Nevets wrote:Hermit wrote:Indeed, the Senate? Nevets, really. Tsk tsk. Roman senators were not even an example of
representative democracy. They were not elected by anybody at any time of Rome's history. Initially they were appointed by the consuls, and later by the censors. Had you studied Roman history at all you would have realised that ancient Rome was never a democracy at all. Even during the period when it was called a republic between 509 and 27 BC it was an oligarchy, ruled by a small number of gentes.
In which case it would be considered an Oligarchy
But it did not necessarily start out like this
By the fact it was considered, the Roman Republic, and a Republic means government is property of the people, and not privately owned by rulers, would suggest it started out just that.
It seems you need to be reminded of what I wrote previously (
post #103):
Direct democracy might work on a small scale; on a village level, or within a small tribe, that kind of thing. In societies comprising millions of people and spanning huge areas of land direct democracy is not a viable form of government. We can discuss this point in more detail, if you insist, but I regard it as unnecessary. Suffice to say that both Rome and Athens were city states, and whatever democracy they might have devised only applied to those born within the city limits.
Being born within the city limits of Rome or Athens was not the only limitation on who was allowed to participate in decision-making. The inhabitants had to be free. That excluded slaves. They also had to be male, and usually men of property. In Athens those free men also had to have completed their their military obligations. (In Rome, of course, practically
all free men had to serve in the military for many years.) During its most democratic period (the reign of Pericles) only about 30% of Athens's adult population was enfranchised to vote, and even then they voted on who was going to be their representatives in the ecclesia, a body roughly equivalent to today's parliamentary, congressional and other lawmaking councils. So you see, what makes up "the People", and therewith democracy, is an exceedingly rubbery concept.
Moving on to Rome: Limitations that applied to Athens, applied to Rome in spades. Your heroic statement that
Nevets wrote:Some of the greatest and most brilliant empires of our time began with a direct democracy, including the Roman Empire, and the Hellenstic empire
is a fact-free assertion. Airily waving your hand in the general direction of the theory by Robert Michels developed the theory that democracies, as all large organizations, have a tendency to turn into oligarchies is no evidence that either Athens or Rome started off as direct democracies. If you don't care about actual evidence I may as well adopt the same approach and claim that Rome was founded via murder. Specifically fratricide. At least I have sculptures and reliefs depicting the murderer to base my assertion on.
The Romans were very proud of their legendary founder. According to one version of the legend, Romulus and his twin brother Remus were left out by the shores of the Tiber to die. A she-wolf took pity on the twins and raised them as her own. She must have done a sterling job, for they were reported to be playing in the dirt some years later. Little Romulus created a circle consisting of a little earthen wall and a moat, stood inside it and proclaimed: "I am a king and this is my city." Remus jumped across the tiny fortification and Romulus promptly slew him. Thus Rome was founded.
I guess you won't believe the story, but many Romans did, and your version - of Rome's original direct democracy - is supported by nothing whatsoever. Not even works of art. Triumphal arches and amphitheatres and other architectural leftovers from ancient Athens and Rome don't count. They are evidence of empires rather than direct democracies.
by 
