Professional politicians, whether in the ancient Graeco-Roman or in the contemporary context, are quantitatively a negligible minority of the citizen-body. For them politics are a way of life, even though they believe, or at least persuade themselves, that their role is to advance the good of the society in which they operate; that, in other words, politics are a second-order activity designed to achieve objectives that are in themselves not political. For everyone else politics are wholly instrumental: the objectives themselves are what matter in the end. In saying that, I do not imply that there is no satisfaction, or anyway fun, in the excitement of an election campaign or a close legislative contest; or that Roman-style elections, with their massive games and handouts, did not offer immediate, tangible gains unconnected with policies or programmes. Nor do I suggest that the mass of citizens had clearly formulated goals in their minds or that they were less apt than their present-day counterparts to hold mutually contradictory views. I am saying no more than the commonplace that men who voted in elections or assemblies did not divorce personalities from issues, that they believed that in one way or another the issues mattered enough to them to warrant their participation in politics at some level.

Yet, obvious though it seems, this assessment has been challenged by ancient historians from two opposing directions.