The social contract & discoursesRousseau, Jean-Jacques
Philosophy
The social contract & discourses
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques
Economics; Political science -- Early works to 1800; Social contract
The second way was this. Instead of causing the centuries to vote
throughout in order, which would have meant beginning always with the
first, the Romans always chose one by lot which proceeded alone to
the election; after this all the centuries were summoned another day
according to their rank, and the same election was repeated, and as a
rule confirmed. Thus the authority of example was taken away from rank,
and given to the lot on a democratic principle.
From this custom resulted a further advantage. The citizens from the
country had time, between the two elections, to inform themselves of
the merits of the candidate who had been provisionally nominated,
and did not have to vote without knowledge of the case. But, under
the pretext of hastening matters, the abolition of this custom was
achieved, and both elections were held on the same day.
The _Comitia Tributa_ were properly the council of the Roman people.
They were convoked by the tribunes alone; at them the tribunes were
elected and passed their plebiscita. The senate not only had no
standing in them, but even no right to be present; and the senators,
being forced to obey laws on which they could not vote, were in this
respect less free than the meanest citizens. This injustice was
altogether ill-conceived, and was alone enough to invalidate the
decrees of a body to which all its members were not admitted. Had all
the patricians attended the comitia by virtue of the right they had as
citizens, they would not, as mere private individuals, have had any
considerable influence on a vote reckoned by counting heads, where the
meanest proletarian was as good as the _princeps senatus_.
It may be seen, therefore, that besides the order which was achieved
by these various ways of distributing so great a people and taking its
votes, the various methods were not reducible to forms indifferent in
themselves, but the results of each were relative to the objects which
caused it to be preferred.
Without going here into further details, we may gather from what has
been said above that the _Comitia Tributa_ were the most favourable to
popular government, and the _Comitia Centuriata_ to aristocracy. The
_Comitia Curiata,_ in which the populace of Rome formed the majority,
being fitted only to further tyranny and evil designs, naturally fell
into disrepute, and even seditious persons abstained from using a
method which too clearly revealed their projects. It is indisputable
that the whole majesty of the Roman people lay solely in the _Comitia
Centuriata_, which alone included all; for the _Comitia Curiata_
excluded the rural tribes, and the _Comitia Tributa_ the senate and the
patricians.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account