Was the Roman Republic a Democracy?

Can the Roman Republic be described as a democratic system? Before we answer this question, we should first ascertain the meaning of democracy. It comes from the Greek word dēmokratia. This word is a combination of the words dēmos (the people) and kratia (power, rule). (Barnhart, C.L. and Barnhart, R.K. 1998) So essentially it means ruled by the people or power to the people. That being the case the short answer to this question would be no. This answer would not, however, suffice seeing as although the Roman Republic was not a democracy it did possess elements that could be considered democratic.

 

At first glance, the Roman voting system would not be considered as being democratic, and of course, the first glance would be right, but their voting system does however have some democratic elements. The Romans practiced group voting. This in itself is not necessarily undemocratic. One has to take in account that Rome had a large citizen body and that it would not have been practical for every single one of them to cast their vote individually. It was the way in which their groups were divided that made the voting system undemocratic. There were several voting assemblies. I will now discuss how two of these voting assemblies allocated their different groups as described by Klaus Bringmann (2002) and John A. North (2006). The first of which is the comitia centuriata. This voting assembly was class and wealth-based and later also based on age. The classes were originally based on the military. The wealthiest class was the equestrian class. They were the class that was sufficiently wealthy to afford horses. The next class was called the first class. They were the class that could afford the equipment to be hoplites. The equestrian class had 18 votes and the First class had 80 votes although it was later reduced to 70. The second class had 20 votes which was then later increased to 30. The third and fourth classes had 20 votes. The fifth class had 30 votes. Then there was a class for special (such as engineers and so forth) troops. This class had 4 votes and the last class (the poorest class) only had a single vote. Originally, they would have been those who were too poor to fight in the army. Now of course this is highly discriminatory towards the poor people within Rome. They have much fewer votes than those wealthier than them even though they outnumber them by far. There is another fact about this assembly that simply must be mentioned. Half of the centuries of each class was allocated to elders. It has to be said that these elders were considerably less than those younger than them. Thus, meaning that the elders had the same voting power as those younger than them despite being the minority. The different classes in the comitia centuriata also voted in order, starting from the wealthiest class. Because votes were announced publicly the first couple of votes usually set the trend for the votes that proceeded them. This could lead to the lower classes losing their voting power altogether if the first couple of classes all agreed on o certain matter. Another assembly was called the tribal assembly. This assembly also relied on group voting, but their groups were based on regions, not on wealth. Rome’s territory was divided into 35 regions. Each of these regions was allocated to a specific tribe. Each tribe had one vote. This was somewhat undemocratic seeing as some tribes could have more members than others. Which would mean that a small tribe had the same voting capability as a larger one. Then there also was the factor that all voting had to take place in Rome. This means that tribes located far away from Rome would find it difficult to attend every voting session. There was a total of 31 rural tribes and 4 urban tribes. This meant that the 4 urban tribes were over-represented seeing as they were right at the source where the voting took place whereas the urban tribes were underrepresented. The fact that the Romans did vote for their leaders and on other matters does make the Roman Republic somewhat democratic, but the way in which the different voting groups were divided was highly undemocratic seeing as the minority had a much larger say than the majority.

 

The Roman Republic’s government has been associated with an oligarchy in more than one instance. (North, J. 1990; Burckhardt, L. 1990; Millar, F. 1984). The reason why the government often was described as an oligarchy was because the senate was very exclusive. Initially, the senate was only open to the patricians. The patricians claimed that they had the right to have power over the senate seeing as they were the direct dependents of the first senate that was put in place by Romulus the mythical founder of Rome. Although the senate was restricted only to patricians at first the plebeians did later gain access to the senate and the cousinship. However, this only was the end result of a long and arduous struggle between the patricians and the plebeians for the plebeian’s rights to diplomatic power. In the years 451 BC and 450 BC a number of laws were created. These laws were called the 12 Tables. (Cornell, T.J. 1995) Although some of these laws did benefit the plebeians such as the laws that prevented people from extorting each other through debt bondage while others oppressed them such as the law that plebeians and patricians could not intermarry. Although not always fair, the twelve tables set the basis for Roman law. Shortly after the creation of the twelve tables the position of tribune of the people was created. According to E. Badian (1996) the Tribunes were plebeians that were allowed to attend the senate meetings. They were allowed to attend the senate meetings, but they were not allowed to make any proposals of their own to the senate. They were however given the power of veto over any of the proposals the Senate should make. This became a very strong weapon for them during the end of the struggle of the orders. It has to be mentioned that although the plebeians did eventually get access to the senate the senate still was an oligarchy to a large extent. You had to be within a certain wealth category in order to be part of the senate. Thus, meaning that this new reform only benefited the wealthy plebeians. The poorer plebeians were, because of this still denied access to the senate to a large extent. Although a poor plebeian did somehow manage to gain sufficient wealth through the course of his lifetime he could theoretically become a member of the Senate. Ancestry was incredibly important to the Romans. Those Romans who had ancestors who had been elected as one of the high-ranking magistrates (especially counsel) had an increasable advantage over those who did not have any such ancestors. In fact, the sons of counsels were automatically given a position within the senate. In short, the senate in the later republic allowed plebeians to be part of the senate (to the extent that one of the counsels had to be a plebeian) whereas the earlier republic did not allow plebeians to be part of the senate at all. This means that the Roman Republic did become more democratic concerning this aspect although it still can’t be described as being fully democratic seeing as one still had to be of a certain wealth category to be part of the senate.

