Rome is a cautionary tale about the dangers of unequal representation mixed with militarism that I think is worth studying. Not to imitate the Roman system but to understand why it did not follow the path modern states followed towards democracy and instead became an autocratic empire so that we can better guard against the dangers to our own democracy. It helps us understand that democracy was never inevitable but took the blood, sweat and tears of countless generations so we must not take it for granted and continually struggle to maintain it. Democracy is the hardest system of governence because it's the only one where you can't simply ignore issues that are uncomfortable but that's also the only reason we've advanced so much in the last two centuries.
@@hedgehog3180 Very well said! This is our framework for the study of Rome as well - it was a deeply flawed society whose failings can serve as warnings for us today as we seek to preserve and expand the limited freedom and rights we currently enjoy. We don't have patience for those that paint Rome as an ideal society - it was brutal and unjust in ways we moderns can barely comprehend.
Do you believe that the Comitia Centuriata system seems to be similar to the modern military industrial complex? is it the true power in the US democracy?
@@robkunkel8833The difference is that for romans the voting process was structured to directly give advantages to the richer and more prestigeous classes. Military Industrial Complexes among other formations of the modern owning classes act as powerful interest groups that target legislators and executive branches directly by funding campaigns or indirectly by threatening to move means of production geographically (alongside plenty of other strategies). The difference is subtle: romans were unequal from the outset of the Comitia Centuriata system, while the modern bourgeoisie has to invest to maintain their influence compared to other sorts of interest groups.
Athenian Democracy did not "allow" participation of all citizens, it required it. When the Assembly met, all citizens (true, only a tiny fraction of the population) were required to attend.
Great point! Australia has a mandatory voting system as well and it would be curious to see how this would impact politics in other countries were it instituted
@@tribunateSPQRI am Belgian, and we also have mandatory voting. That said, while on paper you should be fined for not voting, in reality it's not enforced much, and so we often have around 10% (and growing) non-participation. Common arguments against mandatory voting are that it violates your freedom, and that it forces you to endorse the political system you live under. Personally I disagree to both, since there isn't much freedom being violated by moving 1km and casting a ballot, and as for endorsement you are also allowed to cast a blank or spoiled ballot (though I guess for some even that is giving too much legitimacy to the system). Arguments in favor typically include that extremist parties thrive more when voting is free (since their voters are very likely to show up to vote, while the moderate electorate is less motivated), though the rise of far right and far left parties in Belgium make me question how true that is. Another argument I heard is that it turns voting into a duty instead of a right, so people might be more enclined to defend their voting "rights", though I guess it can backfire, since voting being a duty may create resentment that people are forced to vote and so care less when democratic rights erode.
@@evoluxman9935 Thanks for this input and perspective - I lived in Belgium for several months as part of a foreign study in 2008 and I don't even believe the country had a government at the time as the parties weren't able to form a coalition. While it was strange to see a political system so different from the American one, I still feel that these multi-party systems with high citizen involvement are more desirable and representative of actual public opinion
My understanding is that, while you could be called for mandatory jury duty (which was a lot like voting, as juries were very large), voting was not as strictly mandatory in practice. They would physically corral people toward the pnyx where voting took place and stop commercial activities in the marketplaces, but that didn’t stop people from just staying home.
@@evoluxman9935here in Brazil we have a mandatory voting system that is enforced. Well, you pay a fine of something like 2 BRL, so its more of a nuisance than anything. If you have pendencies with the Electoral Justice you cant assume public office, enter a public university or get a passport, but it's such an insignificant fine that some people (growing these last few years) would rather pay than walk a block to the polls.
Glad to hear someone deflating the myth of Athenian democracy. I remember learning about it in middle school and getting the sense that Athens was some sort of incredible egalitarian utopia, at least centuries ahead of its time, a picture which I’m sure the rest of the Delian League would have some comments for.
I remember that this was how it was initially presented in school as well. While certainly a more just system for Athenians in Athens it was far from ideal and their foreign policy was no different from autocratic Greek city states. Athens even backed oligarchic over democratic factions in other cities purely out of realpolitik considerations, the commitment to "democracy" was not substantial or fundamental
They did not have an ideological attachment to democracy as modern Americans do. Democracy is used in modern politics to justify the mandate to rule a nation-state, so it is entrenched in propaganda. Athens didn't need that because the democracy wasn't used to justify the state, it was only used to produce consensus within the ruling elite, who have the 'citizen' status. That elite then imposed their will on the non-citizens (not foreigners, but native residents, see below) and they didn't have to use anything like 'democracy' as a justification. The ruling class of every Greek polis was basically a cartel that extracted resources from those they ruled. These cartels had different rules and characteristics between each polis. Some cartels were larger than others, and the Athenian citizenry was large compared to other such cartels, such as the Spartiates, the citizen-class of Sparta, or even smaller cliques of despots and tyrants. But in any case the un-represented people they extracted from was of course larger. There were slaves of course, but also there would be large populations of non-citizen free people who resided in the city and its territory, similar to modern "permanent resident status". Except unlike modern USA, there's no naturalization (only rare exceptions), and citizenship is traced through blood, so your family would be non-citizen, 2nd-class residents, permanently. None of these populations got to participate in Athenian democracy.
@@tribunateSPQR That's strange, I was taught it was democratic but our teachers deifnitevly stressed how they were not egalitarian at all and excluded a ton of people from voting.
Athens was only exceptional in certain ways. For example, male citizens even if they were very poor, could participate in the democracy and even be elected. This was quite rare or even revolutionary at that time. The Romans, by contrast, would only elect men of standing . It was also a more open society than some: freedom of speech really existed for a while (although it was later stopped). The city achieved some astonishing things in philosophy, literature, art, and politics. However, these achievements were also quite limited. We may think of Rome as a city that oppressed and enslaved millions. However, Rome had special treaties with Italian cities that granted them protection and some of the privileges of citizenship, in certain cases. It was actually a little bit better than how the Athenians viewed other Greeks. Roman elections were definitely not one man one vote. It was the case that when they elected consuls, the upper classes got EXTRA votes.
@yaoiboi60 Women were excluded from voting in both Greece and Rome. Slaves could not vote. If Romans liberated their slaves, their status greatly improved but there were further steps needed before a freedman could become a citizen and vote. Women in Athens were veiled. They were supposed to stay home and weave cloth. However, Roman women had more freedom to move about and do business.
The founders were massive Roman Republic fans, never forget that. Besides the British the Roman system was the other inspiration for the American constitution.
@@ethanduncan1646Well, the founders knew that a “pure” democracy, like Greece, OR a “pure” republic, like the Roman Republic, could be bad. That’s why they created a Constitution. The Constitution imposed limits on what government could do.
@@HVACSoldier Oh I am not condemning the constitution, far from it. It is perhaps the only thing nowadays keeping us from descending into a horrible death spiral of competing populist demagogues taking over our country. They did their best but the rot eventually worms it's way in no matter how well you build a system of government. The trick is balancing the ability to gain some control over the average ignorant voter to avoid them from cratering our country, while also providing the legitimacy of democratic elections and for the masses to believe their individual voices matter so those in power can better legislate.
