Roman Constitution and Legislation of Tiberius Gracchus - Assignment Example

History Essays Student’s Name: Tutor’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: Part 1 Introduction Constitution whether written or unwritten is the supreme document that outlines the framework of how a country should be governed by bestowing various responsibilities, roles authorities to different entities (Friedman & Sybil, 149). Over the years and globally since the origin of political societies, there are different kinds of constitution adopted by various countries. These include monarchy, kingship, aristocracy, and democracy (Polybius, 6). Summarising the theory of natural transformation developed by Plato, Polybius (2-5) observes that countries can experience all these forms of governance in a cyclic manner over a period of time. Based on the works of Livy and Polybius (1922-27) especially the work by Polybius in book 6, the aim of this exposition is to establish whether Roman Constitution was democratic or oligarchic and secondly to determine how appropriate these terms are in explaining the form and practices of the roman constitution. To interrogate and establish whether the roman constitution was democratic or oligarchic or not, it is prudent albeit in brief to examine how the two terms have been conceptualised and how Polybius have conceptualised them and how they relate to the practices exemplified during that period. Oligarchic constitution creates a governance framework where few individuals or families make decisions instead numerous institutions. This group is normally comprised of small elite elements within the society (Acemoglu, 3). Such phenomenon grew in 411 BC when Diei-trephes overthrew democratic government in Athens. During this reign, only 3, 051 individuals were considered as citizens as they were the only one protected by law (McComiskey, 79-90). On the other hand, May (1-2); Schmitter & Karl (75) indicates that coming up with a single conceptualisation on democratic constitution or democracy in general is difficult. Nevertheless, they posits that there are various tenets that are evidentiary in the process that can be used to classify as constitution or governance framework as democratic. Nevertheless, Schmitter & Karl (75) sees the concept as a governance framework where there are numerous institutions and that public are allowed to shape their destiny by actively participating in all issues or governance through election of representative and that the elected representatives owe their ultimate allegiance to the public. On the other hand Polybius (4) sees democracy as epitome of freedom and equality that arises as result of failure of other systems such as monarchy, kingship and aristocracy. The question then is whether the roman constitution was democratic oligarchic. To answer this, let us examine the themes interrogated by Polybius. He observes that in Roman constitution people have integral role based on the political power bestowed on them (p.6). Equally, has already conceptualised, one critical theme is the peoples role in shaping their destiny under democratic governance framework. Polybius (6) notes that the plausibility of such argument is anchored on the rationale that it is the people/ public or citizens who are able to confer honours, place individuals into various leadership positions, they have power to accept or reject various proposed legislations and have authority to ratify all treaties that a country is engaged in. From another paradigm, tenets of oligarchy are highly exhibited in the Roman constitution. For instance, it is the selected few in the name of senate which has a control over various functions. The senate has a say over treasury, revenue collection & allocation and expenditure with the exception being payments done to consuls. Since most government operations are anchored on finances, it means that most Roman operations subject to the authority of senate and in its absence the whole process would grind to halt. Additionally, the senate has a critical role that shapes the relationship of various elements in the Roman society because they are empowered to censor, arbitrate, declare war and dictate foreign relations policy (Polybius, 6). From the above discourse, there is no absolute or outright answer of yes or no in terms of the roman constitution being democratic or oligarchic. From the discourse provided by Polybius (5-8), the constitution of the Roman state by then never showed a pure quality of the either extremes under considerations, but adopted and borrowed various practices from the two concepts to build a constitution that is acceptable and addresses the shorting of the two or disadvantages of political reasoning associated with the two. This is because the constitution exhibits certain characteristics in relation to oligarchy as evidenced in the political powers bestowed to Senate and the same time it exhibit democratic tenets especially in relation to political powers bestowed to the people. The appropriateness of these terms (democratic and oligarchic) in explaining the form and practice of the roman constitution is anchored on how they help inform in designing of a balanced governance out of the realisation that neither democratic governance framework nor oligarchic framework offers a one stop solution in attempt of designing an appropriate framework that bestows political authorities to various entities. The plausibility of such argument is how the two approaches have informed formation of powers that enables the two entities (people and senate) to counteract each other and co-operate so as to build a holistic nation. For instance, under democratic tenets, senate is obliged to address concerns of the commons and adhere to their wishes (Polybius, 7). In a nutshell, the people have a greater say in the action of the senate and thus their actions should be aligned to their aspirations. If this is not possible, the people have the political authority to counteract them. On the other hand, under oligarchy in relation to the senate who are the elected few who are representation of oligarch, the people are obliged to respect the senate and while interacting with state in issues such as trade – which is the ultimate aspect of exchange of goods and survival of an economy, they are directly or indirectly censored by the senate (Polybius, 8). Conclusion The aim of this section was to asses and determines whether the Roman constitution as outlined by Livy and Polybius (1922-27) especially the work by Polybius in book 6 was democratic or oligarchic. The paper established there is no outright answer of as to whether it distinctively exhibit one of the governance domains. The emerging findings out of the exposition is that the Roman constitution exhibits a mixed themes where political powers bestowed to senate exemplifies oligarchy while the political role bestowed to people exhibits democratic governance tenets. Finally, the paper found out that the plausibility of the appropriateness of the two approaches in explaining the form and practice of the roman constitution in premised on the ability of the two concepts to offer insights on how if well balanced the two can create a holistic system where there are checks and balances that bestows different political powers to different entities. Question 2 Land is emotive issue owing to the economic, political and cultural role it plays. Formulation of land policies is likely to elicit mixed reactions from different quarters depending on their vested interest. Such vested interest is likely to be more heightened for the case of earlier years where the mode of production revolved around land since the principal economic activities were agrarian related and were at primary levels. Acting in the same breadth, certain faction of Roman tribunes led by Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus attempted to implement land reforms/ policies so as to appease the Italians who were citizens and free individuals and constituted one of the greatest allies of Romans during war (Lacus, 2). The aim of this section is to discuss the legislation of Tiberius Gracchus and to determine to what extent did they seek to impose a consistent policy and why were they so vigorously opposed? The Legislation Owing to their prowess, Romans managed to colonise Italians successively in any war. Having occupied the Italians, the Romans used to allow their colonialist to occupy the land, but most areas that were savaged by the war – which equally constituted the largest parcels of land - were left to the Italians with the agreement that those willing to work were to pay toll tax based on what they were producing. Nevertheless, the anticipated did not happen as the rich Romans acquired undistributed lands, bought adjacent land of the poor and opted for the services of slaves lest free labourers should be drawn from agriculture into the army. The necessitating factor that aided in the formulation land policy by Tiberius Gracchus was anchored on the realisation that while the Roman rich class were growing extremely rich and preferring the services of the slaves instead of the Italian freemen who were growing poor every passing day yet they were their greatest allies during war (Lacus, 3). Thus, there was need to redistribute land to these individuals. The greatest worry of Romans such as Tiberius Gracchus was that the Italians were becoming idle because slaves were being employed as herdsmen and cultivators instead of freemen. To the troubled lot, the cause of concern was that they would no longer enjoy the services of Italians as closest allies in event of war and that increased number of slaves equally posted a great deal of danger to Romans since they were useless and unfaithful during war (Lacus, 3). Indeed the rallying call by the proponents was to rhetorically refer to the ambitions of Romans about conquering any habitable space globally by asking “whether they should gain the rest by having plenty of brave men, or whether, through their weakness and mutual jealousy, their enemies should take away what they already possessed”. Subsequently, legislation was passed even though not under smooth sailing as it was constantly opposed or vetoed by other tribunes such as Marcus Octavius who acted on the vested interest of the rich who highly detested the notion of loosing even an inch of their land (Lacus, 4). In a nutshell, it can be summerised that theultimate concern of Gracchus and thus fronting legislation was for the sake of men who were the pillar of roman domination as opposed to money. Extent it sought to Impose Consistent Policy The policy fronted by Tiberius Gracchus was a more improved version of the earlier attempt. The key components of the earlier attempt included prohibition of individuals not to hold more than 500 Jugera of land. Secondly, in that land one should not own more than 100 cattle or 500 sheep. It is this restriction that was believed would free land to be distributed to the poor. Additionally, it stipulated that a given number of freemen should be engaged in these farms. To reduce the weaknesses experienced in the earlier legislation, that proved to be a failure, on top of these existing conditions, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus proposed that “ the sons of the occupiers might each hold one-half of that amount, and that the remainder should be divided among the poor by three elected commissioners, who should be changed annually” (Lacus, 3). Additionally, Gracchus forbade buying allotment of others by curtailing sales of land. Indeed, the extent to which he sought to impose consistent policy was successful owing to the observation by Lacus (3) these stipulations left the rich worried as they were obliged to adhere to them as opposed to earlier regulations which were not restrictive as the later. This boiled into accusatorial encounter with the reach pointing fingers towards the poor and the poor doing the same. Rationale for Vigorous Opposition The people who were opposed to the whole set of legislation were the rich in cohort with certain tribunes because of fear of losing land and based on triumvirs proposed could no longer ignore the law. The proposed legislation faced opposition at three level, these are among the rich, in the tribune where some tribunes sought to veto it in the comitia and in the senate (Lacus, 4-5). One grounds that the rich fronted as the reason for opposing the same is based that the poor had doctored the size of their tillage, vineyards, and dwellings. Other categories of the rich argued that they had bought land under willing buyer willing seller agreement and thus stood to lose. Others fronted cultural issues such as land being grave yard of their parents of great grandparent and thus were allocated during division of the estate. Other excuses included the argument that their wives dowries had been expended on the estates or that the lands they posses had been offered as dowry for their daughters. On the other hand, the poor observed that they were being reduced to paupers yet they had offered dedicated military service which the common land was acquired (Lacus, 3-4). Conclusion The ultimate focus of the segment was to discuss the legislation of Tiberius Gracchus and to determine to what extent they sought to impose a consistent policy and why they so vigorously opposed were. The paper established that the legislation was fronted so as to create a balance and not money centred roman dominated by the rich because the Italians were critical in the success of roman empire and continuous impoverishment meant doom to Romans expansion desires. The paper equally established that the legislation aimed at creating level playing by outlining maximum size of land, number of cattle; employment of freemen and disposal of land. Lastly, it was established that the rationale for the opposition was the belief by the rich that they stand to lose. Works Cited Acemoglu, Daron. "Oligarchic versus democratic societies." Journal of the European Economic Association 6.1 (2008): 1-44. Friedman, Robert S., and Sybil L. Stokes. "The Role of Constitution-Maker as Representative." Midwest Journal of Political Science 9.2 (1965): 148-166. May, John D. "DEFINING DEMOCRACY: A BID FOR COHERENCE AND CONSENSUS." Political Studies 26.1 (1978): 1-14. McComiskey, Bruce. "Disassembling Plato's critique of rhetoric in the Gorgias (447a‐466a)." Rhetoric Review 11.1 (1992): 79-90. Schmitter, Philippe C. & Terry Lynn Karl. "What democracy is... and is not." Journal of Democracy 2.3 (1991): 75-88. Read More