When people say that "America is a Republic, not a Democracy," that does not mean that there are no democratic elements to our Constitution. There are, in the exact same way that there were democratic elements to the Roman government as well. The key point is that both have deliberately established, non-democratic checks on the popular power.
In Rome, for example, the democratic aspect of the constitution was to be found in the Assemblies, of which there were several. The magistrates were elected through the Assemblies, and all legislation had to be enacted through the appropriate one. Most people are not aware that the Roman Senate could not enact laws. Yes, it controlled foreign policy, the purse, military appointments, and for most of the Republic its prior approval was required in order for a vote on enacting a law. It would pass a "Senatus Consultus" that a proposed law should be enacted, and then it went to the people for an up or down vote. This power was eventually lost, and legislation could also originate in the assemblies, usually the Plebian Assembly.
In addition to the Assemblies, the people--or more correctly, I'll grant, the plebians--selected several men to serve as Plebian Tribunes. The initial purpose of this office was to rescue a member of the plebs from a magistrate, who was at first always a Patrician. Later, they obtained the power to veto the action of any magistrate within the city of Rome, and could even veto acts of the Senate and courts. In addition, Tribunes could bring any former magistrate to trial for misconduct during his tenure of office and earned the right to sit in the Senate, even after their term of office was over, provided that they met the property qualifications.
The democratic elements were checked, however, by several forces. First, as mentioned above, legislation had to receive, for most of the Republic, prior approval by the Senate. Even afterwards, only the Senate could appropriate money for public expenses, thus emasculating laws passed by the Assemblies if the required public funds. During their tenure of office, magistrates were immune from any prosecution except for crimes of sedition or rebellion, and there were no provisions for the impeachment of magistrates. Senators were not elected but either adlected by the Censors, or took office once elected to the quaestorship or above.
Inspired by Cicero's writings, our founding fathers attempted to adopt this same sort of mixed government to our Constitution. The House of Representatives would represent the people themselves, and be elected directly by the citizens. The Senate, on the other hand, was to represent the upper classes, and was chosen by the state legislatures--which they knew were in the hands of the aristocracy--until the Constitution was amended. Senators were not responsible to the voters. The President, of course, was not, and is still not, directly elected by the people, but by the Electors who are chosen by the people in their various states.
We can date the emerging failure of the Roman Republic from the time when the people started to amass more and more power at the expense of the Senate and the magistrates. As the government became more and more dysfunctional, personal power and influence became more and more important to candidates for the Consulship, and the Senate, which had successfully guided Rome through the wars with Hannibal and other enemies, became sidelined. No, it is not the right that usually initiates dictatorship or some other form of authoritarian rule, but the left, in the case of the Romans the Populares.
No comments:
Post a Comment