History of democracy

Democracy is generally associated with the efforts of the ancient Greeks, whom 18th-century intellectuals such as Montesquieu considered the founders of Western civilization. These individuals attempted to leverage these early democratic experiments into a new template for post-monarchical political organization. The extent to which these 18th-century democratic revivalists succeeded in turning the democratic ideals of the ancient Greeks into the dominant political institution of the next 300 years is hardly debatable, even if the moral justifications they often employed might be. Nevertheless, the critical historical juncture catalyzed by the resurrection of democratic ideals and institutions fundamentally transformed the ensuing centuries and has dominated the international landscape since the dismantling of the final vestige of the British Empire following the end of the Second World War, as well as the end of the Cold War and the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Modern representative democracies attempt to bridge the gap between Rousseau's depiction of the state of nature and Hobbes's depiction of society as inevitably authoritarian through 'social contracts' that enshrine the rights of the citizens, curtail the power of the state, and grant agency through the right to vote.

Antiquity

Prehistoric origins

Anthropologists have identified forms of proto-democracy that date back to small bands of hunter-gatherers that predate the establishment of agrarian, sedentary societies and still exist virtually unchanged in isolated indigenous groups today. In these groups of generally 50–100 individuals, often tied closely by familial bonds, decisions are reached by consensus or majority and many times without the designation of any specific chief.

These types of democracy are commonly identified as tribalism, or primitive democracy. In this sense, a primitive democracy usually takes shape in small communities or villages when there are face-to-face discussions in a village, council or with a leader who has the backing of village elders or other cooperative forms of government. This becomes more complex on a larger scale, such as when the village and city are examined more broadly as political communities. All other forms of rule – including monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, and oligarchy – have flourished in more urban centers, often those with concentrated populations. David Graeber and David Wengrow, in The Dawn of Everything, argue in contrast that cities and early settlements were more varied and unpredictable in terms of how their political systems alternated and evolved from more to less democratic.

The concepts (and name) of democracy and constitution as a form of government originated in ancient Athens in the sixth-century BC (circa 508 BC). In ancient Greece, where there were many city-states with different forms of government, democracy ("rule by the demos", i.e. citizen body) was contrasted with governance by elites (aristocracy, literally "rule by the best"), by one person (monarchy), by tyrants (tyranny), etc.

Potential proto-democratic societies

Although fifth-century BC Athens is widely considered to have been the first state to develop a sophisticated system of rule that we today call democracy, in recent decades scholars have explored the possibility that advances toward democratic government occurred independently in the Near East, the Indian subcontinent, and elsewhere before this.

Mesopotamia

Studying pre-Babylonian Mesopotamia, Thorkild Jacobsen used Sumerian epic, myth, and historical records to identify what he has called primitive democracy. By this, Jacobsen means a government in which ultimate power rests with the mass of free (non-slave) male citizens, although "the various functions of government are as yet little specialised [and] the power structure is loose". In early Sumer, kings like Gilgamesh did not hold the autocratic power that later Mesopotamian rulers wielded. Rather, major city-states functioned with councils of elders and "young men" (likely free men bearing arms) that possessed the final political authority, and had to be consulted on all major issues such as war.

The work has gained little outright acceptance. Scholars criticize the use of the word "democracy" in this context since the same evidence also can be interpreted to demonstrate a power struggle between primitive monarchy and noble classes, a struggle in which the common people function more like pawns rather than any kind of sovereign authority. Jacobsen conceded that the vagueness of the evidence prohibits the separation between the Mesopotamian democracy from a primitive oligarchy.

David Graeber and David Wengrow in their 2021 book The Dawn of Everything, A New History of Humanity posit that large popular assemblies might have been used in Uruk, in southern Mesopotamia, back in 3300 BC, and that Teotihuacan, in present-day Mexico, took a sudden turn toward egalitarianism around AD 300.

