Roman Politics and the Modern World

Under emperors like Diocletian, innocent and guilty alike were condemned to punishment. This was almost always severe. The most competent and accomplished citizens were frequently sacrificed because of the insecurity or jealousy of those in power. The Emperors were inevitably human, suffering from the effects of arrogance and self-absorbtion. Many were licentious and degenerate. Most were obsessed with themselves, and for a long time they were deified, and made into Gods, for the state religion.

Tacitus wrote soon after the Empire had been established. He loathed and destested the brutal and corrupt emperor Diocletian, who ruled for alarge part of Tacitus' life.

The Empire, almost from its inception, was far less impressive, dynamic or cohesive than the Republic. It represented no new order for stability or peace. It was plagued with violence, rampant political instability, factionalism, corruption, economic decay, crushing inequality, civil war, injustice, cruelty, religious and ethnic persecution, uncontrolled egotism and social strife for most of the following 350 years. It changed when the Germanic invaders occupied-- or liberated-- what was left of the Empire. The Empire didn't so much politically collapse as tear itself apart, decaying from within, devoured by the rotting disease of power and greed.

By the time the Western Empire's rigid political system succumbed to the Germanic invaders, the Empire was resistant to change, unable to adapt. The economy, based on a crude semi-capitalist and class-ridden structure, barely functioned. It had ground itself into obsolescence under the authority of the Emperor, his bureaucracy, the idle rich and the newly ascendant Roman Christian church, which was intellectually stifling.

The Eastern Roman Empire survived for a few more centuries. It was ruled by Greek (Hellenic) rulers, and was not really Roman in any real sense at all. It became known as the Byzantine Empire, after its capital, Byzantium, also called Constantinople after the emperor Constantine. But it eventually fell to more energetic invaders, mostly Turkish and Arab Muslims, who established prosperous, culturally accomplished nations in the ruins of Rome and the Greek world. Arabs occupied Egypt and North Africa (and Spain, as well). Turkic-speaking peoples settled in Asia Minor (modern Turkey), much of which had been Greek for centuries, and Constantinople was renamed Istanbul. The Muslim world then entered its great florescence, when science, commerce and scholarship bloomed once again on the shores of the Mediterranean. The Muslim world carried on the greatest traditions of the classical Greek world, a last flowering of Hellenic culture.

Sporadic revolutions and brief periods of idealism would crop up now and again over the next 1500 years. But for most of this time, Europe and the mediterranean languished under the lash of absolute rulers, feudal lords and oppressive theocracies. Only the Muslim mediterranean could maintain a positive outlook, though it never engaged in serious political reform and eventually fell apart.To bring greater freedom to the Western world, it took the re-introduction of Classical ideas during the Renaissance, partly due to the great work of Muslim scholars, and the injection of the radically different and much more liberal political ideals of native societies in the Americas.

Some historians look on the Republic as one of the greatest political achievements of the classical world, second only to the more democratic Athenian Republic, and view the Republic's fall as a terrible tragedy, even if most agree that it may have been inevitable.

Many academics, filled with elitist and anti-democratic sympathies, tend to ignore the accomplishments and ideals of the Republic. Though the Republic clearly did not represent the height of democratic thought, it was a major step towards freedom for a classical world accustomed to absolute rule. Conservative academics favour the autocratic and elitist Empire, with its rigid social order, strong rulers and brutal class system. It's still the model for many "Great Man" political ideologies today and a historical justification in the minds of many for terrible modern social policies.

In these ideologies, hierarchy, class inequities, elite power, iron-fisted policies, the politics of harsh vengeance and elitist authoritarianism are highly respected.

Such political views are found throughout the world today, even-- often especially-- in Western democracies. Some of these democratic states, such as the U.S.A., are partly modeled on the Republic of ancient Rome. They share many characteristics with it: some bad, some good and some very, very dangerous. While the most obvious aristocratic elements of Roman politics are removed, modern Western society is still firmly aristocratic and based on privileges for the few.

Ideological, right-wing parties advocate ideals similar to those of the Imperium and the Roman Empire's apologists. We should take the criticism of elitist thought very seriously, such as those more thoughtful parts found in the writings of ancient authors.

The megalomania of the rich and powerful are rarely good for the public or even, in the end, for civilizations. As individuals and members of societies, let's hope that we've finally learned a few lessons.

The Roman Republic may have fallen, but one lesson can be taken from this failed experiment. The people are the ultimate source of the power of the elite. It's possible to resist the power of the rich. One of the ways that the elite manage to hold on to power is to convince the masses that they can't do anything about their situation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The power and responsibility is in our hands-- and it's up to us to use it.