Representation in the Roman Republic

[Neonanocyborgasm]

An obvious flaw in the Roman Republic's voting was that the upper classes were over-represented in important committees, thereby skewing votes in their favor and against the masses. I used to think that if this were reformed, the Republic wouldn't suffer from so much social upheaval and injustice, and may survive. I was surprised to learn recently that this actually happened and failed to achieve any measure of stability. Under the consulship of Gaius Marius, the lower tiers of representation in the Comitia Centuriata gained votes at the expense of the upper. Although these measures were reversed by the dictatorship of Sulla, they were promptly restored soon after his death.

So I ask those in the know, why did these measures fail to gain any measure of stability. Was it merely a matter of too little, too late?

 

[innonimatu]

I'd risk a "yes" to that question. It was too late by Marius's time, as the Republic had already evolved, territorially, to an empire. The assemblies, which required the presence in Rome of the voters, could still be manipulated after the reforms by wealthy men who collected a good number of clients among the "tribes" representing the countryside. The idea being that most of the members of those tribes wouldn't bother to go to Rome, but the clients of these wealthy man, paid to do so, would, and cast their votes as their patrons required. This only became easier as the Republic acquired more territory and slaves - the later could be freed and made into roman citizens, bound as clients to their former owners. Marius became infamous among his own senatorial class for resorting to that kind of expedient, I believe. But I've read about that a long time ago.

His reforms were also small as far as the comitia went. His reform of the army, allowing plebeians to join, had far more important consequences. Before the marian reforms the army was made up of land owners, people who had income independent of what they expected to gain also from their time in the army. After the reforms most soldiers had to look up to their generals for material rewards when they were demobilized. Prior attempts to set aside public land for veterans failed, and were also not part of a systematic effort, but presented as exceptional measures. The end result were armies which were loyal to their generals over any abstract idea of "state". The way was open for the civil wars and the Empire under the winner.
Sulla, ironically, only hastened it by showing how a general could take power by force.

 

[shortguy]

So I ask those in the know, why did these measures fail to gain any measure of stability.

The (extremely) short answer is that the upper class in Rome had massive amounts of economic, social, and political power that went far beyond their control over the centuries.

 

[JohnRM]

Are things any different now, in our time?

 

[Lord Baal]

Are things any different now, in our time?

Yep. The Romans at least bothered with the facade of democracy.

 

[Agent327]

Nope. The Roman state was a republic. In fact. they invented the word(s): res publica (lit. the public thing. i.e. the state). Just like the US republic, except it has a different method of voting system, as innonimatu correctly mentioned and was originally a purely aristocratic republic; as the republic grew, ultimately becoming an empire, the failings of the system became painfully clear - except to those in power. First the city extended its reign over Italy, adding colonies aspiring to Latin citizenship, then, by adding provinces and colonies outside of Italy proper. Ultimately all "citizens" (city dwellers) within the then empire were given Roman citizenship, regardless of wealth or birth. But by then corruption, which started with the profitable provincial governmorships and tax collection system (which was basically privatized) had become endemic - if indeed it hadn't always been, given the patron-client relations that governed social life since Rome's humble beginnings.

 

[Lord Baal]

Nope. The Roman state was a republic. In fact. they invented the word(s): res publica (lit. the public thing. i.e. the state). Just like the US republic, except it has a different method of voting system, as innonimatu correctly mentioned and was originally a purely aristocratic republic; as the republic grew, ultimately becoming an empire, the failings of the system became painfully clear - except to those in power. First the city extended its reign over Italy, adding colonies aspiring to Latin citizenship, then, by adding provinces and colonies outside of Italy proper. Ultimately all "citizens" (city dwellers) within the then empire were given Roman citizenship, regardless of wealth or birth. But by then corruption, which started with the profitable provincial governmorships and tax collection system (which was basically privatized) had become endemic - if indeed it hadn't always been, given the patron-client relations that governed social life since Rome's humble beginnings.

This is too many words to respond to a joke with.