was the cancellation of all debts and the banning of loans on security of the person. This reform affected Athenian citizens that were involved in loans to the benefit of the poor. This reform also led to the freeing of a significant number of citizens. The second reform was the formation of four classes which was based on the citizens’ wealth. The first class consisted of citizens that could produce more than five hundred measures of wet or dry goods, the second class needed to produce more than three hundred measures of wet or dry goods or be able to afford a horse, the third class needed to produce more than two hundred measures of wet or dry goods, and everybody else belonged to the last class. Members of the first three classes could hold public offices, including that of an archon. The remaining class could gather at the assembly and could act as jury in the court. Another of Solon’s legal reforms that was significant was that anyone could appeal to the jury if a decision of the magistrates was not accepted. Also, citizens could seek justice for other citizens by bringing suit to prosecute offenders. This gave all citizens the ability to bring forth suits to the court. This law prevented people from taking advantage of the poorer classes because another citizen with the means to bring suit could do so.

Solon implemented economic policies in relation to the value of money; he fixed the value of the mina at one-hundred drachmas. This change to monetary value improved the standing of the people. Given the ability to amass wealth through trade and business endeavors this change created the possibility of upward mobility for the people. This was a marked change from previous norms. In the past, recently wealthy people were not permitted to hold the same political positions as those who had inherited their wealth and political influence. This helped to create equality within each class standing of the new hierarchy.

 

Foreign policy was important to Solon. This is an important ingredient for current democracies. Solon’s interest in foreign policy started with his extensive travels to gain experience and knowledge. Foreign policy is important to the polis by gaining knowledge of the affairs of multiple poleis and the friendship of foreign rulers. These tools were invaluable to Athens in times of mediation and war.

 

When deciding whether Solon’s new ideas can be viewed as democratic it must made known that Solon had no previous democratic model to follow. Due to this fact, current notions of democracy are not relevant. Solon’s intentions must be considered in uncovering whether his new ideas were democratic. An example of Solon’s intentions to be democratic was his refusal to become a tyrant when it was offered to him. Both rich and poor citizens of Athens were unhappy with some of his reforms. However, Solon was willing to incur this hatred for the good of the polis. He recognized that democracy was unfavorable as an immediate solution, but a preferred institution in the long run. Solon admits that some of his laws were not the best solution but that they were the best laws that the Athenian people would accept. This implies that Solon was even more democratically minded than his legislation demonstrated. However, he was intelligent enough to know that the people were not ready to receive new ideas that were even more drastic. Solon’s political, economic, and legal ideas can be considered somewhat democratic in the current era. However, when those ideas are applied to his time period, his reforms can be considered exceptionally democratic. His reforms laid the groundwork for an increasingly democratic future. Solon implemented a new class system that allowed for upward mobility. This new class system also gave each class a role within the democracy. This gave more power to the people; a decidedly democratic ideal. Solon started the development of the concept of individual rights and implemented legislation to protect those rights. This is a concept that even United States democracy is predicated on.

 

Solon’s new ideas failed during his self-imposed exile. This failure cannot be a means to denying the democratic nature of the new ideas. As a person, Solon displayed some of the most important characteristics of a democratic mind. These characteristics included a moral good, a need for social fairness, a need for recognition, and the presence of analytical skills. Solon created and implemented new ideas concerning justice, law, economics and money, and foreign policy. He repealed the majority of the Draconian laws that carried an excessively harsh penalty. Then, Solon implemented a system of justice that tied worship and the concept of force and justice working together. Solon introduced a host of new laws. The most important of these laws include disbursement, formation of classes, and citizen’s use of courts. Disbursement relieved the people who needed it most from debt and freed a number of other people. This law established the notion of individual rights. The formation of the four-class system created equality within each class. Also, this system presented the opportunity for upward mobility in the form of political office in a way that was not available in the past. Solon made laws that increased involvement with the court system on behalf of poorer citizens; now, anyone could bring suit to prosecute offenders. Solon re-valued the monetary system leading to improved social standing. Due to Solon’s extensive travels, he embraced foreign policy that would benefit the Athenian people. In determining the extent of the democratic value for these reforms, context must be considered. Solon had not previous democratic model to follow. He implemented laws that demonstrated a true compassion for the people. Solon’s new ideas gave the citizenship new powers that were never available in the past. Solon relieved the oppressive nature of past government. With this evidence, it can be stated that Solon was the founder of democracy at Athens to a great extent.

