> afaik it dates back at least to Ancient Athens and was one of the tenets of their democracy: rich people were excluded from the political process entirely.
My only source for this is Etienne Chouard[1], a French teacher; it dates back to a 2011 video of a lecture[2] (in French). Notwithstanding political opinions, I expected his apparently factual take on history to be reliable; but I am now questioning whether he can be trusted fully in terms of intellectual honesty. Again, notwithstanding opinions, is he being genuine is his arguments, eg. not skewing history? I'll let you be the judge of that. I am not a specialist in Ancient history, though I have a bit of a formal pol.sci. background.
It wasn't about "rich" so much as perceived to be dangerously influent, my mistake. Note that it was entirely subjective, to be decided by a vote.
The procedure implemented was called "ostracism" and allowed the exclusion of anyone from political affairs for 10 years, simply based on a vote by citizens, without a need for justification whatsoever. Common reasons apparently were "he speaks too well", "craves power too much", "I don't trust him".
Thank you, HN for a quick and efficient fact-check.
[2]: https://youtu.be/HDg2sIZZi8I?t=2408 (40:08 to ~42:00) Note that the whole is quite interesting from a political science standpoint, again notwithstanding any political opinion (note that the speaker however does not refrain from speaking his).
Did a rather poor online search, and the closest I came to something on the subject I found[1] is this:
> Of this group, perhaps as few as 100 citizens - the wealthiest, most influential, and the best speakers - dominated the political arena both in front of the assembly and behind the scenes in private conspiratorial political meetings (xynomosiai) and groups (hetaireiai). These groups had to meet secretly because although there was freedom of speech, persistent criticism of individuals and institutions could lead to accusations of conspiring tyranny and so lead to ostracism
K0SM0S|6 years ago
It wasn't about "rich" so much as perceived to be dangerously influent, my mistake. Note that it was entirely subjective, to be decided by a vote.
The procedure implemented was called "ostracism" and allowed the exclusion of anyone from political affairs for 10 years, simply based on a vote by citizens, without a need for justification whatsoever. Common reasons apparently were "he speaks too well", "craves power too much", "I don't trust him".
Thank you, HN for a quick and efficient fact-check.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tienne_Chouard
[2]: https://youtu.be/HDg2sIZZi8I?t=2408 (40:08 to ~42:00) Note that the whole is quite interesting from a political science standpoint, again notwithstanding any political opinion (note that the speaker however does not refrain from speaking his).
ericol|6 years ago
Did a rather poor online search, and the closest I came to something on the subject I found[1] is this:
> Of this group, perhaps as few as 100 citizens - the wealthiest, most influential, and the best speakers - dominated the political arena both in front of the assembly and behind the scenes in private conspiratorial political meetings (xynomosiai) and groups (hetaireiai). These groups had to meet secretly because although there was freedom of speech, persistent criticism of individuals and institutions could lead to accusations of conspiring tyranny and so lead to ostracism
[1] https://www.ancient.eu/Athenian_Democracy/
K0SM0S|6 years ago
analognoise|6 years ago