The Balance of Leadership and Citizenship

What was the connection between leadership and citizenship in Ancient Greece?

In Athens, a direct democracy was instituted in society and controlled the foundation of government. This dictates that every single citizen in Greece was consulted and had a strong voice on each decision and actions that was being carried out by the governmental structure. However, there were a large number of qualifications needed in order to have such a strong say in the government of the region. These include financial, age, and gender guidelines which must be met and have minimal leniency by which an individual can become a considered “active” part of the government. This means that all participants in the government had to be considered and declared a citizen. In addition to the guidelines listed above, state qualifications also had a role in determining who would become a part of the leadership organizations and make decisions which would have prominence and effectivity throughout the region. Citizens needed to participate in the military practices and pay certain taxes, as well as abide by a specific set of laws which governed the greater society, in order to be recognized as a citizen. Once granted and earned citizenship, individuals were allowed to and did play a significant role in governing and leading Ancient Greece through history. This meant that realistically, merely free and independent men were allowed to have a say in government and their ultimate lives! This brings up the concept of the struggle to find a balance between leadership and citizenship. Leaders are “supposed” to account for everyone in the region and direct, choose, and live according to the best and recognized interests and benefits; therefore, shouldn’t the governing system have taken everyone, free or not, qualified or unqualified, into account and rule and govern them? If a direct democracy truly calls for an accepted and wide range of citizenships, why was the governmental structure and properties to selective and executive? I believe that it is because of the solid and positive leadership structure instituted in Athens; that the leaders in the region and government used their power and availability to options in order to make a leader-like decision regarding the population as a whole! The leaders and governments thought it was (and it probably was) the best thing for everyone to be ruled and governed by people who were the most experienced, exposed, involved, and overall qualified. As leaders, they were looking out for the population’s best interests, and it was in their favor that they did not have a random and unreasonable individual ruling their lives, therefore making the governmental acceptance process a strenuous and selective one, but only because it was in the interest of the people. The leaders of Ancient Greece proposed and installed a method in society by which they could most effectively and surely direct and develop society into the best possible future and to make their history a good, effectual one. As leaders, it is their job to make decisions like this based solely off of what they believe will allow their governed society to reach their full potential in development and existence, the question is when is it taken a step to far. Citizenship is merely a method utilized by leaders to select the ones best fit for the power position which the government holds; its a valuable tactic, but as the process gets too selective and overwhelmed, societies tend to develop into the opposite form of government where citizenship isn’t even taken into consideration: monarchy/oligarchy, etc. Citizenship is vital in sustaining a balance between the leaders of the people and the people themselves.