How much influence did the ordinary citizens of Republican Rome have on the process of political decision-making?
The word “influence” requires us to consider the Roman citizens’ formal constitutional role, informal kinds of influence, and the limitations on their role. The formal aspects include: first, their ability to elect their leaders and indeed to stand for election themselves; secondly their law-making function; and thirdly the fact that the ordinary people could sit as a court. Assessment of the citizen’s informal role (or lack of role) will consider the extent to which their views were taken into account by the magistrates and the senate, and also their position as regards religion. Broadly speaking it will be argued that the people had – in theory at least – a significant, albeit heavily qualified, role to play within the Roman political world, one that must be considered in the light of both the Senate and the Magistrates. The final section of the essay will consider the extent to which the ordinary people had influence in practice. This will be done by considering what the nature of political life in the Roman world implies about their significance. In conclusion, the broad nature of the constitution will be discussed, alongside an examination of the pivotal role of the Tribune of the Plebs.
The term “ordinary citizens of Rome” may be interpreted as referring to the plebeians, as opposed to the patricians. The patricians were the oldest families of Rome. They were the aristocracy, and these families and their connections were of central importance to Roman political life. The plebeians were the remaining Roman citizens. While they could be rich, and could stand for even the highest offices themselves, the vast majority of competitors on the cursus honorum would have been members of the aristocratic elite. It is also worth noting that we are talking about the citizens of Rome. Non-citizens did not have the vote, and this would have included the increasing slave population of Rome. No woman had the right to vote.
The people of Rome elected their leaders. The Magistrates (including, at their head, the Consuls) were elected through the Comitia Centuriata. While the Consuls’ imperium included the powers to issue and enforce edicts that were binding on all citizens, their power was limited in a number of ways: first, the Magistrates were elected annually, meaning that the voice of the people was heard frequently; secondly, the fact that there were two Consuls limited the power of any one individual; thirdly an individual Consul only exceptionally had more than one term in office. The Consuls on occasion held meetings of the people such as those in 63 BC, versions of which are preserved as Cicero’s Second and Third Speeches against Catiline . Given that the Senate was composed of ex-Magistrates (its membership being confirmed by the Censors) the people were indirectly electing the membership of the Senate as well, in this case for life .
However the ordinary people’s power as regards their leader was limited, both as to how the Magistrates were elected by the people, and as to who was elected. The Comitia Centuriata was organised on the basis of the Roman army, which was in turn organised according to wealth. This Assembly included both the patricians and the plebs. The extreme differences in weight of the voting divisions meant that it was the wealthy who decided who would become Magistrates . While in the other Assemblies the voting was more egalitarian, the rich were in control in this very important respect. On the question of who was elected it is important to bear in mind that there was a wealth qualification for standing for public office, and that the roles were unpaid. This meant that only the wealthiest plebs could stand, and their interests would have been more akin to those of the aristocracy than those of the ordinary people. In effect the aristocracy was widened . Indeed after becoming Consul the plebeian’s family was given a new status – that of nobiles. The idea of Roman society as being a plutocracy – albeit one to which the Assembly gave some legitimacy - has resonance here. However while the Assemblies’ power of decision may have been limited as to which rich person it elected, could still be viewed as a genuine power of decision . A further limitation is that, during his time in office, a Consul had little accountability to the people. Rather, he might be more concerned with how he would be received when he moved on to his years in the Senate.
The ordinary people of Rome made the laws of the land. Legislation was enacted by the Comitia Tributa and the Concilium Plebis. The former was comprised of the whole people of Rome, the latter was just the non-aristocrats. Both these Assemblies voted on a tribal basis rather than on one dictated by wealth . Their approval was essential to the creation of law – the Senate could not pass law on its own. The Consuls were under the duty to apply the law.
There are, however, important qualifications to be made. First, as regards the content of the law, the Assemblies could simply say yes or no to a proposal put to them by a Magistrate. In contrast to Greece, there was no debate. Nor was there amendment, and no bills could be put forward from the floor. So, crucially, the Assemblies did not have political initiative . Initiative lay with the Magistrate (bearing in mind the points about wealth and social class made above) who would in practice (and indeed was increasingly under an obligation to) consult the Senate before he summoned the Assembly . Senatus Consulta, made by Rome’s most eminent and experienced politicians, were almost never rejected. The Senate was - in practice, if not in theory (for only the Roman people could make the laws) - the main governing body in Rome .
Secondly, the voting system was itself far from perfect. Although it was direct (as opposed to representative), the system was not that of “one man, one vote”. Rather it was organised according to tribal divisions. This meant that the weight of any one individual’s vote could exercise significantly different influence depending on how many of his tribe was present . Voting could take place only in Rome . The influence of members of the rural tribes with the time and money to travel or who had migrated to Rome would have been disproportionate. Further the ordinary citizens of the more distant Roman colonies , not to mention members of the army serving abroad, would have had severely limited representation. The influence of the ordinary people is also diminished by indications that only a small fraction of those entitled to vote actually did so (probably the wealthy). In addition, some have argued that the rich rigged the votes to suit them. Some of the ordinary citizens of Rome would have had more influence than others. While popular these Assemblies were not necessarily representative .
