Democracy in the Empire

Graffiti at both Pompeii and Herculaneum show that, at least at the urban level, elections were still ongoing well into the Principate in Italy. Additionally I remember reading about excavations in Spain that revealed a constitutional template of sorts for local governance and elections, dated I think to the 1st or 2d centuries AD. I recall Peter Heather indicating that under Diocletian local officials became to the central Imperial government. The result of this being less involvement to curry favor by the more influential locals; could this be an indication that perhaps this need to curry local favor may mean civic elections had continued into the early 4th century?

My best guess is these civic elections during the Principate were mostly confined to Western Europe in cities more heavily populated by Roman settlers, at least at first, and perhaps Greece. Any commentary, or better yet, studies that address the issue of democracy in cities during the empire?

The rise of freedmen as a professional 'middle class' began with Claudius and this offset the civic democracy to some extent. I have to be honest though, this isn't something I know much about.

From a letter to the emperor Gratian:

"For my part, as consul by your gift, Imperator Augustus, I have not had to endure the Saepta [the wooden ramps where voters lined up to vote] or the Campus [where voting took place], or the voting, or the points [recording the votes], or the ballot boxes. I have not had to press people's hands, nor, confused by the rush of persons greeting me, have I failed to reply with their right names to my friends or given them the wrong ones. I have not gone round the tribus, or flattered the centuriae or had to tremble when the classes were called [to vote]. I have not made any deposit with a trustee or agreed anything with a diribitor. The populus Romanus, the Martius Campus, the equestor ordo, the Rostra, the "sheepfold" [the Saepta], the Senate, the Curia - for me, Gratian alone, was all these things."

I agree that the provincial civic government requires some investigation (it's a really fascinating question, btw), but at least in Rome, the higher magistracies came to be Imperial favors rather than hard-earned popular victories.

In Rome itself the election of the junior magistries was transferred from the assemblies to the Senate. The higher magistries came at the recommendation of the Princeps.

In the provinces, the local offices (the class known as decuriones, who were based on certain property qualifications) were elected by the local popular assemblies (indeed, the only real job of the local popular assemblies was to elect the town councilors). Under the Principate the decuriones worked in partnership with the central government to collect tax revenue and administer local territories. The position was thus highly sought after.

However, under the Dominate power shifted from the towns to the new system of provinces. As such the position of town councilor was more burden than reward - they had little real power, but were expected to contribute their own finances to the State. Increasingly few decuriones ran for election. The Dominate had to find ways to keep decuriones tied to the towns. The electoral process was nullified. Membership in the decurion class became hereditary, and the actual offices were granted by nomination from the central authorities.

However, under the Dominate power shifted from the towns to the new system of provinces. As such the position of town councilor was more burden than reward - they had little real power, but were expected to contribute their own finances to the State. Increasingly few decuriones ran for election. The Dominate had to find ways to keep decuriones tied to the towns. The electoral process was nullified. Membership in the decurion class became hereditary, and the actual offices were granted by nomination from the central authorities.

That's it! Thats the reason for the decline in provincial government which led to an increasing burden on the emperor. Provincial control was being twisted into a sinecure by some, and avoided by others. So, I would guess that local dignitaries took a little of the strain when it pleased them, for their own ends naturally, and especially during the late empire when communities were effectively opting out of roman government.

The ideas of Democracy were far more Roman than Greek. Why would you suppose a wealthy tyrant like Pericles, who was a true demogod, give the public the ideas of importance in the affairs of state yet he was never elected. Their was no popular vote in the city states. The Roman Republic was founded on a long history of democratic principals and these were best evolved once the Greeks were force out of Southern Italy. The Craddle of Democracy is a Roman legacy Not Greek. The Greeks never could see that kind of unity of will until they were put under Roman occupation.

The "people" were a part of the system, but it was a system qualified by socio-political class, with different classes having different rights and duties (at least initially). "Democracy" doesn't describe Rome at all to me. In the famous phrase of "The Senate and the People of Rome" the Senate was clearly first. In the Assembly of Centuries, which elected the highest magistrates, the wealthiest classes were in a definite majority.

