From Oligarchy to Democracy: Solon’s Reforms, Tribes, Demos, and Ostracism

Oligarchy and the Areopagus

In the sixth century BCE, Athens was governed as an oligarchy, meaning that a small group of powerful families ruled the city. At the center of political life stood a small council called the Areopagus — think of it as a senate or council of elders, but far more exclusive. Membership tended to be based on birth, so political activity was effectively limited to a narrow elite. The poor were largely ignored. The Areopagus was responsible for political appointments, and these appointments tended to go to friends and family. Early on, appointees served for life; over time these terms were shortened to ten years, and later to one year.

There were three important political appointees. The Basilius (literally, king) served religious functions, officiating festivals and performing sacrifices. Although this title carried prestige, politically it was virtually powerless and connected to the old monarchy. The second appointee was the Palomarque (war leader), who acted as commander in chief of the Athenian military and also had a minor role in religious life, participating in war-related festivals and ceremonies. The third was the Eponymous Archon — so named because Athenians dated their years after the person in charge. The archon was the city’s chief government official, heading the government bureaucracy and administering the state. There were also six lesser positions called Junior Archons. In common speech, public officials were often referred to as the Nine Archons of Athens, though the junior archons were less important. Thus, in the oligarchic baseline, the nine Archons of Athens effectively structured political power.

As Athens drifted away from pure oligarchy toward a more participatory system, two crucial dynamics shaped reform. First, the Basilius, Palomarc/Palomarque, and Archon positions were all appointed by the Areopagus, a bottleneck that preserved oligarchic control. Second, a compromise reformer named Solon sought to prevent political paralysis caused by oligarchic infighting and to empower the poorer citizens. Solon aimed to expand participation and reduce the influence of aristocratic control, laying the groundwork for a broader political engagement that would eventually lead to a full democracy.

Solon’s Reforms and the Assembly

Solon (the reformer) believed that empowering the poor and involving them in the political process would break the deadlock of oligarchic power. He opened up Athenian politics to every adult male citizen by establishing an Assembly of citizens, which became the centerpiece of Athenian politics. Virtually all government decisions — from military procurement to diplomatic relations and declarations of war — flowed through the Assembly.

A crucial procedural detail: a minimum of 6{,}000 citizens had to be present before a vote in the Assembly could take place. From available evidence, tens of thousands regularly attended to make their voices heard. Before voting, relevant speakers were invited onto a stage to present arguments to the crowd. Voting was by a show of hands — there was no secret ballot, so everyone could see how neighbors were voting and speak out if they disapproved. This high level of public engagement exemplifies what many historians call Athenian democracy in its infancy. It’s important to note that even at this stage, citizenship and political rights were still limited to adult males; women, children, slaves, and foreign residents (who together constituted roughly 90 ext{ percent} of the population) did not enjoy these rights.

While strengthening the Assembly, Solon also curtailed old oligarchic power by reconfiguring the political elite. He set up a new council separate from the Areopagus called the Boule (the Council). The Boule assumed the responsibility of deciding what would be presented to the Assembly for voting, effectively removing legislative authority from the Areopagus and weakening its power.

To redesign the Athenian class structure, Solon divided all citizens into four economic classes — essentially a stratification by wealth: the ultra-rich, the very rich, the moderately rich, and everyone else. These four classes formed the basis for the new Boule. Each class could appoint 100 men to the Boule, so the Boule consisted of 400 members, with an intentional bias: 300 of the 400 members were to be rich, ensuring aristocratic influence remained, albeit in a reformatted form. The method of selection to the Boule beyond this was not completely known, but internal class elections were presumably held.

Elections for the nine Archons also changed. Instead of being Areopagus-appointed, the Archons were now elected by the people. Each of the four economic classes held its own election; the top 10 candidates from each class (i.e., the group of the most-voted individuals within the class) were pooled into a single group of 40 candidates. From these 40, nine names were chosen at random to become the Basilius, the Polymarque, the Eponymous Archon, and the six Junior Archons. This random-selection element introduced an anti-bribery safeguard, as “divine” randomness was used to justify final selection. In practice, this mechanism reduced the influence of money in politics, even though the system still favored the wealthy.

Under Solon’s framework, Athenian politics flourished and three major factions emerged: the Plains Faction (wealthy landowners on the plains outside the city) who aimed to preserve aristocratic prerogatives and opposed reforms that would lower food prices; the Hill Faction (the poor living in the hills around Athens), who supported reforms that improved their standard of living; and the Coast Faction (the cosmopolitan, trade-oriented group around the coast), which included both rich and poor whose livelihoods depended on external trade and who favored reform and economic expansion. To gain broader support, Solon extended Athenian citizenship to foreign-born skilled professionals who moved to the city with their families, a policy that boosted the Coast faction and helped propel Athens into an economic boom.

Despite these reforms, Athens was not yet a full democracy. The system remained institutionally biased toward the rich, and factional gridlock persisted. In response to these pressures, a period of tyranny occurred when strongmen found it easy to win the archonship and seize power. After this tyranny, new reforms aimed to transform Athens from a limited democracy into a full democracy and to fix the governance bottlenecks that had previously enabled gridlock.

Transition to Full Democracy: Tribes, Demos, and the Prytaneis

The transition culminated in a system designed to further dilute wealth-based power and reduce factional deadlock. The old class framework was discarded and replaced by ten new artificial groups called tribes. Each tribe encompassed a geographic area and was designed to ensure equal representation of all three political factions within every tribe. The aim was to guarantee cross-cutting representation and prevent entrenched factional control.

Athens was further subdivided into 139 demos (deme, sometimes rendered as diēs or diōn in texts), each belonging to a tribe. Each demos had its own council and was led by a demarch (an elected official). The demarch and the council could pass local bylaws and raise revenue locally, creating a more decentralized and bottom-up governance structure. Over time, citizens increasingly identified with their demos, with some even replacing their family name with their deme name, illustrating the depth of this new political identity.

With the old wealth-based classes dissolved, the Boule itself was restructured into a larger and more evenly balanced body. The number of Boule members increased from 400 to 500, and each tribe elected 50 members to the Boule. Elections were still run locally, so each tribe could nominate its own candidates, and all candidates from the same tribe were pooled for selection. From each tribe, 50 were randomly chosen to represent the tribe in the Boule for the year. Citizens could serve in the Boule up to two times in a lifetime, with a mandatory gap of 10 years between terms, creating a broad pool of participants and opportunities for ambitious citizens.

The newly empowered Boule prepared the agenda for the Assembly, but the Boule’s power increased further with the creation of an executive committee known as the Prytaneis (or Prytaneus in some spellings). The Athenian calendar, a 360-day year, was divided into 10 parts. For 36 days each, a tribal delegation served on the Prytaneis, which ran the day-to-day operations of the state. The Prytaneis controlled finances, public salaries, and diplomacy, and coordinated with foreign diplomats. The Prytaneis lived together in a house in the center of Athens, working in shifts around the clock to ensure continuous governance. The committee maintained a rotating chairmanship, with one member chosen at random to serve as chairman each day. The chairman controlled the State Seal, the key to the State Treasury, and the key to the State Archives. Serving as Chairman was a symbolic honor and signified leadership during that period.

With these reforms, the Boule became more powerful than before, and the architecture of government shifted away from exclusively aristocratic control toward a more inclusive, though still carefully structured, form of democracy. As the archons weakened in power and the Prytaneis and stratigoi (generals) rose, the ancient mechanisms adapted to support broader participation while preserving stability in times of war and crisis.

The Stratigoi, Warfare Policy, and the Assembly’s Power

In this matured democratic framework, each of the ten tribes elected a stratagos (general). The stratigoi commanded the army and fleets and played a crucial role in shaping military policy. When the Assembly debated warfare-related issues, all ten stratigoi were invited to offer their opinions. Debates could be lively, but when there was consensus among the stratigoi, the Assembly typically deferred to their expertise. Each stratigos was theoretically limited to a one-year term, but during wartime, terms could be extended by the Assembly.

This structure was designed to prevent factionalism and tyranny while maintaining an effectively responsive government, with geographic diversity across tribes and a rotation of leaders to prevent the concentration of power.

Ostracism: The Release Valve Against Tyranny and Factionalism

To guard against the rise of tyranny or disruptive factions, Athens employed ostracism as a release valve. Once per year, a special assembly gathered: citizens received a smashed piece of pottery to inscribe a name on as a ballot. Votes were tallied, and if any single name received more than 6{,}000 votes, that person was ostracized (banished from the city) for a period of ten years. No proof of wrongdoing or criminality was required—ostracism was a preventive political instrument. The annual vote did not automatically result in banishment; if no candidate received 6{,}000 votes, no action was taken.

Ostracism served as a crude but effective mechanism to deter the rise of strongmen and to mitigate factional movements. It allowed a minority of citizens to banish a potential focal point of divisive power without resorting to formal accusation or punishment.

Cultural, Economic, and Global Impact

As full Athenian democracy took shape, Athens grew into a manufacturing powerhouse, exporting its goods and culture throughout the Mediterranean. The city gained a reputation for its distinctive political system and for a vibrant culture of political thought. Cities from Italy to North Africa to the Near East began adopting political institutions resembling Athenian structures. After centuries of prominence, Athens faced conquest by external powers, but its example persisted as one of the most influential models in Western political thought. The legacy of Solon’s reforms, the Assembly, the Boule, the tribes and demos system, the Prytaneis, stratigoi, and ostracism stands as a foundational chapter in the history of democracy and political theory.