Power For The People In The Ancient Roman Republic

A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both

There is a fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic as it concerned the political entitlement of the citizenry. The citizens of a republic do not participate directly with governmental affairs. The citizens of a republic can however have a say in who does participate. The Roman republic has two prefect systems to prevent dictatorship which didn’t work.

One of the most important things in a democracy is that everybody can vote, which is something the Roman Republic understood well. “Every adult male citizen, unless specifically disqualified, had a vote, and there was no formal exclusion of the poor. Free slaves could also vote…”. This means that almost everybody had say in the government, not just wealthy people with high social status. According to Fergus Millar, the Roman Republic was extremely democratic.

Some policies and institutions of the Roman Republic were useful to help them succeed in conquering first Italy and then the Mediterranean world. Before of the institution of the republic, the romans were a monarchy since their beginning and they were basically a pastoral people. Rome suffer several changes and improvements under the control of the Etruscan kings. The Etruscan were civilization settled north of Rome in Etruria, and they once had control over almost all the Italic peninsula. The Etruscans influences in Rome were profound, they transformed Rome from a pastoral community to a city (91). The Etruscan built the street and roads that help the development of temples, markets, shops, streets, and houses. They basically brought urbanization to Rome. It is fairly to say that the Rome republic was a fusion between the elements of the Etruscan civilization and the Rome elements. The combination of the different political institutions and policies made the Romans succeed in their conquest territories.

For several years, scholars and historians from around the world have been debating about the Roman Republic’s constitution. Many have described their constitution as purely democratic; however, others find aspects of the Roman Republic characterizing despotism or an aristocracy. So, which form of government could best describe the Roman Republic? Currently, there is no exact answer, but because of meticulous studies, observations were recorded and assumptions were made. From a selection of resources, the most common claim inquired that the Roman Republic should not be considered an accurate form of a democracy and there are a collection of reasons as to why this is.

Most Romans had trouble with the idea of power to only a few people. The concept of power to the people settled well with many of the Romans. There were three main separate parts of the Roman Republic. These parts were the Consuls, the Senate, and the Assembly. A direct statement of their powers is given in document A by Polybius: “ The consuls (magistrates) lead the military and are the supreme masters of the government. They bring matters requiring debate before the Senate. They also call together the people’s Assemblies, and carry out whatever the majority of the Assemblies decide.” This similar to the style of the U.S democracy. Both have mass majority votes on various issues. For U.S democracy it is always for the election of someone to represent for the people. But in the Roman republic it was for people to vote directly on some issues among each other then elect someone to handle the issue in office for a

The Roman Republic was a “democratic” republic, which allowed first citizens to vote, and to choose their governors in the senate (Hence, their consuls). However, it was a nation ruled by its aristocracy, and, consequently, the entire Republic`s power was concentrated in a few individuals. Furthermore, the Senate was controlled by Patricians, which directed the government by using wealth to buy control and power over the decisions of the senate and the consuls. This situation aroused the inconformity of the people; as result, a civil war took place in the Republic (destroying it), and then the Roman Empire was born.

However, this influence that the Senate had on the magistrates and popular assemblies was meant to protect the Republic from “popular whims” or the stupidity of the commoner (Gwynn, 24) . Although one could argue this made Rome an aristocracy, this in no way downgrades the justice of the government. The system of checks and balances ensured that the Senate could never be in complete control. More importantly, “the People, who by their votes, bestow honors on those who deserve them” (Tingay and Badcock, 45). The Populus had the right to reject or pass laws or choose war or peace.

In the era of the contemporary United States, a country that has had the longest standing democracy, we are used to thinking very highly of its system. However, throughout our history, there have been a couple of critics to the system of democracy. It comes as no surprise that democracy does have its issues. One of the first pieces of literature where democracy was mentioned and analyzed at a deeper level was The Republic by Plato. This ancient Greek philosopher did not completely agree with democracy, regardless of the fact that ancient Athens was the first civilization that gave rise to it. In fact, in a numerical list that he composes on which are the best ways of ruling, Plato puts democracy at one of the lowest levels. In order, Plato’s list of types of government from most desirable to least desirable looks like this: 1.) Republic (The ideal city) 2.) Timocracy 3.) Oligarchy 4.) Democracy 5.) Tyranny. Additionally, In The Republic, Plato tells us his beliefs and values on certain aspects of life through the eyes of Socrates. So, even though Plato himself does not appear in The Republic and instead Socrates does, nonetheless, Plato and Socrates shared the same ideology when it came to democracy. As we know, Plato did not agree with democracy. As a result, in this paper, I will explore the greatest intellectual strengths and weaknesses of Plato’s view on democracy.

Both Greek Democracy and the Roman Republic contributed greatly to the development of the modern world, bringing into it the notions of democracy and republic. The evolution of these concepts took them to a level much higher than one present in Ancient Greece and Rome respectively. However, modern society continues to draw on somewhat idealized accounts of the ancient world for inspiration in improving today’s governing procedures.

Since its collapse, historians have attempted to explain the struggle for power and control over both the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire that followed. To explain the complexities of the Roman Republic, the Empire, and their political complexities can be a daunting task. For nearly ten centuries Rome would rule most of the known world before the fall of the Western Empire (Byzantine) in 476 C.E. Before that fall occurred, a fundamental change would take place that would transform the original Republic into the Roman Empire. Many factors would be directly and indirectly responsible for this transition. These would

Democracy is often referred to as the rule of the many, but Aristotle called this definition incomplete. In his book “Politics”, he explained that in a city if the majorities are aristocrats and if they have political authority, then it is an aristocracy not a democracy. He therefore defined democracy as when “free people have authority and Oligarchy as when the wealthy have it” (1290b). Plato viewed Democracy as a flawed system with too much inefficiency that would make any implementation of a true democracy not worth it. While Aristotle viewed democracy as a system that could work if it is limited to certain restrictions and if it is the regime that best fits the culture of the people to be governed. In this essay it will be argued that Plato’s view on democracy as a flawed system is more prevalent or more compelling if the current political arena around the world is observed.

one essential conviction, expressed in the word democracy itself: that power should be in the hands of the people. Although democracy today has been slightly inefficient in this idea, with the wealthy, elite class challenging this right, “it nevertheless claims for itself a fundamental validity that no other kind of society shares….” To completely understand the structure of democracy, one must return to the roots of the practice itself, and examine the origins in ancient Greece, the expansion in the Roman Empire, and how these practices combined make what we recognize as today’s democratic government.

Book IV begins with a prominent Aristotelian argument—the best regime (or the ideal government) exists in only in theory (1288b 25-35). Although Aristotle believes that the best regime is unattainable in practice, there is a virtue in speculating about such a regime to determine its laws, structure, and underpinning moral principles (Ibid 35-39). A proponent of political philosophy entails theorizing about the most suitable laws for each regime, and for Aristotle, he holds that “laws are […] the rules according to which the magistrates should administer the state […] so that we must know the varieties […] of each form of government, only with a view to making laws” (1289a 15-25).

Aristotle’s contribution towards political theory had developed through his encounters of various models of governance as he travelled throughout the years (Miller 2011). Aristotle contributed vast aspects around political thought in the time in which he lived. Not only is Aristotle well known for his understanding of good governance and how it can be achieved, but rather his famous account of man, that man, “is by nature a political being; it is his nature to live in a polis” (A. R. Moten 1996). Aristotle’s work offers as a great springboard when considering political thinkers such as Machiavelli and contrasting these theories to that of a theocratic society being