@@HVACSoldier yea the US system works, i mean it's not like there's been any contested elections, or questioning of the legitimacy of government in the US.
Thanks, really glad that you enjoyed that! We try to spend a little extra time writing the scripts and I'm glad that people appreciate the extra effort
@@user-jq1mg2mz7o hey now! Don’t forget Padmé’s the one who left him in charge. She was a real nice well meaning rich lady, but bad judge of interpersonal character. Not sure which famous Rome-adjacent lady and or bro this makes her like, but there’s a comparison in there somewhere.
@@mra4521 haha maybe Claudius? A typically well-meaning guy who didn't understand that not everyone (particularly not his wives) were as good natured as he was
It's circular reasoning to say that most recognized states are democracies; the governments which aren't democracies have a hard time being recognized as states.
Very true, for example I think its well understood that its only because Saudi Arabia has such control over oil that they are allowed to be as openly repressive as they want while still being shielded by the US
There's a big distinction between a government not getting recognised as legitimate and non-recognition of the nation in its entirety. Afghanistan has recognition. Taliban' doesn't.
@@daverapp the Vatican has expressed 0 wish to be anything other than a permanent observer in the UN. Further against your point, both Saudi Arabia & Oman are both absolute monarchies and Iran was a founding member of the UN despite being a dejure absolute monarchy.
This whole corruption and buying off people makes me really wonder if there was a ancient psudo-corporate aspect, like company equivalents doing all sorts of shady stuff. I heard that Gladiators sometimes advertised "products." Maybe it is my fascination with megacorps and cyberpunk settings, but have similar analogues have happened at such times?
Corporations and businesses certainly existed but wouldn't have played a significant role in politics - it was still primarily about individuals. Wealth was still highly centralized and wealthy Romans did not have diverse asset portfolios that they left up to managers like the modern rich, this kept the wealthy more influential than"business interests" as we would define them
Should also note that having a trade was considered quite vulgar by rich Romans. If they could stay rich off of land ownership without having to do business, they'd do that.
@@YossarianVanDriver It was the rich but not noble merchant class who were the primary backers of the the plebian assembly to boot. They were upset that despite having monetary wealth that could even exceed the patritician class, they were lower class because they did not come from the right dynasty.
Class IV Plebian here, ready for Velite service (which i'll happily give to the Gracchi) Before watching: Would it fit UN standards? Probably not, only a certain amount of greek cities would actually pass. In comparison to other states of the time, though, the Romans gave more decision-making power to their lower classes. Haven't heard any other state with a Tribune of the Plebs. After Watching: Republican Rome, either in a vacuum or sealed off from the world, would absolutely have lasted to the modern day with most people living in it pretty much happy with how that government works. No revolutions, probably able to integrate with the modern world. Legit enough for Today.
The possibility of the plebiscite to pass actual legislation is an amazing instance of direct democracy and the tribune of the plebs is a very cool office. Rome may not have been democratic or free by any modern standards but both of these institutions would be welcome here
@@tribunateSPQRyep and all that direct democracy did for the Romans was place politics in the hands of the street gangs run by said tribunes of the plebs.
@@tribunateSPQR For as much as people lionize Brutus and the conspirators, Caesar and Augustus's reforms were correct and popular if Rome was going to last as a Hegemon. They could either keep the republic or keep their empire, not both.
the perfect kind of video on the more nitty gritty parts of Roman life. It's nice to be able to know, or even have enough info left to infer, how people might have felt about the system they lived in back then and how they interacted with it
Glad you enjoyed it! there are lots of great channels that focus on the military history of Roma and the lives of the Emperors but we want to bring in more slice of life stuff that centers the experience of the average Roman
My goodness. I had to stop and rewind parts of this. Unlike most youtube content, which makes a point and then hammers it ad- nauseam, this presentation is extremely dense. Every sentence builds on the last. Will watch your succeeding videos with interest.
Thanks for this video. One of my pet peeves watching historical content in the internet is how so many describe the collapse of the Roman Republic as the "end of Democracy". The Roman Republic wasn't a "democracy" not in their time, and not even by the standards of our time. I understand that many of these videos are trying to push a good message "we must be careful to preserve democracy", but it's not good history. Using the standards of the time, Rome should probably be classified as an oligarchy, not very different of similar systems in Greece or Carthage. For example, the model of two executives, a senate and a group of elected officials was used also by Sparta. The collapse of the Roman Republic was not "the end of democracy", it was just the conclusion of a century of fierce political competiton and rampant corruption in Rome, which ended up in disastrous civil wars and in a de facto military dictatoship. There are lessons to learn of this history, but let's not push the envelope so hard: The Roman Republic was not a democracy, it was a system designed to concentrate political and economical power in the hands of a few.
The issue with the Centuries and votes carrying unequal weight actually didn’t get dealt with in American politics until the 1960s. Rural politicians wary of the power of growing cities would intentionally give them fewer districts than they deserved, only exacerbated by their refusal to change the boundaries for decades on end. By the time this malapportionment was banned, some congressional and state legislative districts had 10 times as many people as other districts in the same state. Not nearly as bad as the Romans, but still pretty bad.
Great point, thanks for adding this bit of context. Unfortunately the founders took far too much inspiration from Rome when drawing up our electoral system and we've had to fight at every step to achieve more equitable representation.
Thank you for the high praise! We try to put a lot of effort into the content and kind words like this are what lets us know that the attention to detail is appreciated.
A great video, thanks. Some viewers would probably expect a rundown of Roman procedure against some set of UN criteria, but fine with me. Where I would disagree: 1. I don't think it entirely fair to say the Roman system was "designed". Rather, it was somewhat evolving all the time. What it looked like was a result of competing elite and popular push that you're describing in the later of the video. Machiavelli in his "Discourses on Livy" even says that the conflict of orders was a factor that made the republic successful. 2. One could (in a way) map most modern political systems into tribes and centuries. You vote in a special narrow class of representatives, who then vote on laws. You have no say on what they do for multiple years (this would be a ridiculous concept for most ancient republics), and they are subject to party discipline. In Rome, the people voted on laws, and in the assemblies of the plebs it was even democratic. What is more, the magistrates could be stopped by tribunes of the plebs for any reason - ius intercessionis. Every year, the plebs would elect a bunch of tribunes. In general, I think we swung too far in the direction of undue modern triumphalism and lack of recognition when speaking about historical republics. But your description of that problem does correct that somewhat, I think.
Much appreciated - we try to bring a fresh perspective to the classical history youtube niche because while the Romans were very interesting, it would have been a horrible society to live in. They contributed much to the making of the modern world but it came at a horrible cost and we have to strive to be better than they were
I did write an essay on how democratic the Roman Republic was for my GCSE Latin, especially comparing it to the EU. Whilst it often went wrong, i have a lot of respect for the dual consulship idea. Great video!