 

Paper #2

How Did Ancient Greeks Regard War?

 

Warfare was a very important aspect of ancient Greek life.  Analyzing ancient Greek attitudes towards war will require the discussion of several different topics.  The first concept that should be made clear is the Greek system of warfare.  Who participated in the fighting and how were the fighters organized?  The placement of soldiers in the hierarchy of ancient Greek society should also be discussed.  Were soldiers treated better or worse than the common citizen?  Was being a soldier a prerequisite to attaining citizenship?  In discussing the ancient Greeks regard for war, other aspects of ancient Greek society should be explored.  This discussion should include the parallels between athletics and war.  What is the importance of athletic training in relation to warfare?  After this exploration, any advancement in the technology of ancient Greek warfare should be exposed.  Another important question that must be answered exposing the ancient Greek regard for war is: What did ancient Greeks hope to attain through warfare?  After discussing all of these elements of ancient Greek warfare, it will be clear that war was entrenched in every aspect of ancient Greek life and is a very important aspect of the city-state.  Warfare, in regards to ancient Greek individuals, was a means of obtaining immortality and the ultimate way to glory.  In fact, war was so important that is virtually defined the ancient Greek individual and the city-state.

 

The ancient Greek system of warfare is comprised of several components.  This system is centered on a hoplite soldier.  A hoplite was a heavy infantryman in ancient Greek fighting.  The hoplites were equipped with heavy shields, spears, and swords.  Hoplites fought in a formation called a phalanx.  The phalanx was a file system of hoplites usually six to eight ranks deeps.  In a phalanx, a soldier wore his shield in his left hand.  This arrangement allowed soldiers protection from the right side of his shield and protection from the left half of the shield belonging to the man on his right.  This type of trust required a close relationship between soldiers.  In war, the phalanx of each army would smash into each other in an effort to break the line of the opposing army.  The effectiveness of the phalanx depended on the ability to keep formation.  Indeed, many battles were decided by the initial impact of the two phalanxes.

 

The soldier’s position in the social hierarchy of ancient Greece varied.  In some city-states, citizenship was reserved for hoplites that served in the army.  In many cases, ancient Greek society demanded acceptance to become a citizen.  It was believed that to become a citizen a man must fight for the city-state in order to have a say in the city-state.  There was a special link between the status of hoplites and citizenship.  This special link demonstrates the importance of warfare in relation to ancient Greek society.  In fact, as an ancient Greek duty of citizenship Greek soldiers purchased their own equipment.  The city-state and warfare were intertwined as one.

 

The parallels of athletics and war further demonstrate the relationship between the city-state and warfare.  Athletics parallel many aspects of war.  Some of these aspects include athletics as a training mechanism, competition, and confidence building.  Many ancient Greek athletics were useful in war.  Some of the more useful war training sports include physical aspects such as boxing or wrestling.  Dancing was also considered to be useful in war training.  Most ancient Greek athletics were individual physical endeavors designed to overtake an opponent.  Events such as javelin throwing, footraces, and chariot races aimed at this goal.  The participation, and sometime personal victorious outcomes of these games, attributed to the confidence building of soldiers.  Even though Greek athletic games were individual endeavors, it attributed to the togetherness of a Greek society.  This is evidenced through the granting of prizes to victorious athletes.  Prizes can also be construed as a parallel to the victorious outcomes of war.

 

Warfare was so important to the ancient Greek city-state that it was often the subject for technological advancement.  The technological advancement of warfare was common to many Greek city-states throughout ancient Greek history.  The phalanx is one example that can be attributed to the ingenuity of Sparta.  Prior to the phalanx, ancient Greek warfare was basically a free-for-all on the battlefield.  The invention of the phalanx resulted in the victory of many battles against the Persians.  Another technological advancement for warfare is the trireme.  This invention can be credited to Athens.  This addition to the naval power of Athens is responsible for the victory in the battle of Salamis.  The trireme was faster and more maneuverable than any preceding Greek war ship.  During the times of Philip II of Macedonia, when a shift to monarchy prevailed, there was much advancement in war.  The use of marriage to secure alliances came to fruition as well as conduct in diplomacy.  The army consisted of professional full-time soldiers that were loyal to the king.  Advancement to the phalanx system was employed to form the Macedonian phalanx.  The Macedonian phalanx consisted of soldiers armed with pikes, rather than spears, which were as long as fifteen feet.  Throughout ancient Greek times, war was of continual importance to the city-state.  It was so important that it warranted continual improvements.