Phoenicia

The practice of "governing by assembly" was at least part of how ancient Phoenicians made important decisions. One source is the story of Wen-Amon, an Egyptian trader who travelled north to the Phoenician city of Byblos around 1100 BC to trade for Phoenician lumber. After loading his lumber, a group of pirates surrounded Wen-Amon and his cargo ship. The Phoenician prince of Byblos was called in to fix the problem, whereupon he summoned his mw-'dwt, an old Semitic word meaning assembly, to reach a decision. This shows that Byblos was ruled in part by a popular assembly (drawn from what subpopulation and equipped with exactly what power is not known exactly).

Ancient Iran

Several forms of proto-democratic governance also existed in Ancient Iran, particularly among the Medes, Achaemenids, and Parthians.

The Gathas, attributed to the Iranian prophet Zoroaster in 6th century BC, emphasize moral choice, civic responsibility, and the selection of righteous leaders. In the sacred text Yasna 30, Zoroaster calls on people to "listen to the best arguments, ponder with good judgment, and choose freely their path". The concept of Vohu Khshathra Vairya (lit. "Good Dominion Worthy of Choice") reflects the ideal of a just, elected rulership. According to scholars, Zoroastrianism promoted a form of spiritual and political democracy, emphasizing individual judgment and non-discrimination between men and women in civic decision-making.

According to Diodorus Siculus, following the fall of the Assyrian Empire, the Medes established independent city-states that were "administered in a democratic fashion". Similarly, Herodotus describes the Medes' revolt against the Assyrians as a popular uprising that led to self-governance before eventually transitioning to monarchy under Deioces in 7th century BC.

One of the earliest recorded constitutional debates took place in 522 BCE, following the death of the usurper Gaumata. Herodotus recounts a pivotal discussion among seven Persian nobles regarding the future of governance. Otanes proposed a democratic system based on equality before the law, appointment of officials by lot, public deliberation, and collective rule. Though ultimately unsuccessful in swaying the decision, Otanes' speech is seen by some scholars as advocating a radical form of democracy, and his arguments are cited as among the earliest theoretical defenses of democratic governance. Herodotus later defends the historicity of this debate, stating that Otanes had indeed advised the Persians "to become democratic" (demokrateesthai).

During the Parthian Empire, political power was shared between the monarchy and a bicameral parliament known as the Magistan (Greek: Megisthanes). According to Strabo and Justin, the council was composed of noble families (including the Seven Great Houses of Iran) and religious scholars, primarily the magi. Although the kings held ultimate power, the parliament often played a decisive role in royal succession and policy-making, suggesting an early model of constitutional monarchy. The first session of the Megisthanes is reported to have occurred during the reign of Mithridates I in 137 BCE.

Indian subcontinent

Another claim for early democratic institutions comes from the independent republics of India, saṅghas and gaṇas, which existed as early as the 6th century BC and persisted in some areas until the 4th century. In addition, Diodorus—a Greek historian who wrote two centuries after the time of Alexander the Great's invasion of India—mentions that independent and democratic states existed in India.

The chief characteristics of the gana seem to have been as follows: 1) A deliberative assembly that discussed all major state decisions. Silence was taken for consent, and decisions were usually by consensus, though the existence of voting as a rarely exercised procedure is attested. The body met regularly, had full financial, administrative, and judicial authority (including the power of life and death), and, at least in some of the states, seems to have been open for attendance by all free men. Speaking appears not to have been restricted to officers; it is unclear whether proposals could be made from the floor. 2) A chief (usually called raja) who was elected by the gana and apparently always belonged to a family of the noble K'satriya Varna. He typically was the son of the previous chief, though the assembled gana had final say. The chief coordinated his activities with the assembly and, in some states, with a powerful council of other nobles. 3) Other officials who are rarely mentioned. They seem to have obeyed the decisions of the gana. The Licchavis had a primary governing body of 7,077 rajas, presumably the heads of the most important families. In contrast, the Shakyas, during the period around Gautama Buddha, had the assembly open to all men, rich and poor. Early "republics" or gaṇasaṅgha, such as Mallakas, centered in the city of Kusinagara, and the Vajji (or Vṛji) League, centered in the city of Vaishali, existed as early as the 6th century BC and persisted in some areas until the 4th century CE. The most famous clan amongst the ruling confederate tribes of the Vajji Mahajanapada were the Licchavis. The Magadha kingdom included republican communities such as the community of Rajakumara. Villages had their own assemblies under their local chiefs called Gramakas. Their administrations were divided into executive, judicial, and military functions.

