BY DR. JOSE PALU-AY DACUDAO
WHEN Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC by Senators who wanted to bring back the old Republic (Marcus Junius Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinus), a power struggle ensued, which his grandnephew and adopted son Gaius Octavius (shortened to Octavian in English) won. By then there was no question of Rome going back to a Republic. Everyone assumed that Octavian would hold power as Emperor indefinitely. He did.
27 BC – Octavian was bestowed the name of Augustus (meaning “holy”) Caesar by the Roman Senate and he formally established the Roman Empire.
Octavian (63 BC – AD 14), first emperor of Rome (27 BC – AD 14), proved to be a good ruler. The Roman Empire became peaceful and prosperous during his reign. Yet for the ideal of Representative Democracy, Octavian was the worse ruler of all in that he proved that a dictator could rule well. He proved that dictatorship could work.
On the other hand, when crazy emperors such as Caligula (12-41 AD, reigned 37-41), or Nero (37-68 AD, reigned 54-68) were in power, Rome would immediately plunge into a crisis. Because Rome was essentially a legal dictatorship under the Imperial system of government, there was no way to replace them through legal processes. They had to be forced out of power extra legally. Caligula was assassinated and Nero was forced to commit suicide.
Even during Sulla’s time, the Republican nature of Rome was weakening. The following issues were clearly evident.
First, patronage politics had become rampant. A typical Senator had followers to whom he gave dole outs to. Votes were regularly bought. Senators desired to be in the Senate not because they viewed it as an opportunity to serve the Republic, but for personal benefit. They viewed political campaigns as capital investments.
Elections were originally instituted in the Republic as a way for ordinary citizens to have a voice in government. Many of the Roman citizens stopped seeing elections as a way of being heard in the government but as a chance to get money and dole outs from politicians. They wanted to be bought.
Sounds familiar? Let us stop and reflect on this.
Democratic ideals had been replaced by the god of money.
Senators bought votes, and Citizens desired to be bought. It seems that both the Senators and the Citizens of Rome had ceased to believe in democracy in the latter years of the Republic, and believed in money more.
Much to blame were recurring economic crises. Such crises always fuel an attitude of money-worship among the voting populace, thus strengthening patronage politics. This leads us to a second, even more fundamental issue.
Second and more importantly, Rome as a Unitarian polity had expanded to encompass most of Southern Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. Inside Rome itself, the government was Republican in nature. Outside the city, Rome was a dictator to its provinces. Nothing of great importance could happen in the Roman provinces without the approval of the City of Rome.
With unlimited political powers over her provinces, Rome naturally plundered them. As years passed, Rome the City demanded more and more taxes from her hapless provinces while providing less and less services and security. The priority was the security of Rome itself, which ironically became the target of power grabbers. For any new expenditure by the Roman state, new taxes in the provinces would be levied and old taxes raised. (That is why in the Bible, tax collectors were regarded as one of the greatest of sinners in Judea, then a province of Rome.) For example, new roads and aqueducts in the capital city had to be built. What to do? Rome would simply plunder its provinces in the guise of legal taxation.
(Sounds familiar? Who do you think pays for all of MetroManila’s highways, rails, and other infrastructure?) (To be continued)/PN
