An Aristocratic Polis
3.3.1 The Leadership of the Roman Aristocracy
The Roman Republic was originally a city-state, akin to the Greek polis. It did not opt, though, for the democratic Athenian model, but for an aristocratic one.
The great protagonist of Rome’s extraordinary success, at least until the Third Punic War (146 bc) was the Roman aristocracy. And not because it produced famous figures, but because, as a whole, it managed to maintain, until the middle of the second century bc, both a quiet dignity (gravitas), an unusually high ethical standard, great political wisdom, and a boundless tenacity in the face of adversity (Wolff 1995, 26). These factors, along with its selfless patriotism, justified and assured its undisputed leadership.Rome was never a democracy, either in the Athenian sense or in the current one. The transition from monarchy to republic probably meant no more than the transfer of power from a king for life to some annually elected magistrates (Nicholas 1992, 3-4), a change aimed at assuaging the patricians’ fears of tyrannical governments, like that of Tarquinius Superbus.[66] This transformation, however, did not alter the original thrust of Rome’s legal-public organization, nor did the plebeian movement which, though allowing this social class access to the conduct of public affairs, and leading to the emergence of institutions aimed at countering the oppression by patrician magistrates, did not alter the essentially aristocratic character of the government.[67] Although in theory the Republican magistracies were open to any citizen, in practice they remained in the hands of a few families, both patrician and plebeian, whose members all had in common their status as landowners and holders of wealth, which permitted them the luxury of being able to dedicate most of their time to public affairs, without compensation.
In this way, the patricians’ main activity involved their “public careers” (cursus honorum), which assured them significant social prestige, thereby practically monopolizing public offices (Lintott 2002,144-146). Only on rare occasions did a homus novus from outside this closed circle manage to reach the highest magistracies. Cicero, belonging to the equestrian order,[68] is undoubtedly the best-known exception.This lack of democracy was particularly evident in the assemblies. Arising in theory to facilitate the people of Rome’s access to public affairs, in reality they were not democratically composed. The popular assemblies elected magistrates and passed laws, but their power was limited and they were organized in such a way that they could be controlled by the wealthy as they voted in blocks, and there was no difference in their value, regardless of how many people each actually represented (Taylor 1990, 1). Political power, then, was concentrated in the hands of the landholding class, which virtually monopolized the seats in the Senate, which is why it came to be also known as the senatorial class.[69]
The people only acquired a measure of political influence during the turbulent years of the civil war which shook Rome in the first century bc, though even then the masses were mere instruments in the hands of demagogues—usually aristocrats—who manipulated them (Lintott 2002, 199-207). In addition, this “revolutionary” period led to the establishment of a new form of monarchical government which seized from the masses their last remnants of power, and gradually undermined the aristocracy while increasing the burgeoning bureaucracy surrounding the emperor.
3.3.2 A Political Constitution Designed to Prevent Dictatorship
Although the Roman Republic was never democratic, it was designed to prevent power from falling into the hands of just one person. As a remedy against an individual amassing excessive political influence, the Athenians had invented collegial bodies that were replenished annually, along with the procedure of ostracism.
The Romans arrived at the same result through an ingenious system of checks and balances between the various powers, which earned them the admiration of the great Greek historian Polybius (200-118 bc),[70] a friend to Scipio Aemilianus, the conqueror of Carthage and the most respected Roman statesman of the second century bc. The institutional system of the Roman Republic did not arise in a conscious and planned-out fashion. The virtually unlimited powers wielded by those who held the highest magistracies (magistrati)[71] were curbed by control mechanisms, firstly by the very fact that there were several magistrates, who usually pursued careers serving the state (Cursus honorum).[72] Secondly, the magistrate post was held only for 1 year, at least in Rome proper. Thirdly, because each magistracy was dual and each official was able to veto the other. Finally, the magistrates were subject to political control exercised by the Senate, the tribunes of the plebeians, and the people themselves through their assemblies, the latter control being most effective, given that the magistrate himself depended on the votes of the assembly to obtain his office.[73] It was, however, more difficult for the assemblies to control the magistrates, as it was more complicated to convoke these bodies. As a result, they proved less effective than the Senate, a stable assembly composed of the city’s dignitaries who would ultimately serve as the collective expression of the Republic and an instrument curtailing political protagonism (Lintott 2002, 86-88).3.4