Democracy In The Roman Republic

621 Words3 Pages
From a non-subjective viewpoint, a democracy is allowing the people to have power and some control over the country. A Republic — which the Roman Republic was — on the other hand, is similar to what a democracy is except it protects the minority rights from the majorities. So, from the viewpoint of Roman Republic, a democracy is allowing the people in the Assemblies to grant office to those that deserve it, having the final say in passing or repealing laws, and making the final decision on peace or war. The Roman Republic did give evidence that they are a democracy such as allowing people the ability to vote and letting the people choose, however, there's also evidence on the Roman Republic not being democratic. Either side of the argument the claim is the Roman Republic was democratic.

To begin a democracy must provide the people with some power. In the Roman Republic, people were given the power to elect those who should be in Office by taking a vote. Since people could vote their majority can be pleased by whoever represents them and won't have to live in their shadows like dictators. According to 'Document A: Polybius' it states in paragraph 4 "It is the people in the Assemblies who grant office to those that deserve it through the
…show more content…
In 'Document C: Professor Alan Ward' the text states "Only 2% of Roman citizens usually voted." This pertains to the people voting whereas only 2% actually choose the person in Office and acted on laws and war and peace. However, 2% of the Roman citizen actually voting that doesn't mean only 2% was allowed to in actuality 40% of the population could vote and this was back when there were slavery and women didn't have rights, so 40% was quite a lot back then. Going back to the Roman Republic being a democracy, the Roman Republic was
Open Document