I greatly admire the honest telling of Roman history in this and your other videos. Rome is probably one of the most difficult subjects of research because of the amount of romantization(hah) and pop history misinformation on the part of the vast majority of people talking about it, especially in bad faith actors who just love the aesthetic of the Pax Romana legions. As a political science major I find this stuff on the Roman republic fucking fascinating. I kinda wanna write a historical fiction novel on the the plebeian secession and the creation of their assembly called like 'the bloody summer of 494' or something like that lol. Do you have any particular sources you reference for this topic? I'm interested in doing some more reading on it
Thanks! Glad to know the alternative perspective is appreciated. That is a fascinating era and one that could use with more representation in fiction - some good sources for this are: Social Struggles in Archaic Rome - Edited by Kurt A Raafaub A Critical History of Early Rome - Gary Forsythe Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic - P.A. Brunt and though I haven't read it yet, the forthcoming book "Strike: Labor, Unions, and Resistance in the Roman Empire" by Sarah E. Bond looks like it will be an excellent treatment of these issues. It is high on my list for books to read in the new year
thanks - it's central to our conception of history that those who inhabited the ancient world were really no different from us at the base level. However, radically different cultures and values made their worldviews completely alien to our own.
This sorta unequal voting curia system stuff is not that weird if you know about how European monarchies before or after the French revolution and the 1848 revolts tried to placate liberals, nationalists and socialists. Imperial Austria had a curia system with unequal representation till like 1907 for the Reichsrat.
Since the Consultative Assembly is non-partisan only gives advice and its legislation must be endorsed by the monarch it isn't too much different from the Roman Senate during the empire.
Jeez, and I thought the Electoral College was aggravating I don’t know if anyone has any records of the exact results, but I’m wondering what the most “unfair” result of a Roman election was, as in “So-and-so won the election despite only receiving 40% of the vote” kind of thing
Did all of these institutions exist at the same time, or were any replaced or just stopped functioning? Also, did any of these institutions have anything to do with 'the senate'? Or was that an entirely separate organization?
The Curiate assembly existed during the monarchy and while never abolished it was rarely used during the Republic - replaced by the Tribal and Centuriate Assemblies. The Plebian assembly came into existence later and eventaully achieved parity with the Tribal and Centuriate assemblies (though each was used for different functions). The Senate actually had no formal power, it merely "advised" magistrates on the best course of action, while magistrates weren't legally bound to honor the Senate's wishes they typically did so in deference to precedent. The Senate was made up of former magistrates or those who had achieved great wealth and prestige and were thus appointed to the body.
@@tribunateSPQR Thank you for the answer! It's funny to find out that the Senate was technically just an advisory panel but is now the most well known political body of ancient Rome
@@pastramiandrye happy to help clarify! Romans had such a deep respect for tradition and precedent that Senatorial decrees effectively did carry the force of law but as the Republic fractured, leaders like the Gracchi and Caesar realized that it could be bypassed to achieve their goals
At some point I got impression that even though roman republic and athenian democracy functioned wildly differently, res publica was supposed to be just "latinization" of greek concept from their contemporary POV and only when they were borrowed into other languages they got their distinct "republic not democracy" thing that some yankees like to say. But now I'm not sure where I got that.
10+ years of niche Roman topics and global military history have truly blessed my algorithm. The Romans were some of the biggest dicks in history but they left so much that it's hard to not dive in.
Welcome aboard! That's pretty much our stance as well, the Romans were complete assholes but they were around for so long and did so much that they're impossible to ignore
Fun fact the distinction between “Democracy” and “Republic” continued into the founding of the United States, with federalists accusing anti federalist of wanting “democracy” and anarchy.
Very true - what I meant by this was that while modern democracies don't always provide equal representation, those living in democracies at least state that this is their ideal. It's something voters want put politicians elected under an unequal system are less likely to push for
Votes in Florida count for less, not more. Assuming you're talking about the EC, it's the states with lower populations that have outsized political power.
Expectation: either shock content of how different the meaning of basic values was back then and just how much was sometimes allowed or the enlightened glory of geniuses/genius cultures inventing clever systems
People on ancient rome is truly more inteligent than us. Most of moral and your values system today are catastrophicaly against the nature and trueness and propitiate hard times. Plato Quote - "And a democracy, I suppose, comes into being when the poor, winning the victory, put to death some of the other party, drive out others, and grant the rest of the citizens an equal share in both citizenship and offices."
Elections functioned more effectively during certain eras but it it’s our position that they were never open or fair enough to accurately reflect mass public opinion
Nice -- thanks. But I disagree with your comment that it's unfair to judge the Roman democracy against modern standards because they "never tried or claimed to adhere to them". North Korea also doesn't try or claim to adhere to those standards, but it's still fair to judge them for it. Now, it _is_ unfair to judge Roman democracy against modern standards, but that's because of the fact that our modern standards didn't exist in those days -- _nobody_ was trying to adhere to them, or even proposing that countries ought to adhere to them.
The early Roman Republic (before the plebs got more influence) is in a few ways similar to the way public companies like Amazon operate today, indeed with richer stakeholders having more influence. I think the public companies would do well to take some inspiration from the Republic and create a way for the modern plebs to influence the company direction as well. In particular, they should stop their union busting. I think it is interesting how the boundaries between a country and a company are not always clear. This was clear with the Dutch East Indies (VOC) which had an army and minted their own coins, but can also be seen in modern things where certain companies now rule the internet as if they were countries, capable of imposing laws (terms of service) and taxes (30% cut). (This comparison works quite well, with many sites having 'police' in mods and having an abstract 'army' to defend against DDOS attacks and similar.) However, there is a clear gap in governing tactics between western countries and their companies (which can be stakeholder republics like described, or even private=dictatures). From a modern POV, seeing the Roman Republic as a country makes the governing overly elitist, but if you treat it more like almost a company then it is quite democratic. This gap feels so weird to me.
13:33 The last thing CONSERVATIVES like is what the people think in political culture. I am SO CORRECT yeap. If you're gonna talk about political science the thing you wanna constantly be aware of is plain old useless irrelevant tribalism. And I mean this about any left-leaning person as well, I don't want them taking any unearned crap.
I don't believe that dissatisfaction with oligarchic influence in democracy should cause you to pine for monarchy as the chief faults of oligarchy are caused by a concentration of control and influence within a small clique - something that is only compounded further in a monarchy. Creating a just society requires power to be diffused as widely as possible, monarchy would only make things worse and that's assuming we had a competent monarch which is rarely the case.
