Assess the Dictatorship of Julius Caesar (100-44 BC), Research Paper Example

Introduction

Gaius Julius Caesar has been portrayed as a notorious dictator. Historically, he is described as one who has stridden the world like a colossus, according to William Shakespeare’s alignment of the character (Goldsworthy, 2006). In this discussion an attempt will be made to verify the extent to which these accusations are true.  Notably, February of 44BC, one month before his brutal assassination he was appointed dictator for life.

Precisely, this writer will examine whether he was a benign dictator or a tyrant as his opponents claimed; assess his attempts to address long term problems through legislations; evaluate whether those solutions were effective and relate these efforts to the conclusion that his actions were detrimental to the Republic.

Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) – A benign dictator or tyrant!

In examining whether Caesar was a benign dictator or tyrant it would be worthwhile scrutinizing theprograms he instituted during his reign in Rome. It must be noted that by 60 BC Caesar, Crassus and Pompey formed one of the greatest political alliances Rome ever witnessed in its history. This emerged from Caesars’ militancy conquering Gaul and extending Roman territory to the English Channel and Rhine.

Soon after taking office Caesar instituted programs designing social and governmental reforms. This reform included creation of the Julian calendar. Next he centralized the bureaucracy of Rome, which created the dictator ascription he earned from this process. Centralized bureaucratic governance over the centuries had dictatorship implications due to the structure through which functions are executed.

In centralized bureaucratic structures the decision making process is less democratic or more explanatory non-democratic to a certain extent. All decisions are made from the top. Hence, in Julius Caesar’s reign he operated a subtle typical non-democratic political structure. These were initiated through lobbying supportby granting citizenship to colonials, thereby extending his voter population. Next he paid Proconsuls high wages to remove corruption in the society initially aligning their favor (Shotter, 2005).

Another accusation of his dictatorship established through centralized bureaucratic structural approach lay in the decision to set up a network of spies who would gather information and always keep him alert concerning enemies. A land reform policywas also instituted whereby powerwas removed from the wealthy rendering it inaccessible for them to participate in the democratic process. Besides, the senate was reduced to an advisory council. As such, they were present physically in government, but had very little or no input in the decision making process (Fuller, 1965).

Further in examining the true characteristic features of a political dictator in determining whether Julius Caesar was a subtle dictator or tyrant; one must again carefully assess some contemporary features political analysts have offered towards this proclamation. Dictators do not guarantee freedom of speech; free press expression and accurate court rulings. There is no guarantee of free opposition to political leaderships through opposing parties in parliament or regular elections (Fuller, 1965)

Based on these characteristic features describing dictatorship political administrations there is no doubt that Julius Caesar’s rule was dictatorship as his formercontemporaries in Roman political culture during that era. The question lies in whether he was a subtle one. In my opinion he was not. The way Caesar instituted his dictatorship regime was subtle, but this did not make his reign in any way modest. Precisely, the autocratic emergence was insidious.

How can it then be reconciled whether Caesar’s dictatorship was tyrannous or not? Political analysts argue that his dictatorship was benevolent because there were elements in its character, which revealed that he considered Romans integrity and right to freedom. His interpretation of freedom was that, perhaps, Romans were only programed into social order through dictatorship (Goldsworthy, 2006).

Consequently, reducing their power to make foolish decisions was his right as a leader. He recognized that as the population increased Rome deserved a strong leadership through dictatorship to maintain social order. Arguments advanced posit that in relinquishing power of the extremely wealthy was helping poor Romans gain social mobility. The senate was ineffective. Therefore, centralizing the bureaucracy was beneficial to Rome at that time of its history (Goldsworthy, 2006).

However, arguments in support of him being a tyrant cited instances whereby Caesar self-proclaimed his authority. For example,in 46 BC, he proclaimed himself, “Prefect of the Morals.” While it might have been a modern title invention of that era, political analysis identified the function being the same as censorship (Grant 1969).

This meant that he was declared immune from sanctions regarding corruption or breaking Roman laws as any other citizen. On the other hand he invested himself with the power to censor any member of the society including senators who seemed to have offended him or he suspected to be disloyal to the dictatorship. Within these theoretical boundaries it can be concluded that when Caesar began his reign he stared off as a subtle dictator. However, it would appear that later he became drunk with power and executed his purpose tyrannously.

