Ancient Athens (Democracy) vs. Roman (Republic), Term Paper Example

Ancient Athens used a system of government commonly known as democracy, whereas the Romans used a system of government known as a republic. Each government had its particular pros which aided in helping its society thrive, while it also had its cons which may have led to revolt, discontent, and the possibility anarchy among the citizens. In this paper I will list all of the fundamental aspects of each governmental system in order to develop an analysis of their similarities and differences.  In doing so, I would like to prove that both of these systems were effective for their time period, but at the same time, were also ineffective in specific areas.  Through this analysis identification of how these systems used checks and balances in order to ensure that they had a more effective government will also be considered.

The form of democracy that developed within ancient Athens represents an important historical legacy for the conception of free values.  Although it was not completely representative of all of the people in Athens, this form of government did not make distinctions based on social status or economic class.  The meaning of democracy is essentially the “active political rule by the demos-the native adult males” (Ober 3).  All within society that met this criteria were able to have representation within the political forum.  This presented a free and open form of government, in which the needs of society as a whole were taken into account to a larger degree.

An important fact about the Athenian form of democracy is that it seems to have developed without any form of historic base.  While it may have been the result of underlying social or cultural values, there was no previous historic account of democratic institutions that were used in order to develop this form of Athenian political governance.  There was, it seems, no historic or cultural framework from which to draw the underlying tenets of democratic government.  The Athenians, in this way, “quite literally invented democracy as they went along” (Ober 3).  This presents interesting insight into both the strengths and weaknesses of this form of politics.  While this flexibility was an inherent strength of democracy, its inevitable failing would be brought about by the underlying weaknesses of mass rule.

The development of Greek democracy occurred with a balance of power between the poor and the elite.  This was based on the idea that all men (free male natives) deserved to take part in the functions of the government.  “With the establishment of democracy, the lower-class “many” had unexpectedly stepped onto the historical stage and asserted the startling claim that the poor man had as much right to share in political life as his wealthy compatriot” (Ober 9).  While this may have lowered the standard of the political forums that took place, it had the benefit of reigning in the power of wealthy upper class citizens, as they were susceptible to the conditions of the political will.  This created a flexible yet strong framework for the establishment of democratic values.

One of the most important strengths of Athenian democratic government was the potential that it instilled in those who were able to take part in the political process.  These ideas presented a challenge to the notions of both tyranny and oligarchy that permeated other Greek polices at the time.  While other forms of government were based on power or influence that served a few, Greek democracy was based on the principle that the needs of the masses should be met.  “Freedom and respect for the dignity of the individual citizen were established as cornerstones of the democratic public order” (Ober 10).  The establishment of these values presented a challenge to other traditional forms of government of neighboring cities that were built upon authority.

This presents the underlying basis for the strength of Athenian democracy.  The values of the citizens worked together in order to create a strong city that was built on the values of the larger population.  In this way, elements such as “classical Athenian governmental and legal institutions, political ideology and public speech, social practices, and high culture all worked together in order to build and strengthen the “robustness of democratic Athenian politics” (Ober 11).  The diversity of the city is an important aspect of the democratic values that were used in the conception of this political order.  However, this diversity, and the multiplicity of ideas and perspectives that were present in the political process also made it more difficult for Athens to contend with more militaristic or authoritarian societies.

The will of outside imperial influences, such as Rome and Macedonia, would ultimately lead the first Greek democratic experience to fall at the hands of its stronger and more organized regional rivals.  This demonstrates that the fall of the democratic order was primarily due to “a long-term result of the general preference of powerful imperial entities for small bodies of easily controlled elites over unruly and independent-minded democratic multitudes” (Ober 12).  This presents evidence that the Greek democratic order was seen as a threat to the legitimacy of authoritarian governments and so was targeted as a point of attack in order to demonstrate the underlying weaknesses of such entities.

Despite this, the underlying strengths of democratic society were seen as beneficial and are still cited in regards to the power of democracy.  The freedom of expression and the ability for government to function based on the needs of citizens provide important opportunities for the development of creative and technical projects.  This demonstrates the overriding influence that Greek democratic values have had on the construction of political orders in the modern era.  “Because the new democratic state proved wildly successful on the international scene and spectacularly productive of literary, artistic, and philosophical culture, the Athenian model was highly influential and never forgotten” (Ober 18).  However, many values of roman republican government are also influential in the development of modern political ideologies.  While these ideas are similar to Greek democratic values, they differ on the fundamental basis of how power should be distributed.

