Rome and True Democracy

By Pierce K. Kozlowski

Was the Republic of Rome a true democracy?

Historical thinkers across time have argued that it was. Polybius (264–146 BCE), a historian from the Hellenistic era, suggested that Rome was a true democracy because the rule, in its entirety, was left to the people. Polybius wrote, “it is the people who bestow offices, which are the most honorable rewards of virtue . . . They also have the absolute power of passing or repealing laws; and most important of all, it is the people who deliberate on the question of peace and or war.” Professor Fergus Millar (1935-2019), an English academic historian, agreed with Polybius, and argued that “the most fundamental of all rights of the people [of Rome] was, however, the fact that they and they alone, could legislate.” On the basis of that reasoning, Millar thus determined that “the Roman res publica [had] to be characterized as a democracy.” However, in pursuit of answering the question on the legitimacy of Rome’s democratism, other historians have stepped forward, arguing the converse to the commonly held positions of Polybius and Millar.

Thinkers who have challenged how democratic Rome really was have pointed to the wild imbalances and faulty system that was the voting process in ancient Rome. Alan Ward (1935-2014), a historian from New Zealand, stands at the forefront of this case. When it came to voting accessibility, only people living within the “environs” of the Roman province were allowed to vote because “all voting had to be conducted in Rome.” Furthermore, Ward argued that poorer rural voters were disadvantaged in trial assemblies because “unit votes were already biased toward the wealthier property owners no matter how many voters showed up.” Ward goes on to cite American historian Ramsay MacMullen, who claimed that roughly 2% of the Roman population actually voted, rendering “any notion of direct democracy nugatory.” The truth about the despotic capacities of magistrates and tribunes were astronomical, further undercutting the representative scope of Rome’s democracy. Ward addressed this fact as well:

“The voters had no role in selecting candidates for office or in proposing legislation in any assembly. The presiding official...could reject the candidacy of someone whom he thought unworthy or unqualified. Similarly, Censors...could eject from the senate anyone who did not meet their standards or pleasure. Thus the senate, the magistrates, and the tribunes remained firmly in the hands of the elite. At the same time…[they] were the only ones who could place legislation before the voters.”

Sure, the notion of Rome and its people working in harmony with a perfect democracy is a beautiful one. However, the reality remains: Rome had a voting process which acted as an obstacle to democracy, and this is demonstrated by the voter turnout being only 2% of the region’s population. Rome’s government was loosely built upon the framework of pure democratism; however, internal issues within its voting system acted as a handicap to that framework, narrowing the capacity for Roman citizens to actually vote. Therefore, based on this line of reasoning, it can be reasonably argued that Rome was not a pure democracy.

References

1. Polybius. The Histories. 167-119 BCE

2. Millar, Fergus. The Crowd in the Late Republic. 1998

3. Ward, Alan. “How Democratic was the Roman Republic?” 2003