Early Rome: The Republic and Government Structure

views updated

Early Rome: The Republic and Government Structure

Three Branches. Much like the modern U.S. government, most of the government of ancient Rome can be divided into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. There are, however, some differences in function, and the Roman government had at least one important component (the Senate) which does not fit this scheme well.

Legislative Branch. The legislative bodies were two popular assemblies with largely overlapping authority. In addition to lawmaking, these assemblies also elected the magistrates and, in a few instances, sat as courts of law. All adult male Roman citizens were eligible to vote in these assemblies, but they had to be present in person (at Rome) to do so. Both assemblies used group voting. That is, the electorate was divided into a number of groups, and the majority in each of these subunits determined its one vote. Thus the “tribal” assembly, which was divided into thirty-five tribes, produced votes like 19-to-16 or 21-to-14 even if tens of thousands of people voted. Voters are not necessarily equal in group-voting systems; if one is in a smaller group, his individual vote counts for more. Also the influence of a large minority of the population could be reduced if they were confined to a few groups (and so they could only affect those groups). The tribal assembly was arranged to be biased automatically in favor of rural voters and in practice also the wealthy. It was used to pass most laws and elect the lower magistrates. The other assembly (called the “centuriate”) was openly tilted in favor of older voters (forty-six and up) and the wealthy; former slaves were discriminated against. Laws were occasionally passed in the centuriate assembly, but its normal function was to elect men to the highest magistracies. These voting assemblies were both called comitia, and must be distinguished from assemblies for debate called contiones (singular contio). Either kind of meeting could be called only by an elected magistrate. In comitia, the magistrate laid a question before the people, such as whether they approved of a proposed law (which was read aloud) or whom they wished to elect; then there was a vote. At a contio the magistrate and anyone else he invited addressed the people on an issue of public interest, often a bill which would shortly be voted on in comitia. Note that the ordinary citizen had no automatic right to speak at any point in this process, nor to offer amendments. In fact, amendments could only be made by back-room negotiation before the assembly met.

DEMOCRACY AND EQUALITY

It would be almost impossible to find a politician today of any party who did not accept, at least in principle, the notion of “one man, one vote.” Slaves and women, of course, could not vote at all, but even among male citizens, the principle of equality was not well established. At least the members of the elite thought that “better” people should get a greater voice. Cicero claimed as much in the middle of the first century b.c.e. when explaining why group voting produced inequalities. “[Servius, who legendarily created the system,] took care that the many (plurimi) should not have the most (plurimum) power, and this is important for any state.” At the end of the first century c.e. Pliny even wanted to apply the same principle to votes of the Senate. “This idea [which Pliny did not like] seemed best to the greater number, and votes are counted, not weighed, as must happen in public decision-making. Yet here nothing is so unfair (inaequale) as equality (aequalitas) itself.” (The poor may not have agreed either with the general idea or with elite notions of who was better, but as usual they were not heard out.)

Source: Frank F. Abbot, A History and Description of Roman Political Institutions (New York; Biblo & Tannen, 1963).

Executive Branch. The executive branch consisted primarily of a number of magistrates elected by the people. They administered justice, commanded armies, supervised public works, checked major disturbances of public order, conducted state sacrifices, and the like. There were five ranked major magistracies, all of whom shared several characteristics. The term of office for each was one year, and reelection was rare. All offices were collegial; that is, several men held each office at once. (The number in any given office varied over time, usually increasing.) Responsibilities of each office were generally divided into separate spheres (provinciae). So, for instance, one praetor might be in charge of the ambitus court and another in charge of the repetundae court; another, the urban praetor, controlled the private law courts. In emergencies, though, colleagues could step in for each other. Qualifications for office varied over time but included minimum age and wealth, military service, and (for higher offices) service in the lower ones. The two consuls were the chief magistrates. In addition to supervising the other officials, they commanded armies and proposed legislation. The two main functions of the praetors, the next highest magistrates, were the administration of justice and of Roman provinces. Beneath the praetors were quaestors. They were often in charge of treasury and other bureaucratic functions; many were specifically assigned to assist praetors and consuls. Between the praetorship and aedileship were two magistracies, of which aspiring politicians usually held at most one. Four “aediles” were in charge of the city’s markets and much of its public infrastructure. The ten “tribunes” were originally not magistrates, but the elected representatives of the “plebs”—the lower and larger of the two castes in the early city. Though soon absorbed into the regular government, the tribunes always retained an activist, populist image. They could veto laws, senatorial decrees, and acts of magistrates and intercede to protect individual citizens from the government. They also proposed most Roman legislation.

