The Roman Republic: Democracy Or Democracy?

The book, “The Crowd in the Late Republic” written by Professor Fergus Miller is a British historian who believed that Rome was democratic. Every adult male citizen, unless specifically disqualified, had a vote and there was no formal exclusion of the poor. They even allowed free slaves to vote! Some powers the Roman people had was that they

Of all things that may have influenced future western governments, Athenian Democracy and Rome’s Republic had the greater impact. However, Athenian Democracy and Rome’s Republic share all male citizenship participation and a voice in government, they differed in the ways that they voted and how their citizens were elected.

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.

Citizens in Rome that are assigned these jobs not only attain a high position but also have a lot more power and authority. For example, according to Source A, Consuls, who are also considered magistrates, had “the absolute authority in running the military… and can spend as much public money as they choose”. They were ultimately “...the supreme masters of the government.” (Source A). This part of the government would lead historians to believe that the constitution was despotism, not a democracy. Another reason showing that the Roman Republic was not a democracy was the how the Senate had functioned. The Senate presents laws and deals with issues outside of the civilization. Scholars may consider this to be an

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

In the end, all of this say that because of your gender and you economical and geographical state, voting was inaccessible to you, which means that the whole population was not practicing the social equality which is required to be considered democratic. Although the historians that wrote both documents A and B had some strong points, as shown in document C, that the role of the people was not as important as it really was. According to Alan Ward, “The voters had no role in selecting candidates for office or in proposing legislation in any assembly. The magistrates and tribunes, with or without a prior recommendation from the senate, were the only ones who could place legislation before the voters.” This is a very important pieces of information that helps us realize the true government roles the people played in Roman times.

While democracy has a simple definition, “power for the people”, the interpretations and means of executing that right by centers of power can vastly differ. In the ancient Roman republic, optimates and populares had vastly different political attitudes on who should play an active role in the government. In the name of democracy, leaders from both sides executed their power in different ways. However, optimates best represented the ideals of modern democracy through their attempts to prioritize efficiency and reduced conflict with qualified officials and have the people’s best interests at heart, with famous optimates such as Cato often standing up for the citizens against some populares’ attempts to abuse their power.

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.

Some may argue that Athenian democracy was more representative of every citizen’s opinion, but the Roman republic shows its strength over democracy with its organized executive branch and its success in dealing with a large population.

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.

At the head of the Roman Republic stands two elected officials, that are called the consul. The consul carries out the decisions of the Senate, lead the army, and in general have the highest executive authority. Polybius describes the consul as the monarchical element of the Roman government. The consul’s power is tempered by the Senate to avoid corruption. The Senate is a small group of Roman political elites who form the aristocratic

Some people think that ancient Roman is a democratic society but some are not. Personally, I think that the ancient Rome is a democratic society. In this essay, we are going to discuss about the democracy of ancient Rome. To know the democracy of the ancient Rome, we first need to understand its structure and base on it to identify the ancient Rome is a democratic society or not. In order to deeply interpret the structure and democracy of Rome, there are some aspects we need to know, including social development, economic aspect, political development, and military development.

‘The Republic’ is a Socratic dialogue written by Plato around 380 BC, concerning about the order of justice, the order and character of just men and just city/states. The Republic is considered as the best known work of Plato and is considered one of the world’s most influential works of politics, history and philosophy. In this Socratic dialogue, Socrates discusses about the notions of justice and whether the just man is very happy when compared with his unjust, Athenian and foreign counterparts. Socrates considers the various facets of the existing regimes and proposes a series of hypothetical cities that are entirely different from his considerations. Such heated discussions result in the culmination of discussing kallipolis, a hypothetical city-state that was ruled by a philosopher king. In this paper, we are going to consider Socrates arguments about democracy by examining whether the concept of democracy always remains inconsistent with philosophical goals.

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.

Rule by the people, is considered to be the significance of democracy deriving from the Greek word, demokratia. The earliest notion and practices of democracy appeared in the first half century B.C among the Greeks. (Robert Dahi, 1) The principal aspects applied in the political system included, the acknowledgement of political equality amongst the people whom are mutually sovereign, and most importantly are able to retain the economic and political means in order to efficiently govern themselves. According to Dahi, it was the Athenians whom brought about the first democratic transformation, whereby the main gist of democracy was adopted from the ideas and practices of rule by the few to the notion of rule by the many. The shift in political structure is considered to be the foundation of democracy, as well as the idea of equality within the city-state. Within the demokratia, some kind of equality was established whereby Athenians understood it to be a desirable characteristic of their political system. (Dahi) The main idea of democracy is often viewed as the most relevant and forward thinking government, however, the notion of democracy has been rejected by philosophers. In order to fully comprehend the reasons as to why some thinkers have spoken against democracy, this essay will firstly discuss Classical Greek philosopher Plato whom argued that political affairs such as governing should solely be the responsibility of philosophers and men which are educated in politics.