Scholars differ over how best to describe these governments, and the vague, sporadic quality of the evidence allows for wide disagreements. Some emphasize the central role of the assemblies and thus tout them as democracies; other scholars focus on the upper-class domination of the leadership and possible control of the assembly and see an oligarchy or an aristocracy. Despite the assembly's obvious power, it has not yet been established whether the composition and participation were truly popular. The first main obstacle is the lack of evidence describing the popular power of the assembly. This is reflected in the Arthashastra, an ancient handbook for monarchs on how to rule efficiently. It contains a chapter on how to deal with the sangas, which includes injunctions on manipulating the noble leaders, yet it does not mention how to influence the mass of the citizens—a surprising omission if democratic bodies, not the aristocratic families, actively controlled the republican governments. Another issue is the persistence of the four-tiered Varna class system. The duties and privileges on the members of some varnas or tribes might have affected the access to some roles in the state for a section of members, regardless of the formality of the institutions. A central tenet of democracy is the notion of shared decision-making power. The absence of any concrete notion of citizen equality across these varna system boundaries leads many scholars to claim that the true nature of gaṇas and saṅghas is not comparable to truly democratic institutions.

Sparta

Ancient Greece, in its early period, was a loose collection of independent city states called poleis. Many of these poleis were oligarchies. The most prominent Greek oligarchy, and the state with which democratic Athens is most often and most fruitfully compared, was Sparta. Yet Sparta, in its rejection of private wealth as a primary social differentiator, was a peculiar kind of oligarchy and some scholars note its resemblance to democracy. In Spartan government, the political power was divided between four bodies: two Spartan kings (diarchy), gerousia (Council of Gerontes (elders), including the two kings), the ephors (representatives of the citizens who oversaw the kings), and the ecclesia (assembly of Spartans).

The two kings served as the head of the government. They ruled simultaneously, but they came from two separate lines. The dual kingship diluted the effective power of the executive office. The kings shared their judicial functions with other members of the gerousia. The members of the gerousia had to be over the age of 60 and were elected for life. In theory, any Spartan over that age could stand for election. However, in practice, they were selected from wealthy, aristocratic families. The gerousia possessed the crucial power of legislative initiative. Apella, the most democratic element, was the assembly where Spartans above the age of 30 elected the members of the gerousia and the ephors, and accepted or rejected gerousia's proposals. Finally, the five ephors were Spartans chosen in apella to oversee the actions of the kings and other public officials and, if necessary, depose them. They served for one year and could not be re-elected for a second term. Over the years, the ephors held great influence on the formation of foreign policy and acted as the main executive body of the state. Additionally, they had full responsibility for the Spartan educational system, which was essential for maintaining the high standards of the Spartan army. As Aristotle noted, ephors were the most important key institution of the state, but because often they were appointed from the whole social body it resulted in very poor men holding office, with the ensuing possibility that they could easily be bribed.

The creator of the Spartan system of rule was the legendary lawgiver Lycurgus. He is associated with the drastic reforms that were instituted in Sparta after the revolt of the helots in the second half of the 7th century BC. In order to prevent another helot revolt, Lycurgus devised the highly militarized communal system that made Sparta unique among the city-states of Greece. All his reforms were directed towards the three Spartan virtues: equality (among citizens), military fitness, and austerity. It is also probable that Lycurgus delineated the powers of the two traditional organs of the Spartan government, the gerousia and the apella.

The reforms of Lycurgus were written as a list of rules/laws called Great Rhetra, making it the world's first written constitution. In the following centuries, Sparta became a military superpower, and its system of rule was admired throughout the Greek world for its political stability. In particular, the concept of equality played an important role in Spartan society. The Spartans referred to themselves as όμοιοι (Homoioi, men of equal status). It was also reflected in the Spartan public educational system, agoge, where all citizens irrespective of wealth or status had the same education. This was admired almost universally by contemporaries, from historians such as Herodotus and Xenophon to philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. In addition, the Spartan women, unlike elsewhere, enjoyed "every kind of luxury and intemperance" including rights such as the right to inheritance, property ownership, and public education.

