The Senate & the People of Rome - Assignment Example

The Senate & the People of Rome Name Course Institution Date The Senate & the People of Rome Question One There are different forms of government around the world. The operation of the government is governed by the constitution as the main reference. The constitution contains the laws that indicate how the government is supposed to conduct its activities. Democratic and oligarchic are just, but two forms of constitution. There are other forms of constitution, but democratic and oligarchic seem to be the most common forms of government. Democratic constitution, just as the word suggests, allows key decisions to be undertaken in a democratic manner. This begins with the voting system where the democratic constitution allows citizens to be involved in choosing their leaders. In a democratic society, governed by a democratic constitution, the majority will always have their way while the minority will always have their say. In an oligarchic constitution, the main feature is leadership being reserved for a special clique of people in the society. This clique could be a family, tribe, military, etc. In such a country, leadership is always passed down to other generations for decades of years. The oligarchic leaders are known for dominance. They dominate the people to a point where laws are passed without the participation of the people. This kind of constitutionalism has happened in different countries across the globe. In relation to the Roman Constitution, there is a lot to be discussed. The Roman Constitution has undergone a series of amendments and reforms from ancient times up to today. It becomes a bit tricky to discuss this constitution in relation to democracy or oligarchy. Nevertheless, it is almost clear that this constitution does not fit the oligarchy features. The history detailing transitions speaks a lot. The constitution has been amended several times and things keep on changing ever since (Kempshell 2004, p. 183). The citizens have been seen revolting against harsh leadership all through. Kings have been overthrown as a result of falling out of favor with some people in the society. The transition of leadership is evident in the Roman Empire. The constitution of the land had to be amended severally in order to allow such major leadership changes. There were some times where the leadership of the country was in the hands of the senate. Later on, it was transferred to what was called Legislative Assembly. This was not yet done as it was later transferred to magistrates. The transition was like that because people registered displeasure with the rulers. The freedom that was embedded the constitution that gave them the privilege to make such changes implies that the country was being led democratically. The Roman Constitution is known to be one of the oldest constitutions in the region. It has provided guidelines to drafting of constitutions of different countries. This is very critical. Currently, the Roman Constitution has clearly provided guidelines in relation to issues affecting democracy. Such issues include leadership, elections, management of public enterprises, checks and balances, etc. (Kempshell 2004, p. 184). Such provisions in the constitution show that it allows the participation of citizens in the management of key processes in the country. The provisions in place like the checks and balances provide the basis upon which citizens can openly voice their concerns in relation to the leadership. In the current era, the Romans have been seen also participating in democratic processes like electing their leaders. The country elects the leaders in various positions as per the constitution. The country is led by an executive prime minister. All these point to a possible conclusion that Roman Constitution is democratic in nature. We do not find leadership being reserved for some sect in the country. This is found to be very clear in the constitution. In terms of appropriateness of forms of practices of the Roman Constitution, it is difficult to conclude. First, the Roman Constitution is considered the oldest constitution in history. As a result of this, a lot of changes have been done on this constitution. Without giving specifications on the issue of timeframes, it is difficult to explain the forms of practice either in relation to democracy or oligarchy. From the ancient times, this constitution is seen evolving. This is in line with the fact that the first constitution was drafted around 247 BC. This indeed is a very long period of time. What has been witnessed on the way is actually revolutionary in nature. Based on this fact, it is very difficult to define the nature of Roman Constitution without providing a specific timeframe. From the flow of constitutional activities in the Roman Empire, there were situations where the leadership is seen to exert some form of oligarchy. Nevertheless, this does not seem to last for long. It is short-lived innature as a result of the citizens giving up on the form of governance. As a result of this kind of displeasure, the citizens keep on changing the form of governance and this is viewed as an element of democracy. Part B: 6 Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus were blood brothers. Much is known about them as a result for their struggle to have some reforms passed. To them, such reforms were meant for the good of the people. Surprisingly, most of these reforms were vehemently opposed. The struggles that Gracchus faced began immediately when he ascended to power. That was in 133 BC. During that time, the main issues included the plight of the landless in the country as well as slave labor (Fowler 1905, p. 218). The rich Italians used all means possible to ensure that their farming flourished. This came at the expense of the poor farmers. Many were forced to work on the plantations of the rich as slaves. The first concern of Gracchus was to develop the country’s economy by addressing issues like land reforms. Tiberius therefore was committed to ensuring that fairness in land ownership and use was upheld (Fowler 1905, p. 216). This was considered his greatest undoing by his close friends. This is because these friends were among the rich people who were exploiting the poor. The new reforms would actually mean that most of the estates would collapse. Therefore, they had to resist. The bill that was presented by Tiberius proposed some mechanisms to be used for allotment of the public land. The new bill sought to limit public land to 320 acres and the excess was meant to be allotted to the poor in the society. At the same time, the land commission was formed in order to be responsible for implementing the new land reforms. The more these reforms were made, the more the Senate was angered. This even led to the death of Tiberius. This was after he wanted to force a second term for himself by amending the constitution (Fowler 1905, p. 209). After the death of Tiberius, Gracchus, the younger brother was elected as a tribune and he served for two terms. During this time, he sought to complete what his brother had begun. He continued with the land reforms since he believed that was the starting point in ensuring equity in resource allocation. He was responsible for introducing colonies on public land. In addition, he proposed a law that allowed discounting of grain prices for the poor in the country. All these were being undertaken albeit great opposition from the Senate. The selfish leadership could later repeal the reforms introduced by Gracchus after his re-election bids failed. The two leaders, Gracchus and Tiberius strongly believed in fairness that was to be applied at the basic level through fair land allotment. It is quite unfortunate that Tiberius could die while still championing for the poor. All of them had the welfare of the poor at hand. They hated the exploitation that the poor were being exposed to at the expense of the rich. This they fought with all their ability. In addition, they all tried to put into place mechanism that could allow the non-citizens to acquire land (Fowler 1905, p. 225). This was meant to address the problem that had turned out to be very severe. This is because the continued confiscation of land from the aliens was causing more tension in the country. The two leaders were committed to ensuring that a solution is arrived that will allow aliens to live in the country without any fear. The two leaders were in agreement with the key issues affecting most people and the main one remained to be land. In spite of the good policies that the two leaders were agitating for, they were severely resisted. This was quite unfortunate. That one implied that the plight of the poor was not any near to the end. The Senate seriously fought these reforms because they were the prime beneficiaries of the exploitation against the poor. They took away land from the aliens and used them as slave labor on their farms. The self-centeredness of the Senate was exposed during that time. The interest of the poor was not their agenda. Any proposal to assist the poor resulted into resistance because they feared they could be losers in the end. At the end of it, the two leaders died without experiencing full realization of the reforms they pushed for. Most of the reforms were maintained even after their death. References Arena, V 2011, Roman sumptuary legislation: Three concepts of Liberty, European Journal of Political Theory, 10, pp. 463-489. Fowler, W 1905, Notes on Gaius Gracchus, English Historical Review, pp. 205-227. Gruen, ES 1974, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic, California Press, California, pp. 112-128. Kempshell, M.S 2004, The Constitution of the Roman Republic, English Historical Review, 119, pp. 182-184. Winters, J.A 2011, Oligarchy, Northwestern University, Cambridge University Press, Illinois, pp. 34-51. Read More