Bret Devereaux

But if you're going to describe Thucydides as anti-democratic in relation to how he writes about Sparta or somewhere else, the exact line between what was considered democratic or oligarchic in Athens seems less pertinent than a more general idea of democracy.

The issue is what seems democratic or oligarchic in Greece. No Greek would describe *any* modern state as a democracy - everything we call a democracy they'd likely frame as either oligarchies or 'mixed constitutions.'

Modern democracies are all systems whereby the people select a few elites from a larger pool of elites to make decisions on their behalf (because all modern democracies are substantially based on the Roman Republic, itself an oligarchy/mixed constitution, dep. on who you ask)

Importantly, people like Cleon and Alcibiades weren't presented as common people or following the will of common people; Thucydides saw them as cynical aristocrats, manipulating out of selfish, egotistic motives.

And being able to do so because, so long as the common people backed them, there was no ability for the rest of the elite to restrain them (contrast the Spartan gerusia or the Roman senate). Again, that's the line between democracy and oligarchy in Greece

Can 'the people' make policy decisions ("lets go with this guys plan!") on their own, or is there some mediating body of elites (often former magistrates or elders) who can pump the brakes if they think the people are being swindled?

If you have that sort of body of ex-magistrates or elders who *can* pump the breaks like that, you are at least talking about - in the ancient terminology - a mixed constitution, not a democracy.

But Pericles -- granting that, as written, he seems like a fantasy leader -- didn't have any constitutional power like that. He worked by persuading the voters (and delaying the assembly in one case cited.) Granting elites that power doesn't give you Pericles-grade leadership.