Democratic Was The Roman Republic: A True Democracy

492 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Roman republic democracy

The Roman Republic did not have a pure democracy, but an alteration of it that provided those who had money with power, wealth, and land. While some parts of their government system contained what democracy offers, such as citizens voting to pass laws and deciding to have peace or war with another country, there were some components that were not democratic, such as citizens not being able to choose candidates for election, not being able to propose legislations, and only male citizens being able to vote, which amounted to being about two percent of the Roman population, only because the people who voted were in Rome, and several people did not have the time or the money to travel there. According to Polybius, who wrote a description of the Roman constitution, the Assemblies, which consisted of male plebeians and patricians, voted or repealed laws proposed by the Senate. This obviously gave a large portion of the government power to the people, and the Assemblies decided what was legal and what was not Besides lawmaking, citizens had one of the greatest and most important powers, and that was to decide whether to have peace or …show more content…

In fact, only about two percent of the Roman population was able to vote, because if someone did not vote, the government disenfranchised them. Also, one had to reside in Rome to vote and this did not go favorably for a multitude of people, as they did not have the time or the money to go to Rome. Living in Rome was expensive and the wealthy patrician families owned all residences in Rome. Besides the inability to vote, Alan Ward explains that the Assemblies, which consisted of the regular people, could not propose legislations or select

Show More
Related

  • Athens Vs Rome Dbq Essay

    441 Words  | 1 Pages

    In document E and F you learn that Athens follows this basic idea, while Rome strays from it. Document E states that Athens allows for all of its citizens to participate and hold a seat in its assembly. One the other hand, Document F explains that Roman Senate did not allow the public to attend, and the seats were inherited, making the entire system corrupt. Athens citizens were more involved in the government than Rome’s citizens, making Athens government more effective for everyone to be able to voice their

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Athenian And American Constitution

    710 Words  | 2 Pages

    constitution give the power of electing individuals into office wither it would that of high ranks or low ranks the people get to choose who it is that is put in those types of positions, “ And the People alone pass judgment in capital cases. ... It is the People who grant offices to the deserving, the most noble prize for virtue in a state. They also have authority over the ratifying of laws and — the greatest of their powers — they deliberate and pass judgment concerning war and peace”(Roman Constitution, [6.14.1]).

    Read More

  • Julius Caesar: The Fall of the Roman Republic

    1203 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Roman Republic can be explained as the period from 509 – 27 BCE, which the ancient Roman civilization exemplified a republican form of government; where the supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives. During the Roman Republic, the 2 most powerful, and main branches of government included the Consuls and the Senate. It was the Consuls who held supreme civil and military control over Rome; however the republic had precautions in place to avoid one of the consuls from exercising too much power, such as short one year terms, veto and the notion of 2 consuls to divide authority. The republic then also included the senate; where at first, senators were only chosen from the patrician class, but in time, plebeians joined their positions (Bradley, 1990). Throughout the history of the republic, the evolution of government was driven by the struggle between the aristocracy and the ordinary citizens. The demise of the republic resulted through a series of civil wars and powerful dominance of significant historical figures (Princeton.edu, 2014).

    Read More

  • The Rise Of The Roman Republic

    830 Words  | 2 Pages

    Over the span of five-hundred years, the Roman Republic grew to be the most dominant force in the early Western world. As the Republic continued to grow around the year 47 B.C it began to go through some changes with the rise of Julius Caesar and the degeneration of the first triumvirate. Caesar sought to bring Rome to an even greater glory but many in the Senate believed that he had abused his power, viewing his rule more as a dictatorship. The Senate desired that Rome continued to run as a republic. Though Rome continued to be glorified, the rule of Caesar Octavian Augustus finally converted Rome to an Empire after many years of civil war. Examining a few selections from a few ancient authors, insight is provided as to how the republic fell and what the result was because of this.

    Read More

  • Essay On Defensive Imperialism

    2084 Words  | 5 Pages

    Those elected to leadership were admitted in the Senate where public affairs were discussed. Power divisions during the time were complicated and no single person was entitled to too much power. Tribunes, which comprised of ten men, were put into place in order to monitor the Senate and ensure that the interests of the people were protected. However, this system began to fall apart since certain individuals wanted to have more power than others. Such persons started to compete for that power, and use it to exploit Rome’s politics. Subsequently, competition for power led to civil wars that paved the way to the growth of a one-man leadership. Gradually, dictatorship replaced republic government, and when Augustus rose to power, he became the sole and undisputed leader of Rome.

