according to millar, what powers did the roman people have? how did that make rome more democratic?

In Federalist No. 34 Alexander Hamilton, arguing for the ratification of the United States Constitution, claimed that the Roman Republic had "attained to the utmost height of human greatness."1 The Roman Republic, at least an idealized version, was explicitly the model that the founding fathers looked to when developing their ain democratic constitution. By and large, this model has succeeded in establishing a stable commonwealth. American success and the subsequent global proliferation of democratic regimes in the twentieth century have fabricated the triumph of democracy, with its roots in Ancient Rome, a persuasive narrative. All the same, this raises an important question: how democratic was the Roman Republic?

Evaluating the Roman Republic'southward constitution and how it was applied in theory and practice information technology becomes clear that the Roman Republic, while constitutionally quite autonomous, was in practice a fundamentally undemocratic society, dominated by a select caste of wealthy aristocrats. This can be seen both through the structure of 'democratic' institutions and the ability to make war and peace in the Roman Republic.

To properly understand how democratic the Roman Republic was, it is necessary to first understand how ancient scholars understood republic every bit a political organization. One can find a cohesive answer in the writings of the 2^nd century Greek historian, and Roman convict, Polybius. According to Polybius, democracy is "where reverence to the gods, succor of parents, respect to elders, and obedience to laws are traditional and habitual…in such communities, if the will of the bulk prevail, nosotros may speak of the…regime as a democracy." two Polybius also details how commonwealth emerges from other political systems. Out of the state of nature, kings emerge equally rulers. Over time kingship becomes hereditary and tyrannical and is overthrown by aristocratic plot; "simply it is not long before the [minds of the people] roused…their fall therefore was very like the disaster which befell the tyrants."3 Consequently, "[the people] are driven to accept refuge in…a democracy…they regard their electric current constitution as a approval and concur equality and freedom the utmost value."4 Through his description Polybius provides a criteria through which to assess the Roman Commonwealth as a democracy.

Though America's founders looked to the Romans in developing our republic, the Roman Democracy, while constitutionally quite democratic, was in practice a fundamentally undemocratic society, dominated past a select caste of wealthy aristocrats.

Cicero (Roman senator, 106-43 BCE) denounces Catiline within the Roman senate. Fresco by Cesare Maccari (1840-1919 CE).

The most historic give-and-take of the Republic'southward political system comes from Polybius himself. In his view, Rome's forcefulness and stability came from its mixed constitution of 'kingship,' 'elite,' and democracy.' Co-ordinate to Polybius, the Roman constitution "had three elements, each of them possessing sovereign powers…regulated…with scrupulous regard to equality and equilibrium that none could say for certain…whether the constitution…were an aristocracy or democracy or despotism."five This conception of the Roman political system is immediately telling in a few respects. Almost importantly, information technology demonstrates that ancient writers did not understand the Roman Republic equally a democracy in the sense one would likely attribute to the modern United States. Instead, Rome was governed according to a mixed constitution where democracy was important, merely also only one part of the system that could just piece of work if it remained checked by kingship and aristocracy, in the Senate and consuls respectively. In fact, Polybius believed that this mixed system prevented a cycle of revolutionary upheaval and resulted in "a marriage sufficiently firm for all emergencies and a constitution than which it is impossible to find better."6

That said Polybius certainly identified democratic elements at the center of the Roman political system that are worthy of assay. For Polybius, popular assemblies and the tribunes of the plebs constituted the autonomous element of the Roman Republic's constitution. The mode, and extent to which, these elements of government interacted reveals the clear and pervasive limits of the Commonwealth as a commonwealth. Surprisingly, considering his earlier focus on constitutional equilibrium, Polybius appears to claim that the democratic element was the most important part of the Roman constitution:

After this, one would naturally be inclined to enquire, What part is left for the people in the constitution, when the Senate has these various functions especially the control of the receipts and expenditure of the exchequer; and when the consuls once more have accented power over the details of armed forces grooming…there is, still, a role left to the people, and it is the well-nigh important i. For the people are the sole fountain of honor and of penalisation; and it is by these two things and these solitary that dynasties and constitutions and, in a discussion, human society are held together.7

According to Polybius, the people's greatest powers were to "bestow offices…passing or repealing laws; and, most important of all…deliberating on the question of peace or war."8 Furthermore, when discussing the limits of the consuls, Senate and people, the remainder of power seems to be decidedly in favor of the people. The consuls are limited as an elected function and are reliant on the people to ratify treaties.nine Every bit, any decree passed past the Senate can be vetoed by the plebian tribunes "[who] are always jump to carry out the decree of the people and in a higher place all things to have regard to their wishes."10 In comparison, the people are but limited by senator's control of contracts and position equally trial judges and the possibility of serving under consuls during armed forces service.eleven Consequently, the Roman Republic, at least constitutionally, appears to be quite democratic. Nonetheless, while Polybius'southward rhetoric is certainly powerful it is far less convincing when the Republic'southward 'democratic institutions' are considered in do.

The about important democratic bodies in Republican Rome were the denizen assemblies. Prominent among these were the comitia centuriata (Centuriate Assembly) and the comitia tributa (Tribal Assembly). The Centuriate Assembly was organized similarly to the army; in that location were 193 voting blocs, chosen centuries, with membership dependent on wealth. Each century had 1 vote and decisions were fabricated according to the will of the majority of the centuries. For the most part, it voted on issues of state of war and peace and elected the Republics nearly important magistrates - consuls, praetors, and censors.12 The Tribal Assembly voting blocs were organized territorially into 35 tribes (31 rural and 4 urban). It voted on proposals fabricated by consuls or praetors.13

At beginning glance, these bodies, while imperfect, appear to exist both quite democratic and powerful. While true in theory, in reality they were deliberately structured to disadvantage the vast bulk of the Roman populace in favor of the quondam, conservative, and rich. This was most obvious in the Centuriate Assembly where 88 of the 193 centuries were held by the wealthiest x per centum with the vast bulk of the populace belongings the other 105; "as the vote went down the calibration…the number of centuries macerated…in any case, voting always ceased as soon equally a sufficient number of centuries had voted to settle the outcome…oftentimes, therefore, the lower centuries…would never be chosen upon."14

By comparison the Tribal Assembly did non favor the wealthy to such an obvious extent. Seemingly, "no class of social stratification applied and each citizens vote counted equally…. however, this is a very misleading, if not downright disingenuous statement…. [as] tribally organized voting was biased in favor of rural men of property in the more than numerous rural tribes."15 Simply wealthy rural property owners were able to afford travel to Rome. Consequently the wealthy were disproportionally powerful in both the Centuriate and Tribal assemblies. Furthermore, "ordinary citizens had little freedom of speech or initiative…they could non put forward any proposal…nor…seek to amend a proposal…all they could do was to vote for or against."sixteen

Thus, in a fashion that would be unthinkable in a modern liberal democracy, the vast majority of the population was, for all intents and purposes, entirely disenfranchised from the law making process.

Thus, in a fashion that would be unthinkable in a modern liberal democracy, the vast majority of the population was, for all intents and purposes, entirely disenfranchised from the police force making procedure. That said, while American citizens tin influence the legislative process the Roman reality remains a potential, and increasingly likely, problem. This reality was equally true of the plebian tribunes, supposedly the defenders of the plebs, "who…tended to work with important senators who could promote their advocacy to higher offices…[consequently] a tribune might side with a senator who was…at odds with [the] majority…even radical tribunes often became stalwarts of the establishment…and started moving into the higher…ranks."17

Obviously, the assemblies and plebian tribunes, supposedly the central democratic forces in the Roman Republic, were heavily stratified, favored elites and utterly failed to promote the equality and liberty Polybius claimed was central to democracy. Even the Republic'due south nearly democratic institutions appear to, in practice, be tools of the elite to maintain power. The disproportionate influence the rich were given effectively gave them control of all iii aspects of the Roman constitution.

The Senate was already the natural home of the wealthy elite; disproportionate influence in the assemblies gave the rich an equally asymmetric influence in the election of the consuls who were responsible for the administration and enforcement of the law, proposing maters to the Senate and fifty-fifty summoning the assemblies to see. This bias, deeply ingrained, allowed plutocrats to boss all elements and institutions of the Roman Republic at the expense of the populace.

Put only, the vast majority of the Roman population had express ability to exercise the powers afforded to them by the constitution. They had footling to no influence on legislation and could only select leaders from a very minor aristocratic caste. Consequently, Rome'south democratic institutions can only exist seen equally fundamentally undemocratic if non solely aloof. This blatantly undemocratic construction of the Republic's 'institutions, in practice, had clear ramifications in many aspects of Roman governance.

An area where this is most clear is the decision to get to state of war. According to Polybius, constitutionally, "information technology is the people who deliberate on the question of peace or state of war."18 While true in theory, this did not translate in practice. For example, in Livy'southward give-and-take of the origins of the Second Macedonian War confronting Male monarch Philip V, it is the Senate and consuls, not the assemblies, which are primal. While the centuriate assembly initially rejected war with Macedon, it was quickly overcome when the consul proclaimed "let Macedonia rather than Italy be the seat of state of war, allow it be the enemy's cities and fields that are devastated with burn and sword…go to the poll and ostend the determination of the Senate."nineteen

In Livy's narrative, the assemblies announced to exist a constitutional formality that must exist endured past the Senate and consuls rather than the integral part commencing war that its ramble status would advise. Agency and ability are clearly vested in the Senate and consuls while the assemblies are, for the most part, passive observers. Polybius proves this indicate with the greatest clarity in his give-and-take of war confronting the Dalmatians equally the associates was completely excluded from the process. According to Polybius, the Senate started a war with Dalmatia to reinvigorate the Roman spirit:

[The Senate] had long ago fabricated up their minds to act…[it was] highly indignant at the stubbornness and rudeness of the Dalmatians…[withal] their chief motive for action was that…they thought the time a suitable 1 for making war on the Dalmatians…it being at present twelve years since the state of war…. in Macedonia. They therefore resolved…to recreate…. the spirit and zeal of their own troops, and by striking terror into the Illyrians to compel them to obey…These, then, were the reasons why the Romans went to war.20

If Polybius'southward account is taken at face value the fundamental undemocratic graphic symbol of the Roman Republic becomes undeniable. Even in matters of war and peace, constitutionally 1 of the people'south greatest democratic powers, the vast majority of the populace was discipline to the whims of aristocratic magistrates and the Senate.

The undemocratic character of the Roman Republic endured throughout its history. With the competition of the late Republic, many of the institutions became increasingly less democratic. In fact, "the popular assemblies and the tribunes of the plebs…lost whatsoever autonomous character they may have had in the very early on Republic. They had…become undemocratic weapons in the…struggles among members of the wealthy ruling elite."21 For men like Marius, Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar the people were but tools, or alternatively obstacles, in their quest for office and power. When autonomous activists like Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus attempted to found reform they were met with violent aristocratic resistance. The Gracchi tried to remedy the fact that "sure powerful men became extremely rich…while the Italian people dwindled in numbers and force…being oppressed."22

Consequently, "[Tiberius] Gracchus…. vainly circumvoluted round the temple was slain at the door…. [his body was] thrown by night into the Tiber."23 In whole the Roman case has many parallels to the U.s.a.. Hamilton, like many of the founding fathers, claimed unbridled commonwealth was a disease and poison.24 They constructed a similar mixed constitution with a legislature, executive, and judiciary. While certainly more than autonomous than the Roman Republic, in recent years the The states has too seen its political system deteriorate as special interest groups and the wealthy increasingly influence politics ofttimes to the detriment of the populace.

The Roman Republic was never intended to exist a democracy. Instead, as acknowledged past Polybius, it was an experiment that sought to fuse democracy, aristocracy and monarchy into the perfect socio-political organization. On a superficial level it appears to be quite a success in this endeavour when one considers the half millennium that, according to the Roman constitution, democratic and aristocratic institutions were able to jointly govern the largest and most powerful state in the Mediterranean earth. However, when put in practice, its attempts to comprise a powerful democratic element can only be seen equally a articulate failure. Once put into practice, the Roman Republic's institutions were just too reliant on the aristocracy for structure, cohesion, and order for democracy to persevere.

---

1. "The Avalon Project : Federalist No 34." The Avalon Projection. Accessed Apr xviii, 2015. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed34.asp.
2. Ronald Mellor ed. "Polybius." InThe Historians of Aboriginal Rome: An Anthology of the Major Writings,. (3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2012) 26.
3. Ibid, 35.
4. Ibid, 35.
5. Ibid, 36-37.
6. Ibid, 40.
7. Ronald Mellor ed. "Polybius." InThe Historians of Ancient Rome: An Album of the Major Writings,. (3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2012) 38.
8. Ibid, 38.
9. Ibid, 39.
10. Ibid, 39.
11. Ibid, forty.
12. Mary Taliaferro Boatwright, "Republican Rome," inThe Romans: From Village to Empire, (second ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012) 61-64.
13. Ibid, 63-64.
14. Ibid, 63.
15. Allan Chiliad. Ward, "How Autonomous Was the Roman Democracy," New England Classical Journal 31.2 (2004) 109
16. Mary Taliaferro Boatwright,. "Republican Rome," inThe Romans: From Village to Empire, (second ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012) 61
17. Allan M. Ward, "How Democratic Was the Roman Republic," New England Classical Journal 31.two (2004) 114.
18. Ronald Mellor ed. "Polybius," inThe Historians of Aboriginal Rome: An Album of the Major Writings (London: Routledge, 2012) 38.
19. Ronald Mellor ed. "Livy." InThe Historians of Aboriginal Rome: An Anthology of the Major Writings (London: Routledge, 2012) 225.
20. Polybius, 32.thirteen, 36.two
21. Allan M. Ward, "How Autonomous Was the Roman Republic," New England Classical Journal 31.ii (2004) 119.
22. Ronald Mellor ed. "Appian," inThe Historians of Ancient Rome: An Anthology of the Major Writings (tertiary ed. London: Routledge, 2012) 480.
23. Ibid, 485.
24. Gerald Stourzh, Alexander Hamilton and the Idea of Republican Authorities (Stanford: Stanford Academy Press, 1970), 40.

andersontooming.blogspot.com

Source: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1492/how-democratic-was-the-roman-republic-the-theory-and-practice-of-an-archetypal-democracy

Share this post