Principate Or Dominate?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Democracy over Tyranny any day...

Democracy? We can't be talking of ancient Rome then can we...!

 

No--thank the gods, Rome was never plagued by direct democracy.

[phil25]

I have never seen why "democracy" gets such a good press. The best I'd give it is Churchill's quip that it is perhaps the least worst system...

 

But actually, is it even that?

 

Why does anyone consider a majority opinion to be of value - 999,999 people can be wrong and one right; so why should the greater number have their way? democracy is so often about compromise, or as in the US, degenerates into a hidden oligarchy.

 

Give me benevolent despotism any day...

 

And Rome was certainly never a democracy in any sense - all the assemblies were wholly mainpulated by the ruling elite, or by others (demagogues such as Saturninus, Cato or Clodius etc). It took "dictators" (I use the word loosely) such as Sulla, Caesar or Augustus to do anything or give Rome good government.

 

Phil

[M. Porcius Cato]

Give me benevolent despotism any day...

You can have all the benevolent despots you'd like, but there's no guarantee that the next despot who comes along will be benevolent nor that he'll even have a firm grasp on power. Despotism suffers from the intractable problem of lacking (by definition) a supervening mechanism of accession. As a conseqence, transitions between despots are nasty, brutish, and frequent.

 

Just contrast the republic to the principate:

 

During the long reign of the republic (509 - 49 bce), there were nearly 950 legal and peaceful transfers of executive power, with only a few, brief periods of anarchy (375 -370), civil war (21 years, all in the last century of the republic), or dictatorship (only 8 years including Sulla). These brief interruptions to the peaceful norm comprised less than 8% of the total history of the republic.

 

In contrast, the brief and despotic regime of the princeps tottered continually between totalitarian repression and complete chaos. During the era of the principate (about 300 years, 27 bce - 284 ce), the number of princeps (including claimants and usurpers) totalled 78. Of these, nearly 50% were assassinated, executed, committed suicide, or were otherwise deposed violently. Further, roughly 40% of the years during the principate were passed in civil war, anarchy, or divided rule.

 

I'm not a fan of democracy for a number or reasons, but the case for any constitutional government (e.g., a republic) is vastly stronger than the case for one-man rule (whatever you want to call it or however you dress it up). The republic wasn't a utopia by any means, but it was more stable, longer lasting, and grew relatively more than the regimes that followed it.

Edited January 3, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato

[Ursus]

Democracy over Tyranny any day...

 

Democracy? We can't be talking of ancient Rome then can we...!

 

Quite right. We're talking about oligarchic republicanism (Republic) versus moderated autocracy (Principate) versus Oriental Despotism (Dominate). Let's leave Democracy to the Athenians.

[Primus Pilus]

The republic wasn't a utopia by any means, but it was more stable, longer lasting, and grew relatively more than the regimes that followed it.

 

Yes, but it was only stable while it was confined to a limited area. As it grew beyond the means for Republican government to effectively control it, and with growing corruption and 'personal opportunities', it failed. Citing stability within the Republican period over the principate fails to recognize the changes in environmental conditions. I am certainly not advocating the Prinicipate over the Republic, but merely pointing out that the conditions which helped create the Principate stemmed from Republican inefficiency. To have the 'stability' that we would crave we would have to go back to the era just before or just after the Punic Wars when there was some Plebeian inclusion and relative class balance. Prior to that and shortly after that, class issues could be considered just as problematic as despotism considering the scale of those involved.

 

During the long reign of the republic (509 - 49 bce), there were nearly 950 legal and peaceful transfers of executive power, with only a few, brief periods of anarchy (375 -370), civil war (21 years, all in the last century of the republic), or dictatorship (only 8 years including Sulla). These brief interruptions to the peaceful norm comprised less than 8% of the total history of the republic.

 

This also leaves out the periods of the Decemvirs and the Military Tribunes. Yes, this was largely a peaceful transition period where Plebeians slowly gained inclusion, but it (along with several withdrawals of the Plebes to the Sacred Mount) also is an indication that things weren't all that rosey. Better than despotism? Yes, but we're only at the earliest stages along a path that led right to its door. The elitism that continued to develop among the traditional aristrocracy as other classes gained certain societal/political accesses was only a first step in this terribly unstable course.

 

That being said... I do believe that had Rome not expanded beyond the Italian peninsula (including Sicilia, Sardinia and Corsica) the continual slide may have been avoided. Class instability would have been manageable (in my opinion) rather than having become an overwhelming, reoccurring and evolving (from class problems of traditional Romans to Latin rights to citizenship) problem with the expansion of both the citizen roles and slavery. Of course, had they not expanded, who knows what rival force may have destroyed them. Classic catch-22 I suppose.

[Virgil61]

I have never seen why "democracy" gets such a good press. The best I'd give it is Churchill's quip that it is perhaps the least worst system...

 

But actually, is it even that?

 

Of course it is. It's one of those arguments that seem pretty self-evident. The ability of citizens to achieve (or more precisely try to achieve) their vision of what a society should be, while at the same time allowing for protection of the minority's rights (as in political) and allowing individual freedoms--speech, religion, press, etc., seems to me to be the best final form of human government. Warts and all.

 

Why does anyone consider a majority opinion to be of value - 999,999 people can be wrong and one right; so why should the greater number have their way? democracy is so often about compromise, or as in the US, degenerates into a hidden oligarchy.

 

Give me benevolent despotism any day...

