Athenian style democracy in Ancient Rome

Jerry Kraus

Banned
Both ancient Athens, and ancient Rome were, technically, democracies at times. But, their approach to democracy was rather different. Rome was, like most modern "democracies", a Res Publica, a "public entity", where the influence of the general public on government was mediated by election of representatives to run the government, for a fixed period of time. French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau described "representative democracy" as a contradiction in terms, because the representatives will simply represent themselves and their own interests. Effectively, timed dictatorships, or oligarchies.

Now, while the Athenians also elected representatives, they adopted an approach to controlling any abuses or excessive self-interest while they were in power, that was rather unique. Any and all government officials could be ostracized -- expelled from Athens -- by a simple vote of a small percentage of the total Athenian citizen population, at any time at all. Imagine if the President of the United States, or the Prime Minister or Queen of England could be expelled from the United States, or Britain, if a million signatures could be collected from the population as a whole! Now, that would change things a bit, wouldn't it? So, we could expect rather less tolerance of disparities of wealth, and rather less corruption, hmmm?

Probably, the conflicts between the plebians and the equestrians would be largely eliminated, in Rome. Probably, the Roman Empire is delayed, and the democracy lasts longer. Or, would a more democratic Roman Democracy be more self-destructive, like Athens was, and would Rome collapse rather earlier, with no Roman Empire at all? Any thoughts, at all?
 
Last edited:

Jerry Kraus

Banned
So, let us suppose that the entire population is involved in decisions such as the Punic Wars in which Rome engaged, rather than merely elected representatives, mostly extremely rich themselves, and backed by other wealthy Romans as OTL. How would this change things, exactly? Bear in mind, the average Roman citizen may not be able to protect themselves from Hannibal's depredations as well as the rich and the powerful can. Possibly, they will be less patient, and engage him unnecessarily, and unwisely, leading to the utter destruction of all of Rome's forces, and a Carthaginian victory, in the second Punic War, for example?

Civil Wars are probably much less likely in a more Democratic Rome, since the principle of Ostracism will simply remove immediately any elected officials who are unpopular with a significant proportion of the population. An absolute majority is not required. So, what does the history of Rome look like, without the periodic Civil Wars we are all so familiar with? No triumvirates, no dictators, quite possibly no Imperial Rome, at all.
 
Top