Democracy in Rome

Interested in learning about democracy in Rome? The ways of Roman civilization and their outlook towards the society is often misinterpreted. Read on to the facts about Roman society and the democracy that governed it.
| Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Romans were renowned for advocacy of imperial interests, not as inventors in the history of democratic system. This is neither astounding nor in total undemocratic on them; all the same, they make their place in this democracy progression on the grounds that the structure they functioned in the middle and late Republican era (from approximately 300 BC until the founding of the kingdom in about 30 BC) enclosed a sturdy constituent of popular partaking, even if unbiased by a still stronger patrician custom.

The Roman edition of democracy endured from the similar restrictions in the eyes of a contemporary reviewer as did the previous Athenian edition. The voters were all adult male populace, so that females, servants and those who did not have the nationality of Rome were completely debarred from political being. It also experienced from a sequence of additional limits of its own, through which the right to vote of the poor populace was restricted in its consequence by sets of nifty preparations in the method the voting assemblies functioned. There is good motive to believe that the effectual voting was done by fairly a restricted rank of people, of means varying from the most broad to the comparatively reserved, and that the very poorest had modest or no authority on events; if so, in this context in any case, there was a fundamental divergence from the democracy of Athens, positively from the outline of democracy reached in the later 5th and 4th centuries BC.

Democracy in Rome was destabilized, following a terrorist attack

During the 68 B.C. the world's solitary armed forces superpower underwent a weighty psychosomatic bluster by an audacious terrorist assault on its very heart. Rome's port at Ostia was set upon fire, the consular war fleet ruined, and 2 well-known senators, jointly with their staff and bodyguards, abducted. The event, thespian though it was, has not engrossed much notice from contemporary historians. However history is variable. An incident that was simply an annotation 5 years before has now, in our post-9/11 globe, understood an unsullied and gloomy implication. For in the unnerved consequences of the assault, the Roman populace made choices that set them on the trail to the devastation of their own Constitution, their democratic system and their autonomy.

A timorous democracy

Perhaps already being stimulated by the Greek society, they established their primary assembly called Comitia Curiata; this assembly symbolized the clans and made choices of harmony or combat, selecting the magistrate. It was an initial step. As Rome was getting bigger and becoming densely inhabited they restructured their assembly and it was then called Comitia Centuriata. This assembly was bigger and integrated legislative body from the Army, which were at this time resident-soldiers.

Even though these assemblies had restricted authorities below the sovereign rule and these assemblies were limiting only men, moderately affluent and soldiers were elected, it was the timorous commencement of Democracy. These incidents occurred around 600 BC. In reality a bigger proportion of the populace was able to manipulate the verdict.

Thus we can articulate that the Roman nation commenced as a democracy but owing to the overstated power of some affluent families and the organism of patrons, the democracy became increasingly a structure where the preponderance of the citizens did not have any say in their own government.

The Roman Republic went on mounting its borders with a dominant army all through Italy and beyond, with horrible suffering on its following class citizen (the Plebeians) who tried to rebel from time to time, but in vain.

Related Categories
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Subscribe to RSS feed for Democracy category.
Search Articles