Attempts to address long term problems through legislations

As a leader when Julius Caesar assumed office prior to 49 BC the Roman Empire was chaotic and dysfunctional. This dysfunction included financial debts, conspiracy and poverty. There was great disparity among the poor and extremely wealthy. Caesar himself had incurred huge political debts and did not have enough money to function in a leadership capacity. However, gaining alliance with Crassus and Pompey they together turned the financial dilemma in their favor.

A major strategy within his political reformaimed at creating financial equilibrium among Romans was instituted when he passed a redistribution of land to the poor law encapsulating a series of constitutional amendments. These amendments were focused on creating social order through suppression of armed resistance to his dictatorship administration. Secondly, it was to develop a strong central government structure and thirdly, cohesiveness among factions within the Republic (Grant, 1969).

The first objective of obliterating opposition forces was achieved partially when Pompey and his supporters were defeated. Attempts at manifesting the two other goals were implicitly engraved in legislations designed toreduce powers of the rich and senate within the decision making process. Governors were prohibited from serving any longer than 2 years term as a measure to limit their influence in the decision making framework.

Insidiously, constitutional reform embodied realigning political powers authorizing himself to enforce decisions without consulting magistracies or other political institutions. The electoral process was fully controlled though dictatorship. Caesar assumed legislative authority to nominate candidates as magistrates and people to serve as senators in the attempt to stabilize a society that was in perpetual civil war.

This reform allowed Caesar to manage his dictatorship strategies as well as the Tribunate alternating roles between Consulship and proconsulship. Caesar designed his political reform so that unlike any other Roman dictator he was appointed for life in his attempt to resolve recurring issues pertaining to conspiracy, deception corruption and conflict within his society.

Evaluating the success of Caesar’s attempts through dictatorship

Caesar’s attempts at reconstructing Rome can be viewed as successful in some aspects, but ultimately disastrous to the nation and himself as a leader. It was commendable in that as an astute Roman military leader social order was restored for a while after years of conflict and civil wars. However, the history of dictatorship rule is that leaders are either assassinated or the society declines into a state of anomie and revolutions emerge.

One of his strengths layin increasing the senate’s membership to 900 strong,which was never achieved in the Roman history. There were loyal senators who respected his ideologies, but others became jealous and arranged his assassinations. Even though his assassination was considered demise and can be misinterpreted as a failure, when the aftermath repercussions are evaluated this was his greatest achievement in restoring some degree of stability to the society during his leadership.

Political analysts contend those senators’ accusations of Caesar’s leaderships style was unfounded because they themselves could not find solutions to counteract the apparent dysfunctional dictatorship rule to which Rome was subjected for centuries. Precisely, grudges surrounded the fact that the senate was deprived of its power and prestige within Roman politics. Caesar’s contention was that when they had power it was not utilized to benefit the society. Therefore, limit it and let good sense prevail through his peculiar dictatorship strategies.

Insidiously this initiated anger to the extent of them fearing that he would exercise his censorship authority to execute or destroy them.  As such, the extent to which his indecisive power was effective manifested his physical demise. Speculations of designing more strategies towards naming himself King emerged from these attempts to redeem the nation. The trend of Caesar’s rule left much to be assumed due to the exclusivity of its structure.

Analysis of how Caesar dictatorship affected the Republic

From the events preceding the assassination; during and after these episodes, it could be concluded that Caesar’s policies were detrimental to the Republic. This can be argued from the standpoint of depriving senators of the long Roman tradition of participating in the political structure in their country. Derivation of political will expression within a society historically has been responsible for revolutions and assignations as was evident in Julius Caesar’s reign.

Caesar never contemplated sharing some of his executive power with even the senators he hand-picked for office. A very serious policy towards destruction of the Republic can be identified in the censorship regulation whereby he placed himself above all other citizens who then had to function as underlings.

Obvious events emerging decades after Caesar demise testifies to how his polices were detrimental towards establishing a Roman Empire from a Republican State. Mark Anthony, Caesar’s prodigy,was defeated by Octavian who offered to surrender dictatorship rule in Roman political culture. Octavian becomes the first Roman Emperor and achieved transition from Roman Republic to Roman Empire free of dictatorship rule (Shotter, 2005).

Works cited

Fuller, J.Julius Caesar: Man, Soldier, and Tyrant. New Brunswick. Rutgers University Press. 1965. Print

Goldsworthy, Adrian. Caesar: Life of a Colossus. Yale University Press. 2006. Print

Grant, Michael.Julius Caesar.  McGraw-Hill. New York 1969.Print

Shotter, David. The Fall of the Roman Republic.Routledge. 2005. Print