In an attempt to explain why I believe ancient democracy (which appeared not only in Ancient Greece or Rome, but also Iceland) was or is superior to modern democracy in terms of order and social cohesiveness (related to individual identity) I will firstly explain how the two forms of democracy are essentially different, and than venture to show why the differences make one superior to the other.

So, what are the essential (the most important) differences between ancient and modern democracy?

1. Ancient democracy was an organic political culmination of  a tribe or an exclusive ethnic group; the individual is part of a closely-knit communitarian socio-cultural body and his identity is shaped accordingly.
2. Ancient democracy does not presuppose inalienable rights to humans. Civil rights create liberty, not the opposite — that is, there’s no freedom nor liberty preceding any socio-political arrangement. Liberty is a actually the duty to serve the society and have the capacity to do it.

These two important aspects of ancient democracy contrast the notional and practical platform of modern liberal democracies. In modern democracies, individuals are self-sufficient atoms who serve economical goals and pursue, as the causa finalis, happiness and a sensation of self-attained fulfillment, the very heart and core of the idea of individualist liberalism. This is perpetuated in modern ‘metric units’ which are now units of consumption, like GNP or GDP. There’s no collective goal or target, no sense of belonging and meaning, and individual identity is fractioned into a infinite number of stylish forms. The psycho-social effect on the individual is alienation, boredom and lack of collaboration with other members of society as well as unwillingness to contribute due to a profound sensation of cynicism towards any goal or target that doesn’t end up filling one’s pockets.

With the arrival of unprecedented selfishness, and under the tutelage of liberalism, social stability declines. When the systematic framework doesn’t serve nothing but the happiness of the singular, alienated unit and therefore feeds the ego of the singular unit, the singular unit doesn’t repay what it’s ought to if society is to remain stable and strong. Instead, singular units continue to demand more entitlements and momentary gratifications; viral culture of narcissism is soon to ensue. Humans who live in liberal democracies believe civil or human rights are inalienably theirs; this mentality precedes any logic that says we need to think about long-term effects or immediate solutions that do not coincide with one’s desires and freedom.

In a secularized-liberalized world, where there’s no unifying ideal to society, the first thing to be undermined is social stability and moral order, and also the ability to make hard and individually-inconvenient decisions (one’s happiness isn’t the most important thing in life).  In such a state, and where there’s too much freedom as a built-in and seemingly natural state of humanity, you get a society of direction-less, mediocre throng. This will, self-evidently, lead to a  cultural, socio-demographical and psychological decay. It’s hard to fight and explain this causal process, since many believe modern democracies ARE the cause of success of the west (by looking at China, ’tis fairly obvious democracy is not a necessary component in the path to success, even in the hyper-digital, business-like modern world). Indeed, it is a widespread illusion of a correlation that leads one to believe liberal democracies are successful because of their societal liberal premises and policies (human rights, entitlement, welfare nanny-state and such); they simply enjoy the spoils of scientific progression and economic competitiveness which generates wealth (but is horrifying in cultural terms), as well as the benefits of secularism. Both competition and scientific progression appeared long before liberalism became the predominant “geist” of the occident.

Ancient democratic societies were not perfect and have certainly had their problems, but they can teach us something positive. I believe that at least in terms of societal framework and political arrangements, we can extract good insights from the ancient democracies. One perfectly sane way to attain social order and stability is to embrace a communitarian system, which shapes the identity of the civilian / insider in accordance with a socio-cultural goal, and provides him the freedom to be an active member of society.