Gripla - 20.12.2009, Side 50

GRIPLA50
Democracy
“Democracy” in a general sense is hardly uniquely european but rather, the
normal way of organising small-scale societies; that is, the majority of soci­
eties that have existed in the world. “Democracy” in this context need not
include formal institutions, elections and so forth, but decisions will often
be taken after discussion at meetings of the members of society or a part of
them.2 Some people may emerge as leaders because of greater wealth, cha­
risma or fighting skills (“big men”), but their power will depend on volun­
tary support from their followers.3 Formal election or deposition will not
be necessary; the leaders may attract a number of adherents who desert
them when they are dissatisfied with them. Leadership by big men is con­
trasted to that of “chiefs” who have a permanent leadership and are able to
force people to obey them. However, there is a sliding transition between
these kinds of leadership; the leaders may act as chiefs in relationship to
some groups and as big men in relationship to others. this seems largely to
be the case in medieval europe, including the nordic countries. Most peo­
ple were subordinated to the aristocracy, whereas the relationship between
leaders and followers within this group bears some resemblance to that of
a big man and his followers.
Monarchy or despotism is a secondary development, the result of
greater centralisation, larger political units, greater population density and
more intense competition. “Big man” democracy works best in small scale,
“face to face” societies. nevertheless, even states and empires under abso­
lute rule often have some kind of democracy at the local level, as for
instance the Roman empire. A claim for european or Scandinavian
uniqueness must therefore be based on evidence that such a structure was
preserved even in relatively large political units. this applies to many
countries in the Middle Ages. the european state is often regarded as
unique in a global context, both the system of independent, relatively sta­
ble states in mutual competition and the internal balance of power where
the monarch had to rule in co-operation with the leading members of soci­
2 f.G. Bailey, Stratagems and Spoils. A Social Anthropology of Politics (New York: Schocken,
1969), 35–71 etc.
3 Marshall Sahlins, “Poor Man, Rich Man, Big Man, Chief,” Comparative Studies in Society
and History 5 (1963), 285–303.