@@tribunateSPQR Note: reposted because youtube removed my comment. Probably because it used to contain a censored word or two. I have tried to alter the text in a way that doesn't trigger the system. I think you'd be a fan of Legend of the Galactic Heroes. After the Battle of Vermillion, the leader of the Galactic Empire debates the merits of democracy and autocracy with the defeated de facto military leader of the Free Planets Alliance, a democratic entity. The crux of the emperor's argument against democracies is twofold: 1. Democracies get ever more corrupted as they age. 2. This corruption further dilutes the effectiveness of a democracy's executive power. Eventually, this leads democracies to crash and burn. He argues that autocracies, on the other hand, offer the greatest efficiency in implementing reforms since its executive power. If there's something that needs to be corrected, it will be done instantaneously while democracy would take its sweet time due to corruption and separation of powers. However, there is a counterpoint to both of these points that the democratic commander offers: 1. Democracy, by it's nature, can change and will make many reforms over its existence. That is less likely to happen in an autocracy. 2. A just and competent autocratic ruler is rare. Ultimately, the context here is important. The emperor is a former revolutionary leader who saved his nation from the worst form of government possible; a corrupt feudalistic dictatorship. He implemented many reforms such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the end of feudalism and serfdom, the abolition of nobility, social and economic climbing through merit, legalized unions, etc. On the opposite side, you have the most ironic opponent; a semi-totalitarian state which was democratic for most of its existence until just recently. That government was elected, but it represses its citizens in many ways and keeps a tight hold on power through deceit and illegal manoeuvres. Both nations are also successor states of a the Galactic Federation, which saw a space nah-zee take power and abuse it horribly. So from the empire's point of view, they feel justified because they can just say "see what the horrible space nah-zees did because democracy just let them?" ...which isn't far off what people say in real life whenever they talk about how the angry painter was elected before he gained power. But to that the Alliance will always reply that it is when the democracy became a dictatorship that things turned sour.
Vatican City is a self-described absolute monarchy. The Pope answers to no one. Obviously the Pope is elected by the College of Cardinals, but that just makes it an elective monarchy like the Holy Roman Empire.
Well technically yes but it doesn’t draw it’s power from the people, it draws it from God since the Cardinals are essentially trying to interpret God’s will
That's not quite true. The only 'democratic' thing about Vatican City is the system to elect a new Pope, and cardinals actually represent only a fraction of Vatican City's citizenship.
As an American, I want to make it clear that "one man, one vote" is not something I hold sacred nor does our Constitution. And hopefully the 1964 mandate against our States from the U.S. Supreme Court will be overturned in due time.
The "one man, one vote" principle does not appear in the constitution but it has been affirmed by the US Supreme Court, not simply in Westberry v. Sanders as you imply. This is an excellent example of how we can (and should) move past the shortsighted and insufficient primitive US constitution and towards a better and more representative government. May more regulations and laws come to pass over the coming years that strip power from those who seek to create unequal voting systems due to their inability to actually win open and fair elections.
@@tribunateSPQR I would say we should have an open discussion and debate on such a matter instead of leaving it to Nine Robed Judges acting as Philosopher Kings. Let's move towards actually Amended the document you find so primitive. Instead of inventing this "constitutional" mandate out of whole cloth, we can actually point to the Supreme Law of the Land as the Law on the matter. (Also I was thinking of Reynolds v. Sims which had a much larger impact and destroyed the Legislative framework of nearly every State in the Union)
The central idea of antique Athenian democracy is entirely forgotten: putting limits on the oligarchy. Rome was entirely oligarchic. Athens had randomly selected and strictly time-limited citizen councils. Especially the USA is not democratic at all since it does not have real political parties, instead corporations (the oligarchy) buy politicians and their votes since "Citizens United". Seen this way, Putin is much more democratic since he limits the oligarchs and is fighting fascism instead of boosting it like in Israel and Ukraine.
@@Adsper2000Oh China is also much more democratic than the US. Because they keep money as a public utility and put strict limits on oligarchic "privatisation". US-American "elections" are are meaningless rituals to placate the masses because the real power is not affected. The more of a freewheeling oligarchy the US becomes, the more they will go down the Roman way of civil war and disintegration. It suits the rich.
Yes and then the Athenians freely voted the oligarchs into power. Then they freely voted to go to war with Sparta, and they freely voted to kill Socrates. Also I don’t think the Israelis and Ukrainians are fascist by even the most liberal definition of fascism.
@@sambarnett6996Ehm, no. Athenian democracy was abolished by Alexander and his father Phillip. And sure it had way too little checks and safeguards, but the central idea of restricting the oligarchy is as current now as it was then.
![Would You Fall for It? [ST08]](/img/n.gif)
Do you believe Roman elections were legitimate? Should their political system serve as an inspiration in the modern world?
Wouldn't want to trade the US system for theirs, but all things considered it was much better than most options in the ancient world
Rome is a cautionary tale about the dangers of unequal representation mixed with militarism that I think is worth studying. Not to imitate the Roman system but to understand why it did not follow the path modern states followed towards democracy and instead became an autocratic empire so that we can better guard against the dangers to our own democracy. It helps us understand that democracy was never inevitable but took the blood, sweat and tears of countless generations so we must not take it for granted and continually struggle to maintain it. Democracy is the hardest system of governence because it's the only one where you can't simply ignore issues that are uncomfortable but that's also the only reason we've advanced so much in the last two centuries.
@@hedgehog3180 Very well said! This is our framework for the study of Rome as well - it was a deeply flawed society whose failings can serve as warnings for us today as we seek to preserve and expand the limited freedom and rights we currently enjoy. We don't have patience for those that paint Rome as an ideal society - it was brutal and unjust in ways we moderns can barely comprehend.
Do you believe that the Comitia Centuriata system seems to be similar to the modern military industrial complex? is it the true power in the US democracy?
@@robkunkel8833The difference is that for romans the voting process was structured to directly give advantages to the richer and more prestigeous classes. Military Industrial Complexes among other formations of the modern owning classes act as powerful interest groups that target legislators and executive branches directly by funding campaigns or indirectly by threatening to move means of production geographically (alongside plenty of other strategies). The difference is subtle: romans were unequal from the outset of the Comitia Centuriata system, while the modern bourgeoisie has to invest to maintain their influence compared to other sorts of interest groups.
Athenian Democracy did not "allow" participation of all citizens, it required it. When the Assembly met, all citizens (true, only a tiny fraction of the population) were required to attend.
Great point!
Australia has a mandatory voting system as well and it would be curious to see how this would impact politics in other countries were it instituted
@@tribunateSPQRI am Belgian, and we also have mandatory voting. That said, while on paper you should be fined for not voting, in reality it's not enforced much, and so we often have around 10% (and growing) non-participation.
Common arguments against mandatory voting are that it violates your freedom, and that it forces you to endorse the political system you live under. Personally I disagree to both, since there isn't much freedom being violated by moving 1km and casting a ballot, and as for endorsement you are also allowed to cast a blank or spoiled ballot (though I guess for some even that is giving too much legitimacy to the system).
Arguments in favor typically include that extremist parties thrive more when voting is free (since their voters are very likely to show up to vote, while the moderate electorate is less motivated), though the rise of far right and far left parties in Belgium make me question how true that is. Another argument I heard is that it turns voting into a duty instead of a right, so people might be more enclined to defend their voting "rights", though I guess it can backfire, since voting being a duty may create resentment that people are forced to vote and so care less when democratic rights erode.
@@evoluxman9935 Thanks for this input and perspective - I lived in Belgium for several months as part of a foreign study in 2008 and I don't even believe the country had a government at the time as the parties weren't able to form a coalition.
