Was the Roman Republic a Democracy?

Canadian History to the 16th Century

16 May 2013

Was the Roman Republic a Democracy?

Democracy is a word that has many positive and negative connotations to it. One aspect of it is that it is said to be the “fairest” form of government, and appeases to the majority of people in the modern world. Another is that it ignores the choice of a large amount of people as well, dismissing their suggestions. The Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of the word democracy is as follows “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.” This definition is quite malleable and can be morphed to suit one’s need. Much like it has been done in the past. A primary example, in 509 BCE, the Etruscan kings were driven out of Rome with the overthrow of Tarquin the Proud, freeing them of the monarchy. Sworn to never again be subjected to such a crude form of government, they instituted in place a republic, which is quite similar to democracy. However, their government officials were voted in only by citizens in the higher social class, the magistrates themselves had powers and duties of the previous kings, many reforms were needed in order to battle political and social issues of their government, and the instability of the republic led to the formation of the empire. Through these aspects, the Roman republic was not a democracy, rather a very aristocratic form of government.

The voting that took place was highly biased toward the aristocracy. For example, only ex-consuls and other high class officials were eligible to run for a seat in the Senate. The senate’s responsibility was to legislate but also to appoint Consuls. Consuls were two elected people who had supreme power over the state and army. Operating on a system of checks and balances they had the power to veto the other Consuls decision. Therefore, this deluded the Romans into thinking that this was a way no one person could...