Other Elected Officials. These “major” magistrates made up the core of the government, but there were also two other classes of elected officials. On the one hand, a number of “minor” magistrates were elected each year from the ranks of young aristocrats not yet eligible for the major offices. These included control of the mint, supervision of punishments, care of the roads, and some military staff positions. On the other hand, there were also extraordinary offices that were not occupied at all times. For eighteen months every five years or so there were two censors, elected by the centuriate assembly. They conducted a census—a count and property evaluation of the entire popu-lace. They were responsible for assigning persons to (or rejecting them from) the higher ranks of society such as the Senate. The censors were also responsible for awarding contracts for services such as constructing public works and collecting taxes. In times of crisis up until the late third century b.c.e. a dictator was chosen. He served for up to six months with absolute authority and was assisted by a “master of the cavalry.” The office was twice revived in the first century b.c.e., by Lucius Cornelius Sulla and by Julius Caesar, both times to institute a “dictatorship” in the modern sense. In addition to these elected positions, there were also so-called promagistrates. When a consul or praetor was carrying out an important task, usually a war, outside of Rome that outlasted his term of office, he was often authorized to continue until he was done. Such an official was then said to be a proconsul or propraetor, that is, “in the place of” the regular magistrate. In the later years of the Republic, when Rome was involved in complicated foreign adventures in many places, there was demand for many field commanders. Even consuls and praetors who had served their terms at Rome came systematically to be sent out as promagistrates.

Judicial Branch. The judicial branch of government consisted of the courts. Except for the praetor’s initial hearing, Republican trials were conducted by private citizens, not public officials.

The Senate. One major component of the government—the Senate—has no close parallel in modern democracies, and even professional scholars disagree considerably over just what its role was at Rome. Its members were not directly elected, though its numbers were essentially all former magistrates. (Over time the censors were given less and less flexibility in including former magistrates.) Once admitted, senators served for life unless convicted of a crime or expelled by the censors for moral turpitude. Unlike the assemblies, the Senate could not pass laws. Also unlike them, its decrees (called senatus consulta, singular consultum) normally took the form of instructions to one or more magistrates to take certain actions. While not binding, these were often followed. In fact, magistrates often convened the Senate preemptively to ask direction before proposing legislation or taking other action. In certain areas it was particularly common to take the Senate’s judgment as a necessary and sufficient decision of policy: declarations of war, treaties, expenditure of public funds, honors for triumphant generals, and allocation of provinces. In the last case (and a few others) a law was passed by the assembly that specifically granted authority to the Senate to make such decisions.

CONSULAR AUTHORITY

While the main functions of the magistrates were quite routine and traditional, some chance incidents illustrate that their potential authority (at least that of the consuls and praetors) was much expansive. In the early 80s b.c.e. the praetor Gratidianus responded to problems in the currency with a series of measures not supported by any law. He changed their value (by changing either the composition or the official exchange rate) and established a board to test coins already in circulation and punish, apparently, forgers. In 58 b.c.e. Cicero was exiled with the support of the consuls of that year. Many of his senatorial and equestrian allies staged demonstrations of sympathy by dressing in mourning clothes. One of the consuls forbade them to dress this way and banished at least one knight from the city altogether. When Cicero returned the following year, he complained that these measures were immoral and abusive, but even he did not suggest that they were illegal.

Source: Thomas N. Mitchell, Cicero the Senior Statesman (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991).

Custom vs. Constitutionality. Almost all of the structure was based on customary practice rather than any written law. The inherent fuzziness of this situation could lead to crises. For instance, a tribune named Gaius Gracchus tried to have a colleague unelected by the assembly for opposing some popular measures. This unelecting had never been done before, but there was no specific rule

[This text has been suppressed due to author restrictions]

against it either. If this issue were valid, there was no problem, but if it were not, then much of Gracchus’s later activity was arguably also illegal. Without a consensus, which was never formed on this issue, the legitimacy of the government was in question and could not be resolved by any well-defined process. Moreover, even for what had been written down, there was not a special level of constitutional law. In principle, the assemblies could have voted the entire structure out of power with a single law. (Arguably, they were compelled to do just this at the end of the Republic.) In practice, however, structural changes tended to be gradual when armed force was not brought to bear.