Herein lay the Founders’ central dilemma: how to create a government that was strong enough to govern well but not so strong as to step beyond its bounds and unlawfully take away the people’s freedom. To create such a government, the Founders studied the failures and successes of past governments.
At one period in its history, Greece, particularly the city-state of Athens, practiced democracy. Democracy meant that all citizens had a say in the way things would be run. If there was an election or a change in laws or a question that concerned the people as a whole, all interested citizens could gather to voice their opinions on the matter. Through voting, the majority could enforce their will. It was a government where the people, not the elite few or a single man, determined laws and voted for officials to enforce those laws. No wonder the Founding Fathers looked to Greece when writing a new form of government for America.
Certain flaws in Greek government signaled that pure democracy would not be the best form of government for America. Consider the democratic method of voting, wherein all citizens can have a say. If all Americans citizens gathered to vote on every important issue, the process would be very long, even back in the Founders’ day. The population of the United States is many times larger today than it was at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Even with the aid of computers, the voting of all citizens on every matter would make decision-making a long and difficult process. Presenting the information on an important topic so that everyone could understand might take months. Then citizens would still need to discuss the information and determine their choices before voting. After the vote, the ballots could take another week or more to count.
We sometimes hear complaints about how slow our current political system is. The time our system takes is nothing compared to the time and money it would take to run America as a pure democracy. Nothing would get done. In Greece, voting was limited to citizens. Our voting is also limited to citizens, but in Greek society, a large number of the people were not considered citizens. This included the women, the non-land-owning men, and the slaves. Because none of these people were allowed to vote, this sizable portion of the population had no say in the government. In America today, citizenship is granted to people born in the United States and to children born outside the United States who have at least one parent with US citizenship. People who are born outside the United States to parents without US citizenship can apply to become citizens.
Another problem of pure democracy is the possibility that the majority could unfairly force its will on the minority because decisions are made on a simple majority-rule basis. Empowered by the law, 51 percent of the population could persecute the other 49 percent, to the point of taking their property, imprisoning them, or even killing them. Thus, although Greece had created a form of government superior to others, the Founders chose not to create a pure democracy, as it would have been both inefficient in its decision-making process and potentially dangerous to its citizens. It would not have provided an effective way of governing our people, nor would it have provided enough freedom.
The Founding Fathers also learned from the government of Rome. Rome was, for a while, a sort of republic. As a republic, Rome actually had a mixed form of government with three branches—an executive branch, a senate, and a legislative branch. These branches were similar in name to America’s governing bodies, but they were different in form.
In the executive branch, two men, elected by the Centuriate Assembly (the most influential of the three legislative assemblies, which were composed of all Roman citizens who could vote) held the highest office. Men who held this office were called consuls. They shared powers equally and each could veto the acts of the other. They were the chief civil and military leaders of Rome. In times of emergency, the consuls could appoint someone, including either of themselves, to serve as sole dictator for six months. Consuls and most other executive magistrates were up for election yearly.
The Roman legislature, consisting of the three legislative assemblies, was responsible for electing consuls, passing laws, deciding on criminal violations, and declaring war. As mentioned above, the legislative assemblies were composed of Roman citizens. In some aspects, the Roman concept of assembly was democratic. Assemblies made up the voting body of Rome. Each assembly was organized into subgroups, with the voting outcome of each subgroup counting as one vote in the overall assembly, much like American presidents are elected today using the Electoral College. However, the assemblies had some distinct differences from pure democracy. Rather than all citizens voting, only adult male citizens could vote, and they were grouped into one of the three assemblies, depending on their wealth, age, military membership, geographic location, family, or clan status. Each assembly could vote for different things, and some were more influential than others, depending on the status of their members. Assemblies could not vote unless called upon to do so by the consuls, and members of some assemblies could only vote if they traveled to Rome. Assemblies could vote for or against a law, but only the consuls could propose laws.
Rome also had a senate. The senate was a group of aristocrats1 who did not hold legal power but did have immense moral power. They could not make laws, only suggestions, but they became highly influential. Roman senators served for life. The senate fell under the same regulations as the assemblies—when they met and what they discussed were determined by the consuls.
Rome appears to have had a strong government, alleviating some of the problems that would have existed in a democracy. The assemblies elected consuls, who only held power for one year. But even with these precautions, Rome failed. While Rome called itself a republic and its citizens did have say in the government, Rome was essentially run by the aristocrats. The aristocrats had greater voting power than other citizens. They were also more likely to be elected consuls. In addition to their executive powers, the consuls also held some legislative powers: they told the assemblies which laws they could vote on. The two consuls, as well as eight other officials called praetors, were the generals of the Roman armies. Although the position of consul lasted only a year, the senate could grant power for a consul to continue being a general after his consulship ended.
To understand how the Roman government worked, imagine having two presidents, a Congress, and a Senate. The presidents, not Congress or the Senate, write the laws. They tell Congress and the Senate when and where they can meet and what laws will be voted on. The members of Congress have unequal voting powers based on their social status.
The presidents are also generals in the army. If the Senate chooses, they can allow a president to continue being a general, even after his presidency is over. Legally, different branches of government divide the powers, but in effect, the presidents hold nearly all the power. To add to the problem, they can continue to hold military power after their term of office has ended. This could lead to conflict if a former president, now general, decides he doesn’t like the way the new presidents are running things. It was this great imbalance of power between the branches of government that led to the ruin of the Republic.
Eventually, there was a civil war between the Roman generals. Julius Caesar was victorious. He tried to maneuver himself into a stable position as a dictator, but he was assassinated. His successor, C. Julius Caesar Octavianus (or Caesar Augustus), secured a dictatorial position by restoring, in name, the Republic. However, this Republic was actually a monarchy.
1. members of a ruling class or of the nobility