 

You speak like compromise is a bad thing, when did consensus get such a bad name? We make personal choices everyday many of which are wrong, which we know are wrong yet no one argues we shouldn't be allowed to make them they're a part of how we evolve as individuals. The problem isn't those masses you so distrust, it's that a functioning democracy should have an educated populace and institutions that mean something in order to achieve some sort of stability.

 

And Rome was certainly never a democracy in any sense - all the assemblies were wholly mainpulated by the ruling elite, or by others (demagogues such as Saturninus, Cato or Clodius etc). It took "dictators" (I use the word loosely) such as Sulla, Caesar or Augustus to do anything or give Rome good government.

 

Phil

 

It was democratic in many ways or at least had democratic tendencies, I'm not sure why you don't think so. It wasn't pretty and was pre-loaded in the sense it favored one group over another allowing them a more manipulative role, I agree with that. And it was frought with struggle between groups. It wasn't democracy that did the Republic in but the end of compromise and consensus that was reflected in it's earlier era.

 

I'm not sure where this distrust of democracy over other forms of government comes from. After having been a few places where democracy was just a dream or where it's recently taken root (albeit fragile) after decades of "benevolent" and not so benevolent government to see people so untrusting of it in the 21st century especially on a history board is just plain heartbreaking.

[Virgil61]

...

That being said... I do believe that had Rome not expanded beyond the Italian peninsula (including Sicilia, Sardinia and Corsica) the continual slide may have been avoided. Class instability would have been manageable (in my opinion) rather than having become an overwhelming, reoccurring and evolving (from class problems of traditional Romans to Latin rights to citizenship) problem with the expansion of both the citizen roles and slavery. Of course, had they not expanded, who knows what rival force may have destroyed them. Classic catch-22 I suppose.

 

That's a very good point. The effect of expansion's influence on internal Roman political dynamics is a big factor on subsequent events. Are there any relevant studies on this that come to mind?

[M. Porcius Cato]

That being said... I do believe that had Rome not expanded beyond the Italian peninsula (including Sicilia, Sardinia and Corsica) the continual slide may have been avoided. Class instability would have been manageable (in my opinion) rather than having become an overwhelming, reoccurring and evolving (from class problems of traditional Romans to Latin rights to citizenship) problem with the expansion of both the citizen roles and slavery. Of course, had they not expanded, who knows what rival force may have destroyed them. Classic catch-22 I suppose.

 

This is an important point that deserves further discussion. I'll start a new thread on "Reforming the Republic".

Edited January 4, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato

[Primus Pilus]

This is an important point that deserves further discussion. I'll start a new thread on "Reforming the Republic".

 

That thread is now here.

[P.Clodius]

It often amuses me when people talk of the US and democracy. First off, the United States is NOT a democracy end of story. It is a representative republic. So all those people out there that like to dump on the US, faulting it for its flaws etc get your facts right. With respect to the electoral college, does anyone see the tribal assembly or is it just me?

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

With respect to the electoral college, does anyone see the tribal assembly or is it just me?

 

Sorry, but what do you mean by tribal assembly?

Its true we are not a real democracy, least no to say that we can't call ourselves that since we value its ideals.

Edited January 4, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[P.Clodius]

Sorry, but what do you mean by tribal assembly?

 

Voting blocks

[phil25]

For all the blather about the long years of peace and harmony under the consuls, Cato, you hide the fact that the choice of those individuals was limited. Those such as the Gracchi who sought to open up aspects of the res publicae, were ruthlessly put down. Rome was an oligarchy. Besides, at the end of the day the Roman Republic failed - is that then a good argument for democracy (if you count the system as that - which it wasn't)?

 

And why should the views of the masses influence decisions, - most of them are under-educated, uninterested and uninformed - despite attempts to offer education, newspapers and media, etc.

 

As most of you here seem to be Americans, I'll draw examples from your culture?

 

America is now the world's imperial power (in economic if not purely political terms), yet it is clear that the majority of Americans take little interest in the wider world and know little about it.

 

Secondly, the present administration is in power largely because it defrauded the electorate in Florida five years or so ago. And the individuals running it - Cheney, Rumsfeld etc appear to be pretty corrupt and pretty resistant to "democracy" or the voice of the people in many of their policies.

 

I'll also ask a question - if democracy is so important and good, why does not the US immediately surrender all power to the UN and allow world democracy to govern - reaching the excellent compromise decisions so lauded above, for the good of us all?

 

Give me Sulla, or even better Caesar, anyday.

 

Phil

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Secondly, the present administration is in power largely because it defrauded the electorate in Florida five years or so ago. And the individuals running it - Cheney, Rumsfeld etc appear to be pretty corrupt and pretty resistant to "democracy" or the voice of the people in many of their policies.

 

Let's not go there.

I'll also ask a question - if democracy is so important and good, why does not the US immediately surrender all power to the UN and allow world democracy to govern - reaching the excellent compromise decisions so lauded above, for the good of us all?

 

Give me Sulla, or even better Caesar, anyday.

 

Phil

[note: I am a Republican, so therefore my views are biased]

Sad to say, we as a nation just can't help bullying others. But then again, who would you rather have helping the world. The UN or US. Ask people that and they tell you how the UN does nothing and that only leaves the US. Oh, another reason is tha America has "money." Nations would gladly anytime take our money, so therefore, we have every right to interfere.

Edited January 4, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Virgil61]

It often amuses me when people talk of the US and democracy. First off, the United States is NOT a democracy end of story. It is a representative republic. So all those people out there that like to dump on the US, faulting it for its flaws etc get your facts right...

 

A representative republic is a form of democracy. Some media nut-jobs have recently taken it upon themselves to try and distance the term republic from democracy. That's nothing more than cynical manipulation.