This is not too different from Solon's moderate democracy, with four socio-economic classes and their varying levels of rights and duties. But the kind of radical democracy that developed after Solon was clearly a different breed from either Solon's constitution or the Roman Republic.

"Democracy" doesn't describe Rome at all to me.

I think Segestan is confusing what we moderns often consider 'Democracy' (i.e representative democracy which is a much more republican system and closer to the Roman one) for true Greek democracy

"The doors of the Senate are closed to the people."

Some degree of local elections existed thru out the empire. Local urban authority suffered greatly in areas afected by ruralization after mid III C crisis, but still existed. Only the great provincial cities were under the central authority. Medium and small cities and rural areas kept some forms of self management. This does not mean neccesary democracy but federalism and Rome was definetly federative. Even in the times of Justinian local affairs were done by an elected council led by the bishop as decurions existed no longer.

"The doors of the Senate are closed to the people."

So what? During the republic, the doors of the Senate opened up to the steps of the Rostra, where senators were called by tribunes to account for their positions in front of the people, where senators attempted to persuade the people to enact the legislations recommended by the people, and where senators could be heckled, cajoled, stoned, and praised by the people as well. There was a damned good reason that mass oratory (esp. in contiones) was considered the royal road to imperium: the people had to be persuaded to give their sanctions. If you miss this fact, you miss the essence of the republican system, and you miss why it was so dreadful that the number of contiones plummeted during the triumvirate and the royal rule of Caesar and his kin.

I just realized that my last post is way off topic, so I took the liberty of copying Cato's and my last posts to:

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showto...amp;#entry58580

"The doors of the Senate are closed to the people."

But doors of imperial palace were also closed to people, I believe.

My impression of late Roman republic so far is that it was largely oligarchic but there were enough elements of democracy that could be utilized without the high-handed manner that Julius Caesar took to push his populares agenda.

Not that I am all that enamored with the Optimates. I think the reform was clearly necessary afte the time of Gracchi brothers, concessions had to be made for the people both in social programs and political power.

But the bottomline is that with the death of republic, the tradition of Greco-Roman political discourse died with it.

...

I agree that the provincial civic government requires some investigation (it's a really fascinating question, btw), but at least in Rome, the higher magistracies came to be Imperial favors rather than hard-earned popular victories.

I think it might be important to note that some rudimentary elements of democracy endured for generations under the Principate, at least at the local level in the West--Italy, Spain, Greece, perhaps Gaul--outside of Rome. I suspect it wasn't always pretty nor a purely democratic--local politics, factionalism, even feuds and all--but the indications are that it was fairly resilient as a form of urban governance. That it took economic upheaval in the 4th century under the Dominate to bring it to an end might be instructive (or not), but it's certainly interesting.

I'd like to have found some literature focusing on the topic, even a dissertation, but no luck so far.

...

However, under the Dominate power shifted from the towns to the new system of provinces. As such the position of town councilor was more burden than reward - they had little real power, but were expected to contribute their own finances to the State. Increasingly few decuriones ran for election. The Dominate had to find ways to keep decuriones tied to the towns. The electoral process was nullified. Membership in the decurion class became hereditary, and the actual offices were granted by nomination from the central authorities.

I think there were some economic reasons (inflation) for the difficulty in tax collection in the 4th century if I recall Heather (I'll have to dig him up) that led to fewer people wanting the position. I remember he also made a salient point that once appointed rather than elected fewer and fewer civic projects occurred in urban areas since there was really no point in the new officials currying favor with the locals.

I think there were some economic reasons (inflation) for the difficulty in tax collection in the 4th century if I recall Heather (I'll have to dig him up) that led to fewer people wanting the position. I remember he also made a salient point that once appointed rather than elected fewer and fewer civic projects occurred in urban areas since there was really no point in the new officials currying favor with the locals.

I believe inflation might have played a factor, but remember the rise of Persia as a superpower threat meant the Roman army increased, by conservative estimates, 33%. More taxes simply had to be collected to pay for the increased army. The whole system of smaller and more numerous provinces was designed to ensure better collection of revenue.

If I remember correctly the decuriones simply tried applying to the provincial and central governments as that is where all the power lay under the Dominate. The local governments under the Dominate had no real power and thus there was no incentive to remain in them.