 

Polybius des describes the Roman Republic as being a mixed constitution because it had elements of all the different kinds of constitutions that were familiar to him imbedded in it: namely monarchy oligarchy and democracy. (Cornell, T.J. 1995) In the previous two paragraphs, I explored the reasons why the Roman Republic could be compared to both a democracy and an oligarchy, but I have not explored any reasons why it could be compared to a monarchy. The reason for this is that I do not believe that it could be compared with a monarchy. The only leg the Roman Republic had to stand on as a monarchy was that they employed dictators in times of emergency. Of course, this is not at all democratic, but it was not called on very often and the dictator had to resign his dictatorship at the end of six months or after the emergency had been resolved. The Romans despised kings and their entire system was based on the abolishment of kings. It has to be mentioned that the Romans would have thought of their own system as being democratic. It also has to be mentioned that it was the patricians who got rid of the kings and not the plebeians and that the original republic could have been nothing more than a power grab of the patricians. Although there of course is nothing on which to base this theory. The Romans would however have seen the Republic after the struggle of the orders as been extremely democratic. All the systems that were put in place that we today would view as being oppressive would have been viewed in an entirely different way by the Romans. The reason why the Romans would take certain people’s votes above others was because they felt that some people were able to make better decisions than others. They would for example have clarified the fact that poor people had fewer votes than wealthy people by saying that wealthy people were better educated and therefore would have been able to make better choices. They also believed in the fact that age brought wisdom. So, they would have thought it perfectly acceptable to give the elderly the same amounts of votes as the youth despite the fact that the youth outnumbered the elderly by far. The basis on which certain people were made eligible to be part of the Senate also was based on this sort of logic. The Romans made sure that only those who could do the job properly could have access to the senate and its majesties. The senate put an age securement that to be met in order for a person to stand for a certain majesty and only senators of a certain age were given the right to speak in the senate. This again was based on the idea that age brought wisdom. The Romans also placed a lot of emphasis on ancestors. They truly believed that someone who had ancestors who had been magistrates would be likely to make a good magistrate himself (this would have been why the original republic would have felt justified to limit the senate to patricians). To ensure that someone from the more important majesties such as the consul would be an eligible candidate a person first had to be one of the lower majesties and move their way up through the ranks until they finally could make the rank of counsel.

Additionally, each majesty was held by at least two people. This was put in place to try and restrict corruption. To ensure the senators were competent, a position of censor was created. The censors were particularly old individuals that had previously been consuls. The censors had the power to remove any incompetent senators from the Senate.

 

Although we would not in the least consider the Roman Republic as being a democracy the Romans themselves did consider it as being a democracy. Although this does not make the Roman Republic a democracy (at least not by today’s standards) it does show us that things could appear completely different and distorted if they are viewed from a different angle. Even to the point where a government that oppresses the majority could be viewed as a democracy.

Reference list

Barnhart, C.L. and Barnhart, R.K 1988. “The world book dictionary” Chicago: World Book, Inc

North, J. 1990. “Democratic Policy in Republican Rome”, Past and Present 126, 3-21

Burckhardt, L. 1990. “The Politic Elite of The Roman Republic” Historia 39, 77-99

Millar, F. 1984. “The Political Character of The Classical Rome Republic” The Journal of Roman Studies 74, 1-19

Bringmann, k. 2002. “A History of The Roman Republic” Cambridge: Polity Press

North, J.A. 2006. “A Companion to The Roman Republic” Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Cornell, T.J. 1995 “The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome From the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars” London

Badian, E. 1995 “Tribuni Plebis and Res Publica” T Robert S Broughton and the Roman Republic 187-213

 copyright reserved © Baloyi 2024