    Read More

  • Political Power In The Roman Republic

    1503 Words  | 4 Pages

    He says this is normal in a system of checks and balances, in which all three forms of government check and balance each other out, but in reality the people had less power than the other two. This is due to the fact that the Senate, to quote, “can do those who manage state-owned property a great deal of harm or a great deal of good, since it has the final say on all these matter” (Polybius 6.16). It can be drawn that it is in the best interest of the people not to act solely in their interests, but rather the interests of the Senate given the fact that they can ruin their lives. Polybius expands and says that by taking this into consideration, everyone is faced with the possibility they may one day need the Senate’s help and thus it is in their best interest not to frustrate or oppose it, and the same goes for opposing consuls, due to the fact that everyone falls under their authority when on campaign (Polybius 6.16). It is clear to one analyzing this that although the masses and assemblies did have great powers in theory, they were not able to act on their own interests as stated above. The common people may have had great power, but said power came with extreme limitations of acting in the interests of those above them, so it can be drawn that although the people did have a role in the political process, said role was to act in the

    Read More

  • Why Was The Hammurabi Code Considered To Be So Important?

    1262 Words  | 3 Pages

    Societies such as Ancient Rome especially paved the way for modern democracy. However, these societies were neither fair, equal, nor representative. During the time of the great Roman Empire there was approximately up to 1 million people living in Rome. But slaves held 35% of the population. Though slaves were able to become teachers and even doctors, they will still forced into labor and made to fight for entertainment, such as in the coliseum. Slavery was the backbone of the empire and without it, it could not have flourished the way it did. The use and normality of slavery in this society proves that it was neither fair nor equal. Ancient Rome is also proven not to be equal or representative by looking at the senate. The senate was created in the early days of Rome and it grew more powerful, until the empire formed and the Emperor became the most powerful, yet even then it still played an important role. The senate was generally in charge of choosing the next king, managing finances and legislation, and had the most control over everyday life and the common people. Wealthy senate members even had the opportunity to own their own private armies if they so wished. However, the senate were not elected by the people: in fact the people had very little say to almost no say in who were there leaders; whether an emperor or king or member of the senate. This allowed for a neither fair nor representative society. Despite this, Antiquities such as Rome did pave the way for modern democracy. The political thought of antiquity is still quite similar to today in certain aspects. There is still a senate, but unlike in ancient Rome, today the public mostly elects the senators. The king or emperor are now replaced with presidents and prime ministers, who once again are partially voted in by the public, yet there is still more equal and fair representatives then there was in ancient societies.

    Read More

  • Rise of the Roman Republic

    955 Words  | 2 Pages

    Rome became a powerful empire engulfing much of Europe, North Africa, and parts of Asia and what seemed like this great entity called the Romans were always in the search of more territory and land to conquer and assimilate into their ever growing vast empire. However, this was not always the case, before Rome became one of the greatest empires in all of history, Rome was a republic. They were government consisted of a Senate who much like our country today represented certain classes of the citizens of the Republic. During the growth and rise of the Roman republic conquering neighboring territories and competing for land grabs was not Romans primary objectives. Romans believed in the well being and wealth of Rome, and if that meant the total destruction of a potential adversary, then as history will show that is unfortunately to the detriment of the adversary what happened.

    Read More

  • Ancient Rome's Influence on Modern Democracy

    728 Words  | 2 Pages

    During the time period of ancient Rome, the structure of government and political culture was developed and has helped us base our own government and political ideas to the ones that we use today. Ancient Rome had three periods’ in their government those where the Republican period, Imperial period, and Monarchy period. Each period helped Rome build their government and structure their society in a specific way throughout their early years. The Romans were a direct democracy, meaning everyone (who is eligible) is able to vote, on who is put in charge. The Republican period was the most influential period in their history on modern society. During the Republican period every male citizen enjoyed the privilege of voting (1) on the legislation, (2) on the election of government officials. (Shelton 1988) Although it was a direct democracy at the time it was definitely more of an aristocracy than a democracy due to senators who were part of Rome’s upper-class, who controlled the nature of legislation that reached the assemblies. (Shelton 1988). People were put into three assemblies: the Comitia Centuriata, the Comitia Tributa, and the Concilium Plebis. Voters were divided into voting units called centuries; divisions that were made according to property value and age; so that the wealthiest people at a certain age were grouped together. (Shelton 1988) But, mostly all decisions were made by the wealthiest group of older people given their power over the community.

