Thoughts on the Roman Republic
The Romans have been remembered to this day mainly because of the greatness of their Empire and consequential acquisition of meaning under the sacrum imperium frame created by Augustin. Not randomly, the notion that Rome is the first priciple of history, followed by the second and third Romes was and is still something that defines historical thought to this day. The linear way in which one envisions time in our era is not something that has always been, but rather the very opposite of the circular time in which ancient civilisations understood the world — more about this specific subject can be found in Voegelin's The New Science of Politics. However, as much as we mayst remember Rome in its imperial form, there are two other such forms; of which at least one deserves just as much attention: the Roman Republic. Having said that, it is with the very intent to shed light upon this matter that I write here some thoughts on the Roman Republic after having spent a year studying it for a book chapter.
The Roman Republic was formed when the aristocrats of Rome rebelled against the rule of Tarquinius, ending the Roman Kingdom. The word republic, as we know today is a direct reflection of the res publica concept of the Romans — which meant "public thing". It is the case, however, that the word as we use has no longer the same meaning, but rather that of "constitutional order". In other words, current republics are known as such for they carry the rule of constitutional law. In that very same sense, the Roman Republic is nevertheless still a republic, for it possessed a constitution of its own. Said constitution was, on the other hand, radically diferent from what we normally allude to with the word: it was a compendium of traditions and written laws. Within that body, the starting point seems to have been the twelve tablets, with most of the rest relying enterily upon the comprehension of tradition. It is the case that this system survived for about five centuries — similar to that of the Western Roman Empire (if ones considers Byzantium or the Holy Roman Empire, the empire outlived the republic for another millennium or so).
In building their political structure, Polibius showed the Romans had one very interesting goal in mind: to seize the best of each good political system (monarchy, aristocracy and politeia). And thus, respectively, they created the Consulate, maintained the Senate and gave power to the Assemblies. In admiting that good government might come from different formats, the Romans certainly were able to make this idea of theirs into a living reality, for the Roman Republic was not a democracy (the politeia is the good government of the citizens in Aristotle, while democracy is the bad, but that is no longer the linguistic understanding and I have thus chosen to use the word democracy here), not an aristocracy and not a monarchy. Unlike nowadays, when almost all republican States (and even monarchies) affirm democratic ideals alone and look to those as the one and only source of legitimacy. It seems to me that, in this sense, the world has become much more close minded.
It would be possible to write quite extensively on the magistrate offices of the Roman Republic, but that would be detrimental to the character of this text. It is the case that two offices are most noteworthy: the consul and the tribuni plebis. The consul, which has the president as its modern equivalent, possessed (as all other offices) a very interesting characteristic for the pinacle of society: it was a double chair. There were always two consuls, for no man could be given the right to rule alone — which the Romans understood as the greatest flaw in their old monarchy. It seems this idea would be very interesting for the current era, possibly imposing more control amongst political parties. As for the tribuni plebis, one could say this was the democratic hallmark of the Roman Republic. This office was made to protect plebeian interests and shared veto power with the consulate.
I could go on to describe the fall of the Roman Republic, but that would take this essay a bit too far. And thus all that is left are some remarks. The Roman Republic indeed possessed some structures which would be extremely beneficial to the checks and balances of today, even if not all — otherwise it may have survived to the current day. It is in understading that the greatness of the Roman State was built for it was in the wholehearted interest of the siting politicians in their status society that one can clearly see how modern republics have been following the path of self-destruction, with the principle of separating the gains of politicians from the gains of the State. The principle that no man may occupy an office alone would already be a tremendous benefit to the current republican(ist) ideals. The embracing of other legitimacy logics other than democracy would also be something that could forever change the course of history — for the better.
