3 ms·
I also believe that certain aspects of the Roman Republic were superior to those of any of the so-called Republics that exist today, all of which do not observe
by adrian_b 2y ago
I also believe that certain aspects of the Roman Republic were superior to those of any of the so-called Republics that exist today, all of which do not observe the fundamental rule of the Roman Republic, which was that, there must exist no major management function occupied by a single human, like a president or a prime minister, but in all such roles there must be at least 2 humans, equal in the granted authorities, so that they will control each other, and this rule could have exceptions only in truly exceptional situations, i.e. wars or calamities, when dictators could be appointed.
Despite the fact that the modern republics are supposed to have some "checks and balances" to limit the power of the leaders, I have seen too many cases of presidents or prime ministers who, after being elected using various lies, begin to act like absolutist kings and nobody seems able to stop them, because they claim that they "represent the majority of the people who have elected them" and nobody may limit their power, because nobody is equal to them.
- thom 2y agoIt's true there were usually pairs of consuls and censors, but there were powerful magistracies that were awarded to individuals, like pontifex maximus and the tribune of the plebs, the former being a lifetime appointment. Either way, the Republic collapsed into violence, and was hardly blameless in its own fall. Ultimately whatever checks and balances you have, it's very hard to stop power and wealth accumulating, and thus enormous constituencies feeling disenfranchised.