While it was strange to see a political system so different from the American one, I still feel that these multi-party systems with high citizen involvement are more desirable and representative of actual public opinion
My understanding is that, while you could be called for mandatory jury duty (which was a lot like voting, as juries were very large), voting was not as strictly mandatory in practice. They would physically corral people toward the pnyx where voting took place and stop commercial activities in the marketplaces, but that didn’t stop people from just staying home.
@@evoluxman9935here in Brazil we have a mandatory voting system that is enforced.
Well, you pay a fine of something like 2 BRL, so its more of a nuisance than anything. If you have pendencies with the Electoral Justice you cant assume public office, enter a public university or get a passport, but it's such an insignificant fine that some people (growing these last few years) would rather pay than walk a block to the polls.
Glad to hear someone deflating the myth of Athenian democracy. I remember learning about it in middle school and getting the sense that Athens was some sort of incredible egalitarian utopia, at least centuries ahead of its time, a picture which I’m sure the rest of the Delian League would have some comments for.
I remember that this was how it was initially presented in school as well. While certainly a more just system for Athenians in Athens it was far from ideal and their foreign policy was no different from autocratic Greek city states. Athens even backed oligarchic over democratic factions in other cities purely out of realpolitik considerations, the commitment to "democracy" was not substantial or fundamental
They did not have an ideological attachment to democracy as modern Americans do. Democracy is used in modern politics to justify the mandate to rule a nation-state, so it is entrenched in propaganda. Athens didn't need that because the democracy wasn't used to justify the state, it was only used to produce consensus within the ruling elite, who have the 'citizen' status. That elite then imposed their will on the non-citizens (not foreigners, but native residents, see below) and they didn't have to use anything like 'democracy' as a justification.
The ruling class of every Greek polis was basically a cartel that extracted resources from those they ruled. These cartels had different rules and characteristics between each polis. Some cartels were larger than others, and the Athenian citizenry was large compared to other such cartels, such as the Spartiates, the citizen-class of Sparta, or even smaller cliques of despots and tyrants. But in any case the un-represented people they extracted from was of course larger. There were slaves of course, but also there would be large populations of non-citizen free people who resided in the city and its territory, similar to modern "permanent resident status". Except unlike modern USA, there's no naturalization (only rare exceptions), and citizenship is traced through blood, so your family would be non-citizen, 2nd-class residents, permanently. None of these populations got to participate in Athenian democracy.
@@tribunateSPQR That's strange, I was taught it was democratic but our teachers deifnitevly stressed how they were not egalitarian at all and excluded a ton of people from voting.
Athens was only exceptional in certain ways. For example, male citizens even if they were very poor, could participate in the democracy and even be elected. This was quite rare or even revolutionary at that time. The Romans, by contrast, would only elect men of standing . It was also a more open society than some: freedom of speech really existed for a while (although it was later stopped). The city achieved some astonishing things in philosophy, literature, art, and politics. However, these achievements were also quite limited. We may think of Rome as a city that oppressed and enslaved millions. However, Rome had special treaties with Italian cities that granted them protection and some of the privileges of citizenship, in certain cases. It was actually a little bit better than how the Athenians viewed other Greeks. Roman elections were definitely not one man one vote. It was the case that when they elected consuls, the upper classes got EXTRA votes.
@yaoiboi60 Women were excluded from voting in both Greece and Rome. Slaves could not vote. If Romans liberated their slaves, their status greatly improved but there were further steps needed before a freedman could become a citizen and vote. Women in Athens were veiled. They were supposed to stay home and weave cloth. However, Roman women had more freedom to move about and do business.
"inter-elite rivalries"
"Entered a death spiral of contested elections."
Well that's ominous.
Nothing to see here, move along citizen
The founders were massive Roman Republic fans, never forget that. Besides the British the Roman system was the other inspiration for the American constitution.
@@ethanduncan1646Well, the founders knew that a “pure” democracy, like Greece, OR a “pure” republic, like the Roman Republic, could be bad. That’s why they created a Constitution. The Constitution imposed limits on what government could do.
@@HVACSoldier
Oh I am not condemning the constitution, far from it. It is perhaps the only thing nowadays keeping us from descending into a horrible death spiral of competing populist demagogues taking over our country. They did their best but the rot eventually worms it's way in no matter how well you build a system of government.
The trick is balancing the ability to gain some control over the average ignorant voter to avoid them from cratering our country, while also providing the legitimacy of democratic elections and for the masses to believe their individual voices matter so those in power can better legislate.
@@HVACSoldier yea the US system works, i mean it's not like there's been any contested elections, or questioning of the legitimacy of government in the US.
“The past is worth learning from, and the future is worth fighting for”
bro just casually dropped the hardest quote of all time. loved the video!
Thanks, really glad that you enjoyed that! We try to spend a little extra time writing the scripts and I'm glad that people appreciate the extra effort
What I would add, is that both of those efforts are interdependent.
And I thought the Galactic Republic was alien.
At least Rome never stooped so low as to have a Senator Jar Jar Binks
Senator Jarius Binkius
@@user-jq1mg2mz7o hey now! Don’t forget Padmé’s the one who left him in charge.
She was a real nice well meaning rich lady, but bad judge of interpersonal character.
Not sure which famous Rome-adjacent lady and or bro this makes her like, but there’s a comparison in there somewhere.
@@mra4521 haha maybe Claudius? A typically well-meaning guy who didn't understand that not everyone (particularly not his wives) were as good natured as he was
@@user-jq1mg2mz7o Meesa tinking Carthago deeeelendaa est
It's circular reasoning to say that most recognized states are democracies; the governments which aren't democracies have a hard time being recognized as states.
Very true, for example I think its well understood that its only because Saudi Arabia has such control over oil that they are allowed to be as openly repressive as they want while still being shielded by the US
There's a big distinction between a government not getting recognised as legitimate and non-recognition of the nation in its entirety. Afghanistan has recognition. Taliban' doesn't.
care to illuminate the class on what non-democratic states aren't being recognised solely on the basis of them being non-democratic?
The Vatican literally can't join the UN fully because it's a monarchy.
@@daverapp the Vatican has expressed 0 wish to be anything other than a permanent observer in the UN. Further against your point, both Saudi Arabia & Oman are both absolute monarchies and Iran was a founding member of the UN despite being a dejure absolute monarchy.
This whole corruption and buying off people makes me really wonder if there was a ancient psudo-corporate aspect, like company equivalents doing all sorts of shady stuff. I heard that Gladiators sometimes advertised "products." Maybe it is my fascination with megacorps and cyberpunk settings, but have similar analogues have happened at such times?
Corporations and businesses certainly existed but wouldn't have played a significant role in politics - it was still primarily about individuals. Wealth was still highly centralized and wealthy Romans did not have diverse asset portfolios that they left up to managers like the modern rich, this kept the wealthy more influential than"business interests" as we would define them
National Syndicalism/Fascism weren’t too much of a far cry to Classical Corporatism
Should also note that having a trade was considered quite vulgar by rich Romans. If they could stay rich off of land ownership without having to do business, they'd do that.
@@YossarianVanDriver
It was the rich but not noble merchant class who were the primary backers of the the plebian assembly to boot. They were upset that despite having monetary wealth that could even exceed the patritician class, they were lower class because they did not come from the right dynasty.
