SoylentNews

hubie [soylentnews.org] writes:

Researchers use archaeological-textual tool to uncover global spread of democracies—and autocracies—in early societies [nyu.edu]:

It is a common belief that democratic forms of government began in Greece and Rome. However, a newly published global study on ancient societies upends this perception, rewriting our understanding of democracy's origins.

An international team of researchers analyzed archaeological and historical evidence from 31 ancient societies across Europe, Asia, and the Americas and found that shared, inclusive governance was far more common than was once believed.

The study [science.org], which appears in the journal Science Advances, is the first comprehensive effort to use archaeological evidence to assess the types of government that existed in early societies.

"People often assume that democratic practices started in Greece and Rome," says Gary Feinman, the study's lead author and the MacArthur Curator of Mesoamerican and Central American Anthropology at the Field Museum's Negaunee Integrative Research Center. "But our research shows that many societies around the world developed ways to limit the power of rulers and give ordinary people a voice."

The researchers, drawing upon art, architecture, and other artifacts, also found evidence of autocratic governments.

"These findings show that both democracy and autocracy were widespread in the ancient world," observes New York University Professor David Stasavage, author of The Decline and Rise of Democracy: A Global History from Antiquity to Today [nyu.edu] and a co-author of the paper. "Significantly, we now have a deeper appreciation of the many factors that affect how governments form and change over time—knowledge that can guide understanding of present-day geopolitical developments."

The study's authors note that both types of governments come in different forms. In an autocracy, one person or a small group holds all the power; examples of autocracy can include absolute monarchies and dictatorships. In a democracy, decision-making power is shared among the people. Elections often go hand-in-hand with democracy, but not always.

"Elections aren't exactly the greatest metric for what counts as a democracy, so with this study, we tried to draw on historical examples of human political organization," says Feinman. "We defined two key dimensions of governance. One of them is the degree to which power is concentrated in just one individual or just one institution. The other is the degree of inclusiveness—how much the bulk of the citizens have access to power and can participate in some aspects of governance."

[...] The researchers found that population size and the number of political levels did not account for whether a society would be autocratic—contrary to conventional wisdom, populous or geographically expansive societies were not always autocratic. Instead, says Feinman, "the strongest factor shaping how much power rulers held was how they financed their authority."

Societies that depended heavily on revenue that was controlled or monopolized by leaders—such as mines, long-distance trade routes, slave labor, or war plunder—tended to become more autocratic. In contrast, societies funded mainly through broad internal taxes or community labor were more likely to distribute power and maintain systems of shared governance.

The study also shows that societies with more inclusive political systems generally had lower levels of economic inequality.

Journal Reference: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aec1426 [doi.org]

Original Submission