Overall, the Spartans were relatively free to criticize their kings and they were able to depose and exile them. However, despite these 'democratic' elements in the Spartan constitution, there are two cardinal criticisms, classifying Sparta as an oligarchy. First, individual freedom was restricted, since as Plutarch writes "no man was allowed to live as he wished", but as in a "military camp" all were engaged in the public service of their polis. And second, the gerousia effectively maintained the biggest share of power of the various governmental bodies.

The political stability of Sparta also meant that no significant changes in the constitution were made. The oligarchic elements of Sparta became even stronger, especially after the influx of gold and silver from the victories in the Persian Wars. In addition, Athens, after the Persian Wars, was becoming the hegemonic power in the Greek world and disagreements between Sparta and Athens over supremacy emerged. These led to a series of armed conflicts known as the Peloponnesian War, with Sparta prevailing in the end. However, the war exhausted both poleis and Sparta was in turn humbled by Thebes at the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC. It was all brought to an end a few years later, when Philip II of Macedon crushed what remained of the power of the factional city-states to his South.

Athens

Athens is often regarded by western scholars as the birthplace of democracy and remains an important reference point for democracy, as evidenced by the etymological origins of democracy in English and many other languages being traced back to the Greek words dêmos '(common) people' and krátos 'force/might'. Literature about the Athenian democracy spans over centuries with the earliest works being The Republic of Plato and Politics of Aristotle, continuing in the 16th century with Discourses of Niccolò Machiavelli.

Athens emerged in the 7th century BC, like many other poleis, with a dominating powerful aristocracy. However, this domination led to exploitation, creating significant economic, political, and social problems. These problems were exacerbated early in the 6th century BC; and, as "the many were enslaved to few, the people rose against the notables". At the same time, a number of popular revolutions disrupted traditional aristocracies. This included Sparta in the second half of the 7th century BC. The constitutional reforms implemented by Lycurgus in Sparta introduced a hoplite state that showed, in turn, how inherited governments can be changed and lead to military victory. After a period of unrest between the rich and poor, Athenians of all classes turned to Solon to act as a mediator between rival factions, and reached a generally satisfactory solution to their problems.

Solon and the foundations of democracy

Solon (c. 638 – c. 558 BC), an Athenian (Greek) of noble descent but moderate means, was a lyric poet and later a lawmaker; Plutarch ranked him as one of the Seven Sages of the ancient world. Solon attempted to satisfy all sides by alleviating the suffering of the poor majority without removing all the privileges of the rich minority. Solon divided the Athenians into four property classes, with different rights and duties for each. As the Rhetra did in Lycurgian Sparta, Solon formalized the composition and functions of the governmental bodies. All citizens gained the right to attend the Ecclesia (Assembly) and to vote. The Ecclesia became, in principle, the sovereign body, entitled to pass laws and decrees, elect officials, and hear appeals from the most important decisions of the courts. All but those in the poorest group might serve, a year at a time, on a new Boule of 400, which was to prepare the agenda for the Ecclesia. The higher governmental posts, those of the archons (magistrates), were reserved for citizens of the top two income groups. The retired archons became members of the Areopagus (Council of the Hill of Ares), which like the Gerousia in Sparta, was able to check improper actions of the newly powerful Ecclesia. Solon created a mixed timocratic and democratic system of institutions.

Overall, Solon devised the reforms of 594 BC to avert the political, economic, and moral decline in archaic Athens and gave Athens its first comprehensive code of law. The constitutional reforms eliminated enslavement of Athenians by Athenians, established rules for legal redress against over-reaching aristocratic archons, and assigned political privileges on the basis of productive wealth rather than of noble birth. Some of Solon's reforms failed in the short term, yet he is often credited with having laid the foundations for Athenian democracy.

