What did kratos imply in the classical democratic context? Focusing on the two Constitutions of the Athenians traditionally attributed to Xenophon and Aristotle respectively, this article explores differences among kratos and three proximate terms: archē (de facto governance or magistracy), kuros (authority, perceived as legitimate), and dēmagōgia (leadership). With Benveniste and Loraux, it argues that kratos specifically signalled ‘superiority’ or ‘predominance’, as revealed in combat or other form of contest. Dēmokratia thereby connoted the forceful predominance of the dēmos (‘assembly’, ‘collective common people’) over the rest of the community, including office-holders (archontes, archai) and political leaders (dēmagōgoi). The association of kratos with force directs attention to the martial underpinnings of classical demotic authority, incidentally highlighting a weakness in modern democracy: the dēmos’ lack of kratos over the political elite when that elite controls military and police power.

奎托斯在古典民主语境中意味着什么？本文重点关注传统上分别归因于色诺芬和亚里士多德的两部雅典宪法，探讨了kratos和三个近似术语之间的差异：archē（事实上的治理或地方治安）、kuros（权威，被认为是合法的）和dēmagōgia（领导） . 对于 Benveniste 和 Loraux，它认为kratos明确表示“优越”或“优势”，正如在战斗或其他形式的比赛中所揭示的那样。因此Dēmokratia意味着dēmos 的强大优势（“集会”，“集体普通人”）超过社区的其他成员，包括公职人员（archontes，archai）和政治领袖（dēmagōgoi）。奎托斯与武力的联系将注意力引向了古典民主权威的军事基础，顺便突显了现代民主的一个弱点：当政治精英控制军事和警察权力时，民主派对政治精英缺乏奎托斯。