 

The most important question in determining how ancient Greeks regarded war would concern what ancient Greeks intended to achieve through warfare.  Warfare in ancient Greece was aimed at certain goals.  One of the basic goals was protection of the city-state.  Another goal was aimed at the expansion of the city-state.  This expansion came in the form of money.  When a city-state was victorious in war, it was their right to plunder and enslave the defeated city-state.  This was justified by the proof that the victorious city-state was superior.  In ancient Greece, war was a means to wealth for a city-state.  The new assets acquired from the defeated city-state served to expand the wealth and power of the superior city-state.  Aside from the acquiring of new assets, the superior city-state was expanded through the acquisition of slaves.  Slavery played a significant role in ancient Greece.  Slaves could be found everywhere in the laborious sectors of society.  In addition to slavery by means of war, new (natural) slaves came into being through birth by slave parents.  Natural slaves further served to expand a Greek city-state.  Other than money, another motivation for war in ancient Greece was the attainment of ultimate glory.  Being a good fighter in ancient Greece was the ultimate way to glory.  The achievement of glory gives immortality to the achiever.  This immortality is accomplished through the creation of cultural reminders of that person.  Examples of cultural reminders might include individual stories, written praise, songs, or monuments to those who attain glory.  The individual soldier always strived to attain honor, prestige, and cultural good (timé).  Individuals in ancient Greece were most concerned with attaining timé in regards to war.  It seems that ancient Greeks regarded war as a way to ultimate glory and a means to money.  These motivations are unmistakably tied to societal norms and service to the city-state.  In fact, it can be deduced that warfare and the city-state are synonymous.

 

For some ancient Greek city-states, warfare was so important that it virtually defined their society.  A good example, albeit to the extreme, of a Greek city-state like this would be Sparta.  In Sparta, male children remained with their mothers until around the age of six.  After a child reached this age he was sent to live under constant attention as he was trained to be a soldier.  During this training, children were taught to be tough, obedient, and courageous.  There was no formal training.  All training had to do with warfare such as dancing and singing.  Even Spartan men did not live with their wives.  Spartan men lived in common messes with other soldiers.  The purpose for this living arrangement was to be constantly ready for war.  Spartan males from boyhood to manhood were continuously trained for war.  At the heart of the Spartan system were hoplites.  Sparta was an ancient Greek society that held war to such a high regard that their entire city-state was built on and revolved around the concept.

 

Warfare was entrenched in every aspect of ancient Greek life. It was a very important aspect in the protection and expansion of the city-state.  Warfare, in regards to ancient Greek individuals, was a means of obtaining immortality and the ultimate way to glory.  War penetrated every aspect of the ancient Greek city-state.  The ancient Greek system of warfare required a trust, or bond, between the soldiers of the phalanx.  In this respect, war is a tool to strengthen the togetherness of the community.  In some city-states, in order to have a say in the city-state a man must fight for the city-state.  In other words, citizenship was defined by aspects of warfare.  Social contest such as athletics had a parallel relationship to war.  Many athletic events can be perceived as preparatory for war.  Innovation was another sector of the city-state in which a focus on war existed.  Developing new tactics, weapons, and systems was perpetual throughout ancient Greek history.  The importance of war was served through different motivations by the city-state and the individual.  War was a means of assets and slaves for the expansion of the city-state.  For the ancient Greek individual, war was a path to immortality.  These two motivations tied war to the city-state and to the individual. This bond was to the point of defining the individual and the success of a city-state.  Sparta is an extreme example of this intertwining of war, the individual, and the city-state.  Indeed, war encroached on every facet of ancient Greek life and society.  For these reasons, it can be said that ancient Greeks hold war in the highest regard.