One important aspect of Roman government that should be understood is the establishment of a constitution.  The Roman republic’s system of government was based on a constitution lain out not through written law, but through procedural norms that had important implications to how the Senate and other offices functioned.  While these standards changed somewhat over a long period of time, there was a sense of continuity.  This was largely due to the “difference between constitutional norms and other legal and political norms” (Posner 2).  This was how Rome developed a sense of flexibility within its legal system, as its distribution of political authority was not as all-encompassing as the Greek system of democracy.

The development of norms was essentially based in the need to mediate between the stratified social orders of Rome.  These norms that were built into the historic framework of the political system through traditional values helped the republic to maintain stability as it “mediated between an upper class and the masses, and distributed executive power among multiple offices” (Posner 2).  These principles developed into a framework that provided both flexibility and strength as the most important constitutional norms were fixed into the memories of the people while other norms were able to change and adapt to the political climate that they were a part of.

The idea of a republic is primarily based on a system of laws, in the case of Roman government, these laws were essentially procedural norms.  These laws are codified in a constitution, which might not be necessarily a written constitution as in the case of the United States and other modern governments.  The underlying purpose of a constitution is to limit the interests of the government in order to try to focus it towards the general will of the people.  In this way, “the purpose of a constitution is to give agents incentives to act in the interests of the people” (Posner 3).  This is an important distinction between Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic.  While the balance of power for Athens was built into the diversification of authority, the balance in the republican system is to limit the power of authority through the application of constitutional values.

This demonstrates an element of Roman politics that sets it apart from Athenian democracy.  While Athenian government seeks to allocate power, the Roman government was attempting to limit it.  This was primarily due to the common desires of the upper class citizens in limiting the power of a single dictator in order to protect their interests.  “The most notable feature of the Roman system from a modern perspective was the elaborate set of precautions against the accumulation of executive power in a single person” (Posner 3).  This, however, worked to maintain a balance of power in regards to the growing population of the city.  The limitations of power helped the political elite to focus their will on the general good of the city at large.

This diversification demonstrates an important element regarding the consequences of developing such a political system.  It seems that “Most of the fabulous wealth resulting from conquest enriched the elites, not ordinary people, resulting in divergence of interests between the upper and lower classes” (Posner 3).  This would ultimately result in progressive interpretations of the democratic norms, which served to consolidate power into the hands of the elite, leading to a political dictatorship.  The adaptive capabilities of the constitution would, therefore, serve to enhance the desires of those in power rather than the population at large.  This presented the underlying circumstances that would ultimately lead Rome to ruin.

The main issue leading to problems with this republican form of governance were, therefore, the flexibility of the constitution as well as the fact that it was verbal and not written.  In this way, “claims about the meaning of the constitution are hard to separate from ideological or self-interested wishful thinking” (Posner 4).  These issues present challenges to the development of constitutional interpretation, which can have difficult repercussions on the basis of the political order.  This presents one of the underlying issues in regards to the republican form of Roman government, which utilized the notion of normative procedural behaviors in order to establish its legal customs.  These norms could be altered through the will of a single entity or a group in order to consolidate their power.  This is essentially what occurred, resulting in the Roman Republic developing into an Imperial dictatorship.

Evidence suggests that both the Athenian Democracy and the Roman Republic developed through the cultural values that were inherent within the social circumstances that they arose.  This presents insight into the way that these political structures utilized these circumstances in order to create a balance of power.  While Athens provided political representation to all its natural male citizens, giving them equal voice in the will of the government, this would eventually lead to a disadvantage when being confronted by more authoritative polities with more centralized forms of power, and therefore, will.  The Roman Republic, on the other hand, utilized normative political policies in order to reign in the power of the political elite through custom.  This, however, would lead to the abuse of the constitutional norms in order to consolidate power into an authoritative form of government.  While both of these systems of government were able to utilize various checks and balances in order to maintain stability in their diversely populated cultures they would eventually meet challenges that their political interpretations were unable to adapt to, causing their structures to fall apart.

Works Cited

McCormick, John P. Keep the Public Rich, But the Citizens Poor: Economic and Political Inequality in Constitutions, Ancient and Modern. Cardozo Law Review. 34(879). Print. 2013.

Ober, Josiah. Conditions for Athenian Democracy. New York: Routledge. Print. 2003.

Posner, Eric A. The Constitution of the Roman Republic: A Political Economy Perspective. The Law School. University of Chicago. Print. 2010.