Class IV Plebian here, ready for Velite service (which i'll happily give to the Gracchi)
Before watching: Would it fit UN standards? Probably not, only a certain amount of greek cities would actually pass. In comparison to other states of the time, though, the Romans gave more decision-making power to their lower classes. Haven't heard any other state with a Tribune of the Plebs.
After Watching: Republican Rome, either in a vacuum or sealed off from the world, would absolutely have lasted to the modern day with most people living in it pretty much happy with how that government works. No revolutions, probably able to integrate with the modern world. Legit enough for Today.
The possibility of the plebiscite to pass actual legislation is an amazing instance of direct democracy and the tribune of the plebs is a very cool office. Rome may not have been democratic or free by any modern standards but both of these institutions would be welcome here
@@tribunateSPQRyep and all that direct democracy did for the Romans was place politics in the hands of the street gangs run by said tribunes of the plebs.
Yes as a local system of government it worked well. The society the system was built on broke down and took the system with it.
@@sambarnett6996 well said - the Roman republic was designed to rule a city state, not an intercontinental empire.
@@tribunateSPQR
For as much as people lionize Brutus and the conspirators, Caesar and Augustus's reforms were correct and popular if Rome was going to last as a Hegemon. They could either keep the republic or keep their empire, not both.
the perfect kind of video on the more nitty gritty parts of Roman life. It's nice to be able to know, or even have enough info left to infer, how people might have felt about the system they lived in back then and how they interacted with it
Glad you enjoyed it! there are lots of great channels that focus on the military history of Roma and the lives of the Emperors but we want to bring in more slice of life stuff that centers the experience of the average Roman
My goodness. I had to stop and rewind parts of this. Unlike most youtube content, which makes a point and then hammers it ad- nauseam, this presentation is extremely dense. Every sentence builds on the last. Will watch your succeeding videos with interest.
In Latin, Res Publica didn't refer to any form of government, but literally "the public matter" in general, as opposed to private matters
Thanks for this video. One of my pet peeves watching historical content in the internet is how so many describe the collapse of the Roman Republic as the "end of Democracy". The Roman Republic wasn't a "democracy" not in their time, and not even by the standards of our time. I understand that many of these videos are trying to push a good message "we must be careful to preserve democracy", but it's not good history. Using the standards of the time, Rome should probably be classified as an oligarchy, not very different of similar systems in Greece or Carthage. For example, the model of two executives, a senate and a group of elected officials was used also by Sparta. The collapse of the Roman Republic was not "the end of democracy", it was just the conclusion of a century of fierce political competiton and rampant corruption in Rome, which ended up in disastrous civil wars and in a de facto military dictatoship. There are lessons to learn of this history, but let's not push the envelope so hard: The Roman Republic was not a democracy, it was a system designed to concentrate political and economical power in the hands of a few.
The issue with the Centuries and votes carrying unequal weight actually didn’t get dealt with in American politics until the 1960s. Rural politicians wary of the power of growing cities would intentionally give them fewer districts than they deserved, only exacerbated by their refusal to change the boundaries for decades on end. By the time this malapportionment was banned, some congressional and state legislative districts had 10 times as many people as other districts in the same state. Not nearly as bad as the Romans, but still pretty bad.
Great point, thanks for adding this bit of context. Unfortunately the founders took far too much inspiration from Rome when drawing up our electoral system and we've had to fight at every step to achieve more equitable representation.
This is the first video I've seen from this channel and I love it! Very well written! Keep up the good work
Thanks for the kind words! This encouragement really means a lot to smaller channels like us and keeps us going.
Glad to have you back! Missed your content
thanks! more to come in the coming weeks!
This is a really good video, one of the best written, especially in vocabulary, I've seen in a while. Deserves more views
Thank you for the high praise! We try to put a lot of effort into the content and kind words like this are what lets us know that the attention to detail is appreciated.
The U.N. wouldn't pass a Roman inspection!
This comment wins 👏😂❤
Your artwork is very impressive. Also, your ability to use the English language correctly is greatly appreciated. 5 stars … good work!
Thanks! We pride ourselves on both
A great video, thanks. Some viewers would probably expect a rundown of Roman procedure against some set of UN criteria, but fine with me.
Where I would disagree:
1. I don't think it entirely fair to say the Roman system was "designed". Rather, it was somewhat evolving all the time. What it looked like was a result of competing elite and popular push that you're describing in the later of the video. Machiavelli in his "Discourses on Livy" even says that the conflict of orders was a factor that made the republic successful.
2. One could (in a way) map most modern political systems into tribes and centuries. You vote in a special narrow class of representatives, who then vote on laws. You have no say on what they do for multiple years (this would be a ridiculous concept for most ancient republics), and they are subject to party discipline. In Rome, the people voted on laws, and in the assemblies of the plebs it was even democratic.
What is more, the magistrates could be stopped by tribunes of the plebs for any reason - ius intercessionis. Every year, the plebs would elect a bunch of tribunes. In general, I think we swung too far in the direction of undue modern triumphalism and lack of recognition when speaking about historical republics. But your description of that problem does correct that somewhat, I think.
Really refreshing viewpoint on Roman history that isn’t just worshipping muh empire
Much appreciated - we try to bring a fresh perspective to the classical history youtube niche because while the Romans were very interesting, it would have been a horrible society to live in. They contributed much to the making of the modern world but it came at a horrible cost and we have to strive to be better than they were
Great analysis - thanks again for uploading this
Glad you enjoyed it!
it was great to hear from Titus!
Answer: It depends if the Roman senate allows America to sell their oil.
Correct answer
Good dive, especially in using Greece as a comparison and that systems limitations
thank you! very glad you found it informative
this video is really insightful and I know little of rome (only the broad strokes) so i might check the rest of your channel
Glad you enjoyed it! Hopefully you find our other content insightful!
I did write an essay on how democratic the Roman Republic was for my GCSE Latin, especially comparing it to the EU. Whilst it often went wrong, i have a lot of respect for the dual consulship idea. Great video!
thank you - very glad you found it useful!
I greatly admire the honest telling of Roman history in this and your other videos. Rome is probably one of the most difficult subjects of research because of the amount of romantization(hah) and pop history misinformation on the part of the vast majority of people talking about it, especially in bad faith actors who just love the aesthetic of the Pax Romana legions.
As a political science major I find this stuff on the Roman republic fucking fascinating. I kinda wanna write a historical fiction novel on the the plebeian secession and the creation of their assembly called like 'the bloody summer of 494' or something like that lol. Do you have any particular sources you reference for this topic? I'm interested in doing some more reading on it
Thanks! Glad to know the alternative perspective is appreciated.
That is a fascinating era and one that could use with more representation in fiction - some good sources for this are:
Social Struggles in Archaic Rome - Edited by Kurt A Raafaub
A Critical History of Early Rome - Gary Forsythe
Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic - P.A. Brunt
and though I haven't read it yet, the forthcoming book "Strike: Labor, Unions, and Resistance in the Roman Empire" by Sarah E. Bond looks like it will be an excellent treatment of these issues. It is high on my list for books to read in the new year
I value the reminder to not think of people in the past as strictly dumber.
thanks - it's central to our conception of history that those who inhabited the ancient world were really no different from us at the base level. However, radically different cultures and values made their worldviews completely alien to our own.
Underrated channel
Thank you!!
Great video as always!
Thanks so much! Glad you enjoyed it! More on the way in the coming weeks so stay tuned
This is such a good video, I don't know how you're not bigger lol
Thank you so much! Each comment helps us grow so thank you for doing your part to give us a little algorithmic boost
Very interesting, thanks for sharing
Glad you enjoyed it
TFW you realize that Mel Brooks was basically right about the Roman Senate in History of the World Part I.
He has been proven right about so much
True Roman Republicanism for True Romans!
Hear hear!
This sorta unequal voting curia system stuff is not that weird if you know about how European monarchies before or after the French revolution and the 1848 revolts tried to placate liberals, nationalists and socialists. Imperial Austria had a curia system with unequal representation till like 1907 for the Reichsrat.
Here when this has 13k/14k views and 15.2k subs
Hopefully we reach the lofty projections you've outlined here - each comment helps, so thanks for your feedback!
Video 2000 years in the future: "Did 21-st century democracy adhere to our Xenospecies Representation Principles?"
5:22 sounds like the electoral College to me
edit: 6:00 oh to fast on the keyboard
0:53 The funny thing is Oman has elections
Since the Consultative Assembly is non-partisan only gives advice and its legislation must be endorsed by the monarch it isn't too much different from the Roman Senate during the empire.
As does the Vatican City
Jeez, and I thought the Electoral College was aggravating
I don’t know if anyone has any records of the exact results, but I’m wondering what the most “unfair” result of a Roman election was, as in “So-and-so won the election despite only receiving 40% of the vote” kind of thing
Fantastic Vid 👏
Thank you! 👍
Did all of these institutions exist at the same time, or were any replaced or just stopped functioning? Also, did any of these institutions have anything to do with 'the senate'? Or was that an entirely separate organization?
The Curiate assembly existed during the monarchy and while never abolished it was rarely used during the Republic - replaced by the Tribal and Centuriate Assemblies. The Plebian assembly came into existence later and eventaully achieved parity with the Tribal and Centuriate assemblies (though each was used for different functions).
The Senate actually had no formal power, it merely "advised" magistrates on the best course of action, while magistrates weren't legally bound to honor the Senate's wishes they typically did so in deference to precedent. The Senate was made up of former magistrates or those who had achieved great wealth and prestige and were thus appointed to the body.
@@tribunateSPQR Thank you for the answer! It's funny to find out that the Senate was technically just an advisory panel but is now the most well known political body of ancient Rome
@@pastramiandrye happy to help clarify! Romans had such a deep respect for tradition and precedent that Senatorial decrees effectively did carry the force of law but as the Republic fractured, leaders like the Gracchi and Caesar realized that it could be bypassed to achieve their goals
An interesting topic
Thank you!
At some point I got impression that even though roman republic and athenian democracy functioned wildly differently, res publica was supposed to be just "latinization" of greek concept from their contemporary POV and only when they were borrowed into other languages they got their distinct "republic not democracy" thing that some yankees like to say.
But now I'm not sure where I got that.
10+ years of niche Roman topics and global military history have truly blessed my algorithm. The Romans were some of the biggest dicks in history but they left so much that it's hard to not dive in.
Welcome aboard!
That's pretty much our stance as well, the Romans were complete assholes but they were around for so long and did so much that they're impossible to ignore
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton: "write that down"
Fun fact the distinction between “Democracy” and “Republic” continued into the founding of the United States, with federalists accusing anti federalist of wanting “democracy” and anarchy.
I love this channel
For christ's sakes the US primary elections wouldn't pass a UN inspection
Great point!
You have been banned from r/Pyongyang.
better then being ""banned"" in Pyongyang
No
that's the TL:DR version
“one man one vote that we hold sacrosanct today”
unless you live in florida, then it’s one man like 1.8 vote
Very true - what I meant by this was that while modern democracies don't always provide equal representation, those living in democracies at least state that this is their ideal. It's something voters want put politicians elected under an unequal system are less likely to push for
Votes in Florida count for less, not more. Assuming you're talking about the EC, it's the states with lower populations that have outsized political power.
vote unequality still happens everywhere
Expectation: either shock content of how different the meaning of basic values was back then and just how much was sometimes allowed or the enlightened glory of geniuses/genius cultures inventing clever systems
If they had TV their system probably wouldn't have stood up. Just a thought.
People on ancient rome is truly more inteligent than us.
Most of moral and your values system today are catastrophicaly against the nature and trueness and propitiate hard times.
Plato Quote - "And a democracy, I suppose, comes into being when the poor, winning the victory, put to death some of the other party, drive out others, and grant the rest of the citizens an equal share in both citizenship and offices."
Wouldn't that depend on the time period?
Elections functioned more effectively during certain eras but it it’s our position that they were never open or fair enough to accurately reflect mass public opinion
0:05 i do really want to know what those 6 nations are
Probably kingdoms. Saudi and the others similar ones
Depends whether or not they support American foreign policy interests
unfortunately accurate
In Prussia the upper class had 33% of the votes.
It's frightening to look at a system like that and still realize it was still more progressive than Roman elections
The Sentures sound a lot like the electoral college
Honestly except for the whole slavery thing, which is a bummer, I like the Roman system.
Nice -- thanks. But I disagree with your comment that it's unfair to judge the Roman democracy against modern standards because they "never tried or claimed to adhere to them". North Korea also doesn't try or claim to adhere to those standards, but it's still fair to judge them for it. Now, it _is_ unfair to judge Roman democracy against modern standards, but that's because of the fact that our modern standards didn't exist in those days -- _nobody_ was trying to adhere to them, or even proposing that countries ought to adhere to them.
Would American?
an increasingly valid question
It depends on if Rome were allied to the US or not
unfortunately I think you're probably right
I love that we moved from repressive monarchy to repressive tyrannies of the few we "elect".
Instead of one maniac in charge we know have several hundred maniacs running things. Progress!
Yey!@@tribunateSPQR
Short answer is no.
Bro is telling us the proles should rise up
That’s right
Well is Rome and Ally or an Enemy of the US?
Also relevant - how much oil do they have?
Democracy the God that Failed
The early Roman Republic (before the plebs got more influence) is in a few ways similar to the way public companies like Amazon operate today, indeed with richer stakeholders having more influence.
I think the public companies would do well to take some inspiration from the Republic and create a way for the modern plebs to influence the company direction as well. In particular, they should stop their union busting.
I think it is interesting how the boundaries between a country and a company are not always clear. This was clear with the Dutch East Indies (VOC) which had an army and minted their own coins, but can also be seen in modern things where certain companies now rule the internet as if they were countries, capable of imposing laws (terms of service) and taxes (30% cut). (This comparison works quite well, with many sites having 'police' in mods and having an abstract 'army' to defend against DDOS attacks and similar.)