Democracy under Cleisthenes and Pericles

Even though the Solonian reorganization of the constitution improved the economic position of the Athenian lower classes, it did not eliminate the bitter aristocratic contentions for control of the archonship, the chief executive post. Peisistratos became tyrant of Athens three times from 561 BC and remained in power until his death in 527 BC. His sons Hippias and Hipparchus succeeded him.

After the fall of tyranny (510 BC) and before the year 508–507 BC was over, Cleisthenes proposed a complete reform of the system of government, which later was approved by the popular Ecclesia. Cleisthenes reorganized the population of citizens into ten tribes, with the aim to change the basis of political organization from the family loyalties to political ones, and improve the army's organization. He also introduced the principle of equality of rights for all male citizens, isonomia, by expanding access to power to more citizens. During this period, Athenians first used the word "democracy" (Ancient Greek: δημοκρατία – "rule by the people") to define their new system of government. In the next generation, Athens entered its Golden Age, becoming a great center of literature and art. Greek victories in Persian Wars (499–449 BC) encouraged the poorest Athenians (who participated in the military campaigns) to demand a greater say in the running of their city. In the late 460s, Ephialtes and Pericles presided over a radicalization of power that shifted the balance decisively to the poorest sections of society, by passing laws which severely limited the powers of the Council of the Areopagus and allowed thetes (Athenians without wealth) to occupy public office. Pericles became distinguished as the Athenians' greatest democratic leader, even though he has been accused of running a political machine. In the following passage, Thucydides recorded Pericles, in the funeral oration, describing the Athenian system of rule:

Its administration favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition. The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life.

The Athenian democracy of Cleisthenes and Pericles was based on freedom of citizens (through the reforms of Solon) and on equality of citizens (isonomia) – introduced by Cleisthenes and later expanded by Ephialtes and Pericles. To preserve these principles, the Athenians used lot for selecting officials. Casting lots aimed to ensure that all citizens were "equally" qualified for office, and to avoid any corruption allotment machines were used. Moreover, in most positions chosen by lot, Athenian citizens could not be selected more than once; this rotation in office meant that no-one could build up a power base through staying in a particular position.

The courts formed another important political institution in Athens; they were composed of a large number of juries with no judges, and they were selected by lot on a daily basis from an annual pool, also chosen by lot. The courts had unlimited power to control the other bodies of the government and its political leaders. Participation by the citizens selected was mandatory, and a modest financial compensation was given to citizens whose livelihood was affected by being "drafted" to office. The only officials chosen by elections, one from each tribe, were the strategoi (generals), where military knowledge was required, and the treasurers, who had to be wealthy, since any funds revealed to have been embezzled were recovered from a treasurer's private fortune. Debate was open to all present and decisions in all matters of policy were taken by majority vote in the Ecclesia (compare direct democracy), in which all male citizens could participate (in some cases with a quorum of 6000). The decisions taken in the Ecclesia were executed by the Boule of 500, which had already approved the agenda for the Ecclesia. The Athenian Boule was elected by lot every year and no citizen could serve more than twice.

Overall, the Athenian democracy was not only direct in the sense that decisions were made by the assembled people, but also directest in the sense that the people through the assembly, boule, and courts of law controlled the entire political process and a large proportion of citizens were involved constantly in the public business. And even though the rights of the individual (probably) were not secured by the Athenian constitution in the modern sense, the Athenians enjoyed their liberties not in opposition to the government, but by living in a city that was not subject to another power and by not being subjects themselves to the rule of another person.

The birth of political philosophy

Within the Athenian democratic environment, many philosophers from all over the Greek world gathered to develop their theories. Socrates (470–399 BC) was the first to raise the question, further expanded by his pupil Plato (died 348/347), about the relation/position of an individual within a community. Aristotle (384–322 BC) continued the work of his teacher, Plato, and laid the foundations of political philosophy. The political philosophy developed in Athens was, in the words of Peter Hall, "in a form so rounded, so complete, that hardly anyone added anything of moment to it for well over a millennium". Aristotle systematically analyzed the different systems of rule that the numerous Greek city-states had and divided them into three categories based on how many ruled: the many (democracy/polity), the few (oligarchy/aristocracy), a single person (tyranny, or today: autocracy/monarchy). For Aristotle, the underlying principles of democracy are reflected in his work Politics:

