“The Funeral Oration of Pericles” (1853) by Philipp von Foltz. Pericles was a statesman who led the golden age of ancient Greek Athens. He is delivering a speech honoring the victims of the Peloponnesian War in front of citizens before the war with Sparta.

Athens: "Any citizen should be able to hold public office"

Athens selected public officials by lot, while Rome elected them. In 5th-century BC Athens, a significant number of public offices were filled by lot. A stone device called a kleroterion was used, where nameplates were inserted, and pebbles were dropped to determine the order. Many positions, including magistrates and jury members, were filled this way.

The reason for choosing this method was the belief that elections would repeatedly lead to the same individuals being selected. Those who were eloquent speakers, wealthy, or well-known had an advantage. If this trend continued, power would remain concentrated in the hands of a few. Athenian citizens were wary of this.

Therefore, they opted for rotation instead of competition. They believed that any citizen should be able to hold public office. Of course, they accepted the possibility of unprepared individuals taking on roles. However, they prevented specific individuals from holding office for extended periods. Politics was understood not as a profession, but as a public role that citizens took turns fulfilling.

Rome: "Running a state requires experience and judgment"

The Roman Republic took a different path.

Key public offices such as consul, praetor, and quaestor were all determined through elections. Voting took place in citizen assemblies, and candidates delivered speeches and engaged in activities to gain support.

This was based on a different assessment. They believed that running a state required experience and judgment. They felt that positions involving military command and law enforcement could not be assigned randomly. Therefore, career, reputation, and track record were important factors.

This system made it easier for a specific class to rise to prominence. Influential families like the patricians and individuals with political experience occupied the major positions. Plebeians gradually entered, but competition was fierce. Multiple individuals vied for the same positions, and political standing was determined by the outcomes.

These two traditions continue to this day.

Modern states operate primarily through elections. Presidents, members of parliament, and local government heads are all decided by votes. In this regard, they resemble Rome. Simultaneously, traces of Athens remain in systems like jury duty and citizen participation, where randomly selected citizens take on public roles.

South Korea also possesses elements of both.

Article 1 of the Constitution defines South Korea as a republic. Its actual operation also revolves around elections. Political power is constituted through the selection of representatives. Experience, policies, and reputation serve as important criteria. In this respect, South Korea is clearly closer to Rome.

However, education emphasizes a different aspect.

Schools often focus on explaining Athenian democracy. If one only encounters concepts like direct participation and assemblies, their criteria for politics might shift. While the actual system is election-centered, one might first recall the idea of participation, where anyone can immediately assume a role.

This is where the disconnect in South Korea arises.

Participation like Athens, Verification of Politicians like Rome 

Explanations about why elections are necessary and what should be considered in the process of selecting representatives are deferred, while participation itself is prioritized. Conversely, the responsibilities that elected representatives should bear and how the separation of powers functions are not sufficiently taught.

If a republic is to be operated, education and understanding appropriate to it are necessary.

Elections are not mere popularity contests. They are a process of assessing whether individuals can be entrusted with policy judgment, administrative ability, and public responsibility. Power is constituted through this process. Simultaneously, power is decentralized and designed to check and balance itself.

Of course, the experience of Athens remains valuable as a reference. The attitude of guarding against the concentration of power in one place and the idea that citizens should take an interest in public matters are still important today.

As an outsider to politics, this is what I wish to leave for South Korea: Participation should be broadened like in Athens, but power should be entrusted to verified hands like in Rome. This balance must not be lost.

◆ Songsan

Poet and researcher of history and philosophy. Former director of the Rhee Syngman School. Currently serves as a senior researcher at the Society for the Study of Modern Korean History and as the representative of the philosophy forum Lyceum. He has published four collections of poetry, co-translated "Heroes of Hukogji," and authored "Joseon That Became Myth" and "Humanities on Tatami." He is actively engaged in research and practice of the liberal cultural movement. Songsan is a pen name.