However, there is a clear gap in governing tactics between western countries and their companies (which can be stakeholder republics like described, or even private=dictatures). From a modern POV, seeing the Roman Republic as a country makes the governing overly elitist, but if you treat it more like almost a company then it is quite democratic. This gap feels so weird to me.
Gratias vobis magnas ago.
13:33 The last thing CONSERVATIVES like is what the people think in political culture. I am SO CORRECT yeap.
If you're gonna talk about political science the thing you wanna constantly be aware of is plain old useless irrelevant tribalism. And I mean this about any left-leaning person as well, I don't want them taking any unearned crap.
interesting video but Would Roman Elections Pass a U.N. Inspection?
Not to mention the significant slave populations
This more shows how overused and stupid the term democracy is. America worked because it was a Republic.
5:30
literally USA today
lol not a chance
Not in the slightest
This is a very cool video, but it misses an important point in the premise: the UN doesn't do election monitoring
Democracy is pretty mid
Just a short truism: the Roman parliamentary system was never democratic.
monarchy looks more appealing every day i live under this sham oligarchy
I don't believe that dissatisfaction with oligarchic influence in democracy should cause you to pine for monarchy as the chief faults of oligarchy are caused by a concentration of control and influence within a small clique - something that is only compounded further in a monarchy. Creating a just society requires power to be diffused as widely as possible, monarchy would only make things worse and that's assuming we had a competent monarch which is rarely the case.
How about socialism?
@varalderfreyr8438 I believe it's more like the attitude a government has towards resources, rather than the form of government itself.
@@tribunateSPQR Note: reposted because youtube removed my comment. Probably because it used to contain a censored word or two. I have tried to alter the text in a way that doesn't trigger the system.
I think you'd be a fan of Legend of the Galactic Heroes. After the Battle of Vermillion, the leader of the Galactic Empire debates the merits of democracy and autocracy with the defeated de facto military leader of the Free Planets Alliance, a democratic entity. The crux of the emperor's argument against democracies is twofold:
1. Democracies get ever more corrupted as they age.
2. This corruption further dilutes the effectiveness of a democracy's executive power. Eventually, this leads democracies to crash and burn. He argues that autocracies, on the other hand, offer the greatest efficiency in implementing reforms since its executive power. If there's something that needs to be corrected, it will be done instantaneously while democracy would take its sweet time due to corruption and separation of powers.
However, there is a counterpoint to both of these points that the democratic commander offers:
1. Democracy, by it's nature, can change and will make many reforms over its existence. That is less likely to happen in an autocracy.
2. A just and competent autocratic ruler is rare.
Ultimately, the context here is important. The emperor is a former revolutionary leader who saved his nation from the worst form of government possible; a corrupt feudalistic dictatorship. He implemented many reforms such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the end of feudalism and serfdom, the abolition of nobility, social and economic climbing through merit, legalized unions, etc. On the opposite side, you have the most ironic opponent; a semi-totalitarian state which was democratic for most of its existence until just recently. That government was elected, but it represses its citizens in many ways and keeps a tight hold on power through deceit and illegal manoeuvres.
Both nations are also successor states of a the Galactic Federation, which saw a space nah-zee take power and abuse it horribly. So from the empire's point of view, they feel justified because they can just say "see what the horrible space nah-zees did because democracy just let them?" ...which isn't far off what people say in real life whenever they talk about how the angry painter was elected before he gained power. But to that the Alliance will always reply that it is when the democracy became a dictatorship that things turned sour.
only six countries call themselves democracies?? what about eswatini. unwatchable,
dprk slander with a cnn screenshot, rare L
Apologies for our brief display of liberalism. Entering a struggle session to ensure it never happens again
@@tribunateSPQR 🫡
Wrong. Vatican is a democracy. Very limited but democratic nonetheless.
Vatican City is a self-described absolute monarchy. The Pope answers to no one. Obviously the Pope is elected by the College of Cardinals, but that just makes it an elective monarchy like the Holy Roman Empire.
Well technically yes but it doesn’t draw it’s power from the people, it draws it from God since the Cardinals are essentially trying to interpret God’s will
That's not quite true. The only 'democratic' thing about Vatican City is the system to elect a new Pope, and cardinals actually represent only a fraction of Vatican City's citizenship.
Hahahahahahahahah.
You should remake the beginning of the video, replace all the imagery of Russia and Russian figures with pictures of Joe Biden 😁
Why would I do that
Your candidate lost, get over it
@@BritishRepublicsn You have a King, get over it
@@ninny65 campaign for Trump against Biden? Sure
Claim Biden cheated and rigged the vote? Delusional, sore loser
America is not a democracy either, it(like Rome) is a republic.
As an American, I want to make it clear that "one man, one vote" is not something I hold sacred nor does our Constitution.
And hopefully the 1964 mandate against our States from the U.S. Supreme Court will be overturned in due time.
The "one man, one vote" principle does not appear in the constitution but it has been affirmed by the US Supreme Court, not simply in Westberry v. Sanders as you imply. This is an excellent example of how we can (and should) move past the shortsighted and insufficient primitive US constitution and towards a better and more representative government.
May more regulations and laws come to pass over the coming years that strip power from those who seek to create unequal voting systems due to their inability to actually win open and fair elections.
@@tribunateSPQR I would say we should have an open discussion and debate on such a matter instead of leaving it to Nine Robed Judges acting as Philosopher Kings.
Let's move towards actually Amended the document you find so primitive.
Instead of inventing this "constitutional" mandate out of whole cloth, we can actually point to the Supreme Law of the Land as the Law on the matter.
(Also I was thinking of Reynolds v. Sims which had a much larger impact and destroyed the Legislative framework of nearly every State in the Union)
The central idea of antique Athenian democracy is entirely forgotten: putting limits on the oligarchy. Rome was entirely oligarchic. Athens had randomly selected and strictly time-limited citizen councils.
Especially the USA is not democratic at all since it does not have real political parties, instead corporations (the oligarchy) buy politicians and their votes since "Citizens United". Seen this way, Putin is much more democratic since he limits the oligarchs and is fighting fascism instead of boosting it like in Israel and Ukraine.
You're suggesting that Russia has "real political parties"?
You were cooking until you mentioned Putin. The tyrantocracy (tyrannocracy?) of Russia that was established under Lenin is not better than oligarchy.
@@Adsper2000Oh China is also much more democratic than the US. Because they keep money as a public utility and put strict limits on oligarchic "privatisation". US-American "elections" are are meaningless rituals to placate the masses because the real power is not affected.
The more of a freewheeling oligarchy the US becomes, the more they will go down the Roman way of civil war and disintegration. It suits the rich.
Yes and then the Athenians freely voted the oligarchs into power. Then they freely voted to go to war with Sparta, and they freely voted to kill Socrates. Also I don’t think the Israelis and Ukrainians are fascist by even the most liberal definition of fascism.
@@sambarnett6996Ehm, no. Athenian democracy was abolished by Alexander and his father Phillip. And sure it had way too little checks and safeguards, but the central idea of restricting the oligarchy is as current now as it was then.