How the Roman Republic lost control to its citizens

Fall of the Republic of Rome

One of America's founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, when asked the question, "What kind of government is it?" is credited with responding, "You have a republic - if you can keep it." There is no reliable source for the quote, perhaps it is the product of someone's need to take the concept of the republic and the idea that one might work to maintain a republic that underlies the reasoning as to why Benjamin Franklin is credited with having said it. Whether he said it or not, the essence of it holds true. A republic is a government wherein the supreme power rests with its citizens, who elect amongst themselves individuals to represent their choices in matters of government and state. The first example of this in history is, of course, Rome - but Rome fell; and as world history stands today in its making, it is perhaps prudent to return to Rome and to discuss how that great republican empire came crashing down. The questions that must be answered are; How did the people of Rome lose control of their government? Did the Roman people realize that they were losing control of their government? Did they stand quietly by and allow their right to self-determination to be taken away from them? What, if anything, did they attempt to do about it? Is it possible to govern according to the order of natural law? These are some of the questions that will be addressed in this research paper.

The Republic of Rome

William R. Nifong (2000) discusses the theory of natural law, writing that it rests on the premise that there is a natural order to the universe, and that it is possible to be in synch with the order of natural law when human law flows from that order. The first tenet of natural law, and that tenet which keeps it from spinning into chaos, is the intent to keep the promises promulgated within the law. Because the order of natural law is in effect harnessing the "authority and rhetorical force of the divine," it then, in concept, excludes the liaison between the divine and the people through the body of a king or queen or religious person. This makes it possible for the notion of a republic, government by the people, to become possible. Nifong says that the greatest weakness of natural law becomes, by way of its own design, obvious: "a conviction that natural lawyers are able to isolate and eternal principles of natural law with scientific precision and conclusiveness.

Contemplating Nifong's discussion on natural law, it is difficult not to call to mind the great Roman Empire, and the first fall of the Roman Republic. If a republic is a government by the people, following the order of natural law, how, then, does it fail? The answer to the fall of Rome rests not with the government, says historian and author Robert E. Smith (1955), but was a failure of Roman society. How could the people fail the republic in a way that would bring the great government down; by failing to respond to the order of natural law by maintaining it. Keep in mind that Nifong says the first tenet of the order of natural law is to keep the promises of that law. The responsibility for keeping the promises, in a government of the people, by the people, would, therefore rest with the people. That a republic is governed by the people through a body of elected officials whose job it is to manage the affairs of government in accordance with the wishes of their constituents, and who fail to administer their responsibilities accordingly, are subject to the discretion of the people in their continued service to the people. By 44-42 BC it was apparent that the Roman Republic had fallen - not to invading forces, but to the imperial self-interest. Author and historian W.E. Heitland (1911) suggests that 44 BC it was in fact clear that the republic was gone, and he suggests further that there was no power or authority by which to revive it. This means that the elected officials failed to do the bidding of the people, and, more importantly, were powerless to do the bidding of the people. Also, that the people as the public body, having elected their representation according to the laws of Rome, failed to compel the Republic to adhere to the laws, and thus, met with its demise. As Nifong discussed, the first tenet of the principle of natural law is the premise that promises made will be kept.

Heitland identified the indicators of the fallen republic by these marks:

The rise and predominance of Antony

The return and progress of Octavian

The relations between Antony, Octavian and Cicero

The collapse of Cicero's policy, and the formation of the Triumvirate and the doings of the Triumvirs

Given Heitland's depictions of the indicators of the fall of the Republic, and for the sake of argument ruling out other factors, what was the mood of the people that they allowed their republic to slip away from them? if, as Nifong's discussion on natural law suggests, the people are responsible for maintaining the natural order, why, then, did the citizens of the Roman Republic and allow their right to self-govern to be usurped by imperialists?

A www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5961318

Heitland, W.E. A Short History of the Roman Republic. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1911. Questia. 27 Nov. 2007 http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5961318.

A www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001775975

Nifong, William R. "Promises Past: Marcus Atilius Regulus and the Dialogue of Natural Law." Duke Law Journal 49.4 (2000): 1077. Questia. 27 Nov. 2007 http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001775975.

A www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108816567

Shotter, David. The Fall of the Roman Republic. New York: Routledge, 1994. Questia. 27 Nov. 2007 http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108816571.

A www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9017977

Smith, R.E. The Failure of the Roman Republic. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1955. Questia. 27 Nov. 2007 http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9018145.