Now a fundamental principle of the democratic form of constitution is liberty—that is what is usually asserted, implying that only under this constitution do men participate in liberty, for they assert this as the aim of every democracy. But one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign. This then is one mark of liberty which all democrats set down as a principle of the constitution. And one is for a man to live as he likes; for they say that this is the function of liberty, inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a slave. This is the second principle of democracy, and from it has come the claim not to be governed, preferably not by anybody, or failing that, to govern and be governed in turns; and this is the way in which the second principle contributes to equalitarian liberty.

Decline, revival, and criticisms

The Athenian democracy, in its two centuries of life-time, twice voted against its democratic constitution (both times during the crisis at the end of the Pelopponesian War of 431 to 404 BC), establishing first the Four Hundred (in 411 BC) and second Sparta's puppet régime of the Thirty Tyrants (in 404 BC). Both votes took place under manipulation and pressure, but democracy was recovered in less than a year in both cases. Reforms following the restoration of democracy after the overthrow of the Thirty Tyrants removed most law-making authority from the Assembly and placed it in randomly selected law-making juries known as nomothetai. Athens restored its democratic constitution again after King Philip II of Macedon (reigned 359–336 BC) and later Alexander the Great (reigned 336–323 BC) unified Greece, but it was politically overshadowed by the Hellenistic empires. Finally, after the Roman conquest of Greece in 146 BC, Athens was restricted to matters of local administration.

However, democracy in Athens declined not only due to external powers, but due to its citizens, such as Plato and his student Aristotle. Because of their influential works, after the rediscovery of classics during the Renaissance, Sparta's political stability was praised, while the Periclean democracy was described as a system of rule where either the less well-born, the mob (as a collective tyrant), or the poorer classes held power. Only centuries afterwards, after the publication of A History of Greece by George Grote from 1846 onwards, did modern political thinkers start to view the Athenian democracy of Pericles positively. In the late 20th century scholars re-examined the Athenian system of rule as a model of empowering citizens and as a "post-modern" example for communities and organizations alike.

Rome

Rome's history has helped preserve the concept of democracy over the centuries. The Romans invented the concept of classics and many works from Ancient Greece were preserved. Additionally, the Roman model of governance inspired many political thinkers over the centuries, and today's modern (representative) democracies imitate more the Roman than the Greek models.

The Roman Republic

Rome was a city-state in Italy next to powerful neighbors; Etruscans had built city-states throughout central Italy since the 13th century BC and in the south were Greek colonies. Similar to other city-states, Rome was ruled by a king elected by the Assemblies. However, social unrest and the pressure of external threats led in 510 BC the last king to be deposed by a group of aristocrats led by Lucius Junius Brutus. A new constitution was crafted, but the conflict between the ruling families (patricians) and the rest of the population, the plebeians continued. The plebs were demanding for definite, written, and secular laws. The patrician priests, who were the recorders and interpreters of the statutes, by keeping their records secret used their monopoly against social change. After a long resistance to the new demands, the Senate in 454 BC sent a commission of three patricians to Greece to study and report on the legislation of Solon and other lawmakers. When they returned, the Assembly in 451 BC chose ten men – a decemviri – to formulate a new code, and gave them supreme governmental power in Rome for two years. This commission, under the supervision of a resolute reactionary, Appius Claudius, transformed the old customary law of Rome into Twelve Tables and submitted them to the Assembly (which passed them with some changes) and they were displayed in the Forum for all who would and could read. The Twelve Tables recognised certain rights and by the 4th century BC, the plebs were given the right to stand for consulship and other major offices of the state.

