effects of a (failed) roman democratic experiment

Let’s say Constantine’s (or an alternate emperor in a similar position and context) sons all die due to ordinary reasons while their father is still going strong, except for one, whom Constantine (or our alternate emperor) comes to see as an idiot.
At this point, introduce a random philosopher that says something to the effect of:

“What will happen to Rome when you die? Will your son take over, even though you yourself described him as unfit to rule? And how will this new emperor come to power? Let me tell you, he’ll do it just like most of the old ones, by promising money to the legions and powerful backers and then defeating rivals who have done the same. But the legions are like a spoiled child, who may be satisfied by one sweet today but will require two the next day to keep from crying. So would-be emperors will constantly give out more and more money to the legions upon accession, until we reach the point where they won’t be able to any more, causing the legions to support another, who either out of ignorance or malice will promise them what they want to hear, leading to wars upon wars.

And since an emperor’s power is based on bribing the army, the moment he won’t be able to pay them due to a calamity or another, the army will turn on him. And so we get more and more civil wars until there is nothing left. You may think that the way is to make everyone accept that it is natural for an emperor’s son to succeed his father, thus averting civil wars. However, if that son is an idiot, there will surely follow great disasters for the state, until you have the army revolt and support someone promising them more and more money, and so we return to the point from where we started.
But even if that son where not stupid, who is to say his son won’t be? And won’t he be a king in all but name, something our ancestors have constantly warned us against, as kingship naturally leads to tyranny?

Why not then introduce a system, whereby the power of an emperor resides not in the support of the army, but in that of the people? Why not have the people choose between different candidates the best among them, and create rules and conventions whereby everyone accepts the winner as legitimate, with the promise that they can vote him out of office in a few years’ time, should he prove unworthy of his position ? You thus avert civil wars and expensive bribes to the army, and also ensure a succession that isn’t dependent on the whims of fate providing an emperor with a capable heir. Wrapping the whole process within a religious context will also make it much more acceptable to people and less likely that they abuse it.”

Our emperor becomes convinced in the basic merits of the system. He is adored by the soldiers and is lucky as hell in dodging assassinations. How does he go about introducing democracy? Can he, under any circumstance, succeed? (my guess is no, as you need an early modern state for genuine democracy to work). What are the potential butterflies of this (failed) experiment with democracy, assuming the empire still falls ?
 
Give the Philosopher a, for most part, romantic view of the roman republic ... althrough not blind for the issues with 1year length consuls, but suggesting consulships of say 4 years long. Not quite Democratic by our worldview, but still less of a jump.
 
The problem is that the Romans did try democracy (out style, not classical Greek democracy), and it failed. There were plenty of historical examples on how flawed this Philosopher's arguments are and why his naive belief in democracy won't achieve the results he think it does.
 
The problem is that the Romans did try democracy (out style, not classical Greek democracy), and it failed. There were plenty of historical examples on how flawed this Philosopher's arguments are and why his naive belief in democracy won't achieve the results he think it does.

It worked pretty effectively for about 4-5 centuries (depending who you say finally killed it, pick anyone from Marius to Augustus). So I wouldn't say that you could regard it to have failed.

Further, there are so many different problems with transposing our modern conception of Democracy into the past. Not the least of which is that its only a relatively recent quick of history that we regard Republics and Democracies as virtually interchangeable. Historically, particularly in antiquity and in medieval ages, a Republic was a state that strove to combine the best features of democracies, oligarchies, and monarchies, generally on the idea that balancing the need for the people to have a voice, the elite to have influence, and a leader to make decisions would result in the best for everyone (as a general idea, I'd say that basic formulation is correct).

Another problem is that, even back then, people (aside from the Greeks, eternal optimists that they were) realized that it was generally a bad idea to invest too much power in the people, or even too much power in any one 'branch' of government (not in our sense, but it'll do). Constantine and his successors already took it upon themselves to devolve quite a bit of authority to the Church.

If you want to *really* simplify Roman legal theory, they did have some idea of a separation of powers not too dissimilar from Anglo-American common law of executive (imperium), legislative (potestas), and judicial (auctoritas). Yes, thats a gross simplification, but its useful enough and close enough for argument. In the Republic, those powers were divided between the different branches of government; consuls and their officers had imperium to command armies, the people had potestas to pass legislation in the assemblies, and the Senate had auctoritas to rule on matters. Of course, the Emperors basically held all these powers to themselves (the early Emperors made a show of considering the powers separate, while after the 3rd century, such semantics went out the window to a degree).