The final limitation is that the finances of the Roman state were controlled by the Senate. Tiberius Gracchus found this to be a problem when trying to raise funds for the Land Commission.
The third form of political influence that the ordinary people had was that their Assemblies could sit as courts of law . Political rivals used legal proceedings as a means of obstructing their opponents, and it would have been a useful venue in which to make public allegations to embarrass political competitors. They were especially political in nature during the increasingly factional politics of the later Republic. Also, magistrates could be prosecuted in these courts once their terms of office ended.
The ordinary people influenced political-decision making in a number of indirect ways. While we do not have much information on the internal debates within the Senate , the fact that it required the Assemblies to actually pass the law suggests that members of the Senate would have taken some account what they perceived to be the will of the people. Secondly we know that graffiti containing political slogans was scrawled on the walls of Rome . Thirdly, there was the danger of political violence. While not a single Roman is known to have been killed in political violence during the period 200-151 BC, mob violence and the activities of political gangs were to become a major theme in the later Republic.
Religion was very important to the political life of Rome, indeed some would argue it was central to securing social solidarity . This complicated - and hence expensive - area of life was in effect controlled by the rich. The Pontifex Maxiumus and his subordinate priests were drawn from the aristocracy. The Senate had religious functions . Religions opinions could have political implications; as examples, an Assembly might be cancelled because of an adverse augury, and soothsayers (somewhat conveniently for the aristocracy) pronounced that the signs were not good for Gaius Gracchus’ colonies in Carthage .
A variety of degrees of influence in practice are compatible with the formal position as outlined above. For much of the twentieth century it was thought that client relationships (patronage) dictated the votes of the ordinary people of Rome, who might be characterised as inhabiting a “frozen waste” . The arch-conservative Cicero’s disapproval of the introduction of the secret ballot surely goes some way to back up this idea. Did the people really matter? Recent thinking suggests that they did. The previous consensus has been demolished by the asking of two very simple questions. First: where is the evidence to show that voting must have been merely a function of rigid client relationships? Recent scholarship indicates that, while important, client relationships were more limited, more fluid and less coherent than an earlier generation of scholars had assumed (It is noteworthy that the contemporary political analyst Polybius did not emphasise their political significance). Secondly: so, was it all a charade? Political practices in Rome indicate that the people mattered. Politicians tried to win their favour, tried to persuade them on issues through speeches and argument, they built their reputations, ran for elections, cajoled, bribed, assisted , coerced, and attempted to distract (with panem et circenses, to use the Imperial term). We are told that insulting a peasant cost Scipio Nasica an election . Men did not stand for election purely on the basis of policies , but it seems likely that aspirant politicians would have positioned themselves on issues in the light of what they perceived to be popular opinion (certain issues – land reform, corn prices - probably having more interest to the ordinary people than others). The centrality of speech-making would be demonstrated by none other than Cicero himself . Simply, if it didn’t matter, then why did the rich bother descending into the Forum to face the ever-present crowd? The Forum was of both practical use and symbolic significance. The aristocrats competed among themselves, but they competed for the favour of the ordinary people of Rome .
While as individuals their impact was very limited, when looked at as a political class the ordinary people of Rome had a significant role to play within the political system, albeit in the heavily qualified way outlined above. We can agree with Polybius that the constitution was balanced. However, latent within the system was the potential for the ordinary people to have much more influence, and this was due to the Magisterial office of the Tribune of the Plebs, a role which had the potential to severely disrupt the balance of the constitution. Despite the fact that it would have been carried out by politicians drawn from Rome’s elite, some of whom would have wanted to promote a conservative agenda, the role of Tribune was originally created as means of protecting the ordinary people. The Tribunes had the power to veto any act of public business and could also – albeit with only one precedent - go directly to the Concilium Plebis with proposals for law. Crucially, this would by-pass the scrutiny of the Senate. A politician wishing to wield influence could in theory become a Tribune and then go directly to the people with proposals for law, rather than operating within the usual political constraints. In order to be passed, the laws that he put forward would need to o appeal to the masses (the poor and lower classes). The interests of the ordinary people of Rome were rather different to – and indeed could be in tension with - those of the optimates in the Senate. So, contained within the Tribunate’s potential were the connected dangers that it – at least ostensibly – might be used to secure the people’s interests rather than merely protecting them, and that it might concentrate power unduly in the hands of one individual. Whether motivated by individual opportunism or idealism, this use of the Tribunate was to bring about political turmoil, a period of which was to begin at the time of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus.
No comments:
Post a Comment