The political structure as outlined in the Roman constitution resembled a mixed constitution and its constituent parts were comparable to those of the Spartan constitution: two consuls, embodying the monarchic form; the Senate, embodying the aristocratic form; and the people through the assemblies. The consul was the highest ranking ordinary magistrate. Consuls had power in both civil and military matters. While in the city of Rome, the consuls were the head of the Roman government and they would preside over the Senate and the assemblies. While abroad, each consul would command an army. The Senate passed decrees, which were called senatus consultum and were official advice to a magistrate. However, in practice, it was difficult for a magistrate to ignore the Senate's advice. The focus of the Roman Senate was directed towards foreign policy. Though it technically had no official role in the management of military conflict, the Senate ultimately was the force that oversaw such affairs. Also, it managed Rome's civil administration. The requirements for becoming a senator included having at least 100,000 denarii worth of land, being born of the patrician (noble aristocrats) class, and having held public office at least once before. New Senators had to be approved by the sitting members. The people of Rome through the assemblies had the final say regarding the election of magistrates, the enactment of new laws, the carrying out of capital punishment, the declaration of war and peace, and the creation (or dissolution) of alliances. Despite the obvious power the assemblies had, in practice, the assemblies were the least powerful of the other bodies of government. An assembly was legal only if summoned by a magistrate and it was restricted from any legislative initiative or the ability to debate. And even the candidates for public office, as Livy writes: "levels were designed so that no one appeared to be excluded from an election and yet all of the clout resided with the leading men". Moreover, the unequal weight of votes was making a rare practice for asking the lowest classes for their votes.

Roman stability, in Polybius' assessment, was owing to the checks each element put on the superiority of any other: a consul at war, for example, required the cooperation of the Senate and the people if he hoped to secure victory and glory, and could not be indifferent to their wishes. This was not to say that the balance was in every way even: Polybius observes that the superiority of the Roman to the Carthaginian constitution (another mixed constitution) at the time of the Hannibalic War was an effect of the latter's greater inclination toward democracy than to aristocracy. Moreover, recent attempts to posit for Rome personal freedom in the Greek sense – eleutheria: living as you like – have fallen on stony ground, since eleutheria (which was an ideology and way of life in the democratic Athens) was anathema in the Roman eyes. Rome's core values included order, hierarchy, discipline, and obedience. These values were enforced with laws regulating the private life of an individual. The laws were applied in particular to the upper classes, since the upper classes were the source of Roman moral examples.

Rome became the ruler of a great Mediterranean empire. The new provinces brought wealth to Italy, and fortunes were made through mineral concessions and enormous slave run estates. Slaves were imported to Italy and wealthy landowners soon began to buy up and displace the original peasant farmers. By the late 2nd century this led to renewed conflict between the rich and poor and demands from the latter for reform of the constitution. The background of social unease and the inability of the traditional republican constitutions to adapt to the needs of the growing empire led to the rise of a series of over-mighty generals, championing the cause of either the rich or the poor, in the last century BC.

Transition to empire

Over the next few hundred years, various generals would bypass or overthrow the Senate for various reasons, mostly to address perceived injustices, either against themselves or against poorer citizens or soldiers. One of those generals was Julius Caesar, where he marched on Rome and took supreme power over the republic. Caesar's career was cut short by his assassination at Rome in 44 BC by a group of Senators including Marcus Junius Brutus. In the power vacuum that followed Caesar's assassination, his friend and chief lieutenant, Marcus Antonius, and Caesar's grandnephew Octavian who also was the adopted son of Caesar, rose to prominence. Their combined strength gave the triumvirs absolute power. However, in 31 BC war between the two broke out. The final confrontation occurred on 2 September 31 BC, at the naval Battle of Actium where the fleet of Octavian under the command of Agrippa routed Antony's fleet. Thereafter, there was no one left in the Roman Republic who wanted to, or could stand against Octavian, and the adopted son of Caesar moved to take absolute control. Octavian left the majority of Republican institutions intact, though he influenced everything using personal authority and ultimately controlled the final decisions, having the military might to back up his rule if necessary. By 27 BC the transition, though subtle, disguised, and relying on personal power over the power of offices, was complete. In that year, Octavian offered back all his powers to the Senate, and in a carefully staged way, the Senate refused and titled Octavian Augustus – "the revered one". He was always careful to avoid the title of rex – "king", and instead took on the titles of princeps – "first citizen" and imperator, a title given by Roman troops to their victorious commanders, completing the transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire.