Courtesy http://www.gilgameshgames.orgThe West?s erroneous belief is that democracy miraculously sprang out of Greek civilization in the fifth century B.C. and was utilised by the Roman Empire and arguably gave rise to the great moments in the construction and propagation of Western civilization. Modern Western myths further purport that modern Democracy in the Middle East is undermined by the fact that the people of the Middle East have historically been accustomed to ?autocracy and passive obedience.? All of these arguments and more are debunked by Benjamin Isakhan?s article titled, Engaging "Primitive Democracy": Mideast Roots of Collective Governance. Picture: The ancient theatre at Palmyra [Tadmor, Syria]. It was in venues such as this that Mesopotamian assemblies - some consisting of women - chose their leaders, argued, voted and laid the basis of early Democracy. Some of the article?s main quotes include: ?This [Mesopotamian mythological] assembly [the Ordained Assembly of the Great Gods] was made up of 50 gods and goddesses (with both genders playing an active role in the deliberations) and was the highest authority in the universe. Generally, it was called together when the gods needed to make a decision; they would listen and debate until the pros and cons of each issue were clarified and a virtual consensus emerged.? ?The [Mesopotamian] council further mirrored that of the gods by functioning as a bicameral assembly, divided between ?an upper house of ?elders? and a lower house of ?men.? Although the elder men seem to have held most of the power, some research suggests that these assemblies also resembled those of the gods, in that ?women as well as men took part in decision-making ? sometimes with a dominating role.??  ?During an assembly each of the citizens had the right to express an opinion, and discussion would continue until virtual unanimity was reached; the final decisions were then announced by the elders.? ?According to their law, the king of Ebla [city in ancient Syria] was ?elected for a seven-year term and shared power with a council of elders.? Then, after serving his first term, the incumbent was entitled to run for a second; in the event that he was not re-elected, the former king was able to retire on a state pension!? ??the power of the Assyrian elders can be seen in the fact that the king was not able to directly appoint his own successor, but instead nominated a potential heir who was then subject to the consent of the council.? ?At every stage, the [Babylonian and Assyrian] assemblies appear to have been lively places, with participants openly pointing out the contradictions and inconsistencies in their opponent?s argument. When all of the participants had been given a chance to state their case at least once, the proceedings ended before debate became cyclical, emotional or counterproductive. When the time came for the citizens to vote, they did so by either kneeling or walking to the speaker to approve or by sitting to disapprove.? ?This kind of sophisticated [Egyptian] appeal process reveals an egalitarian bureaucracy concerned with the individual rights of citizens and an aversion to corruption.? ?Although they remained the subjects of the king and therefore subscribed to his law, the elders presided over many domestic issues including both political and judicial decision making. In these assemblies, there appear to have been rather advanced forms of voting whereby the congregation would divide into three groups, each of which would deliberate and vote independently before reconvening in a plenary session where the final votes were counted. However, when the elders failed to agree, matters were brought before the full assembly of all adult males, which was ?called into session by a clerk at the bidding of a majority of [the elders].? There is also evidence to suggest that once this assembly had convened, the citizenry of Kanesh [ancient Assyrian city] also voted, although perhaps in a far less sophisticated manner than was practiced by the elders.? ?Mari [city in ancient Syria] kingship was not the simple autocratic despotism that is so often supposed of Near Eastern authority, but instead ?actual power seems to be a matter of constant negotiation, as he [the king] engages a panoply of traditional leaderships, each with its own constituencies and assumed prerogatives.?? ??the ancient Phoenician texts also recount the existence of a ?people?s assembly? found on the mainland and constituted of the entire free male citizenry.? ??these sophisticated models of Phoenician democracy were influenced by the long traditions of collective governance found throughout the ancient Middle East, but that they also had a specific impact on the rise of the Athenian polis.? To read the full article click here.Link: http://www.benjaminisakhan.com/Isakhan_EPDpaper.pdf Mr. Isakhan is a doctoral candidate, research assistant and sessional lecturer at Griffith University, Australia. An earlier version of his paper was presented at the 2006 Australasian Political Studies Association (APSA) conference in Newcastle, Australia. His website can be found at the following location:http://www.benjaminisakhan.com