>
Slavery was big business and women had no rightsThat was the norm of the era and much much later. Democracy is not supposed to change the norms of its times, it's supposed to assist those who participate to represent themselves better.
Women didn't have a vote well into the 20th century, the poor non land owning people couldn't vote in the US until the 19th century, and slavery was a thing for almost 2 and a half millennia after ancient Athenian democracy, even in much more "enlightened" and "christian love morals" nations. Even representative democracy gurus like the "Founding Fathers" had no qualms with owning slaves. So hardly a thing to blame ancient Athenian democracy for not solving 2.5 millennia in advance.
We should focus on what innovative (or worse) it did bring to the table, not whether in other ways it was compatible with a baseline that held for 2.5 millennia more.
>There were very few elected officials and they were chosen randomly for the highest offices. Think of random people with conflicting, crazy ideas being voted in and out regularly, as judges, as bureaucrats, as heads of state.
That was not a problem, as it is in the modern world. First, life was much more public oriented, so the crazy ideas where tamed by interaction with others (and of course, knowning that you will randomly be replaced in the next term).
>The assemblies weren't held accountable to themselves, and could vote to break their own laws.
That's the whole point, isn't it? That you're not iron-bound to some law you've passed, if you decide it doesn't work.
Even worse, being iron-bound to some law a policitian you've voted for for different reasons (say, because they promised tax breaks), passed on another matter, but you can't do anything, because you only get to vote wholesale (their whole platform, take it or leave it, even if you just strongly like 1-2 parts of it), and can't change anything for 4 years.
>It changed over time.
Again, that's a plus - people can change the system directly, they're not thrown into a rigid system they have no power on.
The rest, it not being perfect, the rich having increased influence (e.g. class playing a role), etc, were artefacts of the power balances of the era. That was the case everywhere, and is still now.
>Some researchers have suggested that direct democracy like this wouldn't work over a very large area. It can work in towns and cities, and small city-states, but there's just too many factors for it to be practical in a large scale diverse modern nation.
Doesn't need to be an exact replica. It could be multi-level (e.g. direct voting at the city/small district level), with national referendums on any major law, etc. Today we also have the option to vote online with crypto etc.