The most important democratic bodies in Republican Rome were the citizen 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; there were voting blocs, called centuries, with membership dependent on wealth.
Each century had one vote and decisions were made according to the will of the majority of the centuries. For the most part, it voted on issues of war and peace and elected the Republics most important magistrates - consuls, praetors, and censors. It voted on proposals made by consuls or praetors. At first glance, these bodies, while imperfect, appear to be both quite democratic and powerful. While true in theory, in reality they were deliberately structured to disadvantage the vast majority of the Roman populace in favor of the old, conservative, and rich.
By comparison the Tribal Assembly did not favor the wealthy to such an obvious extent. Consequently the wealthy were disproportionally powerful in both the Centuriate and Tribal assemblies.
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. That said, while American citizens can influence the legislative process the Roman reality remains a potential, and increasingly likely, problem. Evidently, 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 freedom Polybius claimed was central to democracy.
The disproportionate influence the rich were given effectively gave them control of all three aspects of the Roman constitution. The Senate was already the natural home of the wealthy aristocracy; disproportionate influence in the assemblies gave the rich an equally disproportionate influence in the election of the consuls who were responsible for the administration and enforcement of the law, proposing maters to the Senate and even summoning the assemblies to meet.
This bias, deeply ingrained, allowed plutocrats to dominate all elements and institutions of the Roman Republic at the expense of the populace.
Put simply, the vast majority of the Roman population had limited ability to exercise the powers afforded to them by the constitution. They had little to no influence on legislation and could only select leaders from a very small aristocratic caste. An area where this is most clear is the decision to go to war. Agency and power are clearly vested in the Senate and consuls while the assemblies are, for the most part, passive observers.
Polybius proves this point with the greatest clarity in his discussion of war against the Dalmatians as the assembly was completely excluded from the process. According to Polybius, the Senate started a war with Dalmatia to reinvigorate the Roman spirit:.
They therefore resolved…to recreate…. 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. They had…become undemocratic weapons in the…struggles among members of the wealthy ruling elite.
When democratic activists like Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus attempted to institute reform they were met with violent aristocratic resistance. Hamilton, like many of the founding fathers, claimed unbridled democracy was a disease and poison.
While certainly more democratic than the Roman Republic, in recent years the United States has also seen its political system deteriorate as special interest groups and the wealthy increasingly influence politics often to the detriment of the populace. The Roman Republic was never intended to be a democracy. Instead, as acknowledged by Polybius, it was an experiment that sought to fuse democracy, aristocracy and monarchy into the perfect socio-political system. On a superficial level it appears to be quite a success in this endeavor 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 world.
However, when put in practice, its attempts to incorporate a powerful democratic element can only be seen as a clear failure.
Brown, Z. The Theory and Practice of an Archetypal Democracy. Brown, Zachary S. Inquiries Journal [Online], 8. The newsletter highlights recent selections from the journal and useful tips from our blog.
Inquiries Journal provides undergraduate and graduate students around the world a platform for the wide dissemination of academic work over a range of core disciplines. Representing the work of students from hundreds of institutions around the globe, Inquiries Journal 's large database of academic articles is completely free. Learn more Blog Submit. The way Gracchus went about his reform, however, was an affront to the norms and traditions of the Republic.
He brought his law before the Plebeian Assembly without the thumbs-up of the Senate. When his fellow tribune Marcus Octavius threatened to veto the bill, which was his right, Gracchus manipulated the rules to have him stripped of his office.
There were other incidents as well, but the most concerning aspect of Gracchus was his fiery, populist language, which whipped his supporters to the edge of political violence. As his power grew, Gracchus began moving through the streets surrounded by a mob of frenzied supporters, a kind of personal militia not seen in Rome before. Rumors spread that Gracchus was angling to become a king or dictator, and some in the Senate felt they needed to act.
When Gracchus stood for a second term as tribune, which was not illegal but broke another norm, a group of Senators and their supporters beat Gracchus and of his followers to death. It was just the beginning.
The commander Sulla would march legions loyal to him on Rome itself and battle his political rival Marius, the first time Roman troops fought one another.
He would then execute and punish his political enemies. In the following generation Pompey and Caesar would settle their political scores using Roman legions, Octavian and Marc Antony would field an army against the Senate before finally battling one another bringing almost years of the Republic to a bloody and confusing conclusion. Watts argues that while the Senate ordered his murder, it was Tiberius Gracchus who let the genie out of the bottle.
What he introduces is this political tool of intimidation and threats of violence. While life in Rome, with gladiator battles, crucifixions and endless war was violent, for centuries Romans took pride in their republican system and political violence was taboo.
You just lose face and move on. In that sense, this is a remarkably successful system for encouraging compromise and encouraging consensus building and creating mechanisms whereby political conflicts will be decided peacefully. So what does the story of the Roman Republic mean for the United States? In the beginning of the Republic, all Roman officials were selected from a pool of patricians, the noble-born people of Rome.
They were placed at various posts, whereas the most important one was that of a consul. Likewise, how did ancient Rome and Greece influence our government? Our government also requires political power exercised by the citizens which came from the Greek Democracy. The Senate was the highest authority in the Roman Republic. The roman republic was the phase of ancient Roman civilization characterized by a republican form of government. Rome contributed to democracy by creating a government where the people ruled.
While Rome was a republic and not a democracy , the Romans established the framework for future democratic governments. Rome had senators and tribunes elected by the people to represent their interests.
Roman law is the stable foundation on which modern legal culture has developed and evolved upon as a whole. The Civil law system is based on the late Roman law and its most distinctive feature - that its core principles are codified into a system which servers as the primary source of law. Many aspects of today's society have been affected by ancient Rome.
Creation of law, development of democratic government practices, influences in language, literature, art, infrastructure, and city-planning are all areas where the influences of Roman ideas can be seen. One important area of influence was Roman law. The Roman Aqueduct In subsequent years, Roman engineers used the same principles to build many more aqueducts , bringing water into cities and towns. Some of the aqueducts are still in use today.
The aqueduct led to the creation of public toilets, baths, a sewage system and the supply of fresh drinking water. Ditches were dug either side of the road to allow for drainage. Roman roads tended to be built higher than the level of earth around them — this, again, helped drainage. The bulk of the actual building was done by Roman soldiers.
The roads were built so that two of these wagons could pass on both sides of the roads. The laws were enforced by an official called the praetor. The praetor was the second highest ranking official in the Roman republic after the consuls.
The praetor was responsible for the administration of justice. To keep the laws in the city, the Romans had a police force called the Vigiles. Roman Influence The Romans created a republic after overthrowing a king.
0コメント