Anyway, if you were to look at things in this light, there is some room for reform, but nothing as drastic as has been suggested. After all, any reform that removes the Emperor as the leader of the army just says to every general "Hey, there's no Emperor, you've got an army, and they really would like a bonus..." If thats what you're looking for, a short-lived experiment, then you see one more example for historians to point to as to why Republics and Democracies don't work beyond a city. Might delay some of the larger Republics in history, which would be bad.

If you wanted to, you could make the argument that, in a fashion, the Emperors did do this; by devolving some legal power to the Church (while elevating Christianity to the state religion) and assembling periodical Ecumenical Councils, they, in a way, spread decision-making power across the Empire to various local officials. Again, not a perfect analogy, but an interesting way to view things.

More importantly, it complicated matters, as the Church would be quite jealous of the Emperor giving civil governments more power; particular since the civil magistrates were some of the last to convert. All sorts of fun complications there.
 
Thing is that by the time of the Tetrarchy, Rome was basically a military dictatorship, with the imperial office completely different from that created by the Fulio-Claudians, and thus any attempt to democratise the empire was going to fail.

If it was going to happen, I think it could happen during the Five Good Emperors; maybe if Marcus Aurelius appointed a successor rather than giving his office to his son, or gave the decision to a reformed, more inclusive (i.e. not being Itolo-centric) Senate then that might set a precedent.
 
The Roman Republic devolved into dictatorship for very concrete and largely unavoidable reasons, and restoring it centuries after it fell would be even more ASB than having it not fall in the first place.

The Empire is too large, the autocratic institution too ingrained, civil society too deeply transformed for any kind of democracy to emerge in the late Roman period - particularly not in the East.
 
Just had an idea. What if, Constantine, feeling less secure for whatever reason, decides to convene some sort of "legislative councill", with a simmilar reasoning as the one behind convening ecumenical councills, namely ensuring that the rulings gain wide acceptance. This also gives politicians and magistrates another avenue of advancement.

He also has a single son, Crispus, succeeding him (thus averting the civil war that followed his death). Crispus keeps up his fathers practice of convening such councills, and, maybe faced with a rebellion or two, grants some administrative privileges (harmless stuff, nothing fancy at first) to them in the hope of placating some of the more powerful nobles, as well as increasing the frequency with which they are convened (once every 2-3 years?). He leads a long reign, thus ensuring that the practice of convening such councills becomes part of "how things get done".

From here, maybe have a situation simmilar to that of the english parliament, with the legislative council gaining more and more power over time, as the emperor needs them to ensure his own position. Maybe this also gives the emperor the added benefit of being able to play Senate, legislative councill and church against each other to ensure he stays on top of things ?

Thoughts ?
 
Thing is that by the time of the Tetrarchy, Rome was basically a military dictatorship, with the imperial office completely different from that created by the Fulio-Claudians, and thus any attempt to democratise the empire was going to fail.

If it was going to happen, I think it could happen during the Five Good Emperors; maybe if Marcus Aurelius appointed a successor rather than giving his office to his son, or gave the decision to a reformed, more inclusive (i.e. not being Itolo-centric) Senate then that might set a precedent.

The Senate long-included non-Italians, going all the way back to Julius Caesar. Further, the Senate is not the key to democratizing Rome; think of them as a combination of the US Supreme Court and US Senate, leaning much more towards the former than the latter.
 

RousseauX

Donor
From here, maybe have a situation simmilar to that of the english parliament, with the legislative council gaining more and more power over time, as the emperor needs them to ensure his own position. Maybe this also gives the emperor the added benefit of being able to play Senate, legislative councill and church against each other to ensure he stays on top of things ?
The Senate was irrelevant at this point and the church was still firmly subordinate to the state.
 
The Senate was irrelevant at this point

Actually, support from the senate proved crucial on numerous occasions in tipping the balance for this or that would-be emperor. It was also an important avenue of advancement for politicians and a way of offering prestigious positions to placate and please ones supporters.


and the church was still firmly subordinate to the state.
Which is why Constantine felt he could easily push theological decisions through all by himself, without the need to call ecumenical councils, right ?
 
Top