    Read More

  • The Rome Republic: The Power Of The Roman Republic

    1534 Words  | 4 Pages

    That being said, he argues that the people have an important role to play in said government (Polybius 6.14). Although the people do not make decisions such as presenting bills, ordering allies as they please, or convening assemblies as the consul, who has the most power in the system, does (Polybius 6.12), they have other such important duties. According to Polybius, said duties include assigning office, such as voting on consuls, deciding penalties for offences, assessing legislation, voting on war proposals, as well as “ratify or abrogate alliances, truces and treaties” (Polybius 6.14). He also states that the Senate must act in the best interest of the people and cannot disregard the popular assembly, as they can vote to deprive the Senate of authority, and that the tribune of the people, who is obliged to always carry out the people’s decision, can veto the senate (Polybius 6.16). After reading this, one may assume that the people had a strong role in Rome and that the strongest element of the government is democracy given the responsibility held on the people. People had the right to hold assembly and vote, something seen as a building block of democracy, but in fact the people had very less power in

    Read More

  • Essay On Democracy And Athenian Democracy

    1230 Words  | 3 Pages

    They were originally established with the intent to give most of the power to the people. The power to vote for the leaders and settle issues professionally. Both forms of governments had senates, which represented the people and helped the nations succeed, by not allowing one person to gain complete power like a king or emperor would. They both did not want kings ruling the entire kingdom, so they gave the people more power by allowing them a voice with some form of voting. Power was also given to representatives and officials in the republic and democracy. The Athenians were able to vote for legislation and bills, while the Romans elected officials to vote on the people’s behalf. The Roman’s established an aristocratic republic controlled by only wealthy people, so the power was not shared equally in society. On the contrary the Athenians allowed anyone to be in government as long as they were a male citizen. A form of the executive branch emerged from both systems; Rome had two consuls elected by council and Athens had a council of five hundred men. They both had different regulations on who was able to be a citizen. The Athenians only granted citizenship to native born males, while the Romans gave half citizenship to Italians allowing them to have full rights, but were not able to

    Read More

  • The Roman Republic

    939 Words  | 2 Pages

    This new Republican government, which was administered by the consuls, was not the easiest to transform. Because of the expansion in Italy, the government began to initiate political institutions. These institutions enforced laws and provided authority which were very similar to imperium. “The Romans had a clear concept of executive authority, embodied in their word imperium, or “the right to command” (Spielvogel 117). Since the Romans were very sensible in their actions, they made and implemented them only as needed. The most essential positions held were the few elected magistrates and the two consuls who were “chosen annually, administered the government and led the Roman army into battle” (Spielvogel 117). If the consul was otherwise occupied, either a dictator or praetor would assume responsibility for the time being.

    Read More

  • From Republic to Empire: Did Augustus Save or Ruin the Republic?

    1707 Words  | 4 Pages

    During the reigns of the first Emperors, legislative, judicial, and electoral powers were all transferred from the Roman assemblies to the Senate. However, since the Senate was filled with individuals whom Augustus approved of, it acted only as a vehicle through which the Emperor exercised his autocratic powers. In the Empire, the Emperor had complete jurisdiction over all policies and decisions. In the beginnings of the empire, he was expected to be accessible to Plebeians and Patricians alike, and to handle all official business and petitions personally.... ... middle of paper ...

    Read More

  • Roman vs. Greek Civilization

    323 Words  | 1 Pages

    Eventually, however, the Greek government became democratic. Rome, on the other hand, was a republic that elected its officials, and common citizens were not allowed as many opportunities as Athenians to participate in matters of the state. While Greece had branches of government to represent citizens, Rome implemented branches of government to represent different components of society. For example, Rome had authorities to supervise public works projects, administer justice, supervise recreational activities and conduct a census (text). Rome, who, like Greece, was a polytheistic society, also appointed a priest for life who was in charge of the entire state's religion.

    Read More

  • The Benefits Of The Roman Republic

    1501 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Republic accomplished this with a mixed constitution of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, in the form of the consuls, Senate, and citizen assemblies respectively. This system diffused power preventing one element of government from becoming too powerful as to undermine the rights of citizens. As Polybius describes, “it was impossible…to pronounce with certainty whether the whole system was aristocratic, democratic, or monarchical…such being the power that each part has of hampering the other or cooperating…their union is adequate to all emergencies, so it impossible to find a better political system than this.” That said critics of the Republic would identify the failings of this system to maintain balance once put into practice. Prominent among these was that the aristocracy had de-facto control over the entirety of the state; the senatorial class set the agenda for the assemblies, monopolized the consulship, and controlled much of the citizenry through patronage networks. Even in the Century Assembly the wealthy controlled over half of the voting blocs. Nonetheless, this does not invalidate the Roman solution to the free-rider problem. Equality of influence was never a privilege that Roman citizens would have expected. Equally, aristocratic hegemony was a necessity for the free rider problem to be solved;

    Read More

More about Democratic Was The Roman Republic: A True Democracy

Open Document