WI: Roman Federal Republic

As I was thinking about one of the weaknesses of the Roman Republic, the huge need for appointed positions (who often had near-absolute power in their provinces) such as Pro-Consuls or Pro-Praetors, I had an idea: what if the Roman Republic had allowed Provinces to elect their own governments up to the Praetor (which by the late republic had become an essentially judicial position) position, leaving the Senate in Rome the top authority in the Empire, the Consuls in Rome the top magistrate in the Empire, and having the Senate appoint Pro-Consuls, who would still have significant power in the provinces but not to the abusive levels of OTL.

What would have been the consequences? Would such an empire have been better suited to survive?
 
Provinces were "estates of Roman people". They were mercilessly exploited. Provincials were not citizens of Republic (excepting Roman colonists), even inhabitants of Italy had not civic rights before 88 BC. How could any Roman politician let these second-rate subdued communities to rule themselves?
 
To a degree, they did rule themselves, especially in Egyptian/Hellenistic eastern provinces that already had substantial histories of law and governance. It wasn't as if there were no governments of a sort in Roman colonia or Greek cities other than the Proconsul of that particular province.

Wedging specific autonomy into the Roman system for non-citizens would be very hard, and I agree it wouldn't be likely to happen, no. However, continuing Roman traditions of government for Roman citizens (or the various gradations thereof) in areas outside of Latinum could be an effective way to boost the efficiencies of administration over time, and provide an organizing system for local control by Roman citizens.

We can't forget either that before the Marian reforms in the Roman Army, citizen farmers and smallholders were the backbone of the legions, and had ties to their own land and property. After the reforms, the army was tied to its commander's political success to be ensured pay and pension. It doesn't require much elaboration to describe how problematic that proved to be.

If the Roman Republic had the "federalized" type of system here, settlement and expansion of new provinces would be accompanied by an influx of a Roman ruling class of smallholders, urban merchants and so on that provides the base for provincial governance and manpower for military needs. This in principle seems like a more stable system than OTLs. The real question is how the Romans might pursue such an imperial strategy under the Republic.
 
As others have pointed out, this is all but impossible under the Republic. 'Province' at that point simply has no bond or structure, no unitary identitsy of any kind,. THe only thing that makes a province is that it is governed by a magistrate chosen by the Roman people. What it actually comprises depends on the vagaries of history, with independent tribes, allied city states, titular and actual colonies, subject nations (cities and tribes) in various tributary relationships and traditionally independent states under Roman tutelage. There is no way you can fit that kind of heterogenity into a structure of elective government. It was hard enough for the governors to keep track of the rights and obligations of each statelet and city towards him.

It would, strangely enough, be possible under the Empire. by the Late Republic, you have provinces founded by a constitutive legal act with certain unifying requirements, and there are assemblies of representatives of the provinces acting as cultic organisations and consultative bodies. Some provinces even have what we would recognise as a 'capital'. If it had been decided that there needs to be a provioncial administrative structure in 100 AD, all the ingredients were there. It would still have been unbelievably complicated because of the thousands of local animosities ansd rivalries, but it could have worked.
 
Top