Democratic Was The Roman Republic: A True Democracy

The Roman Republic did not have a pure democracy, but an alteration of it that provided those who had money with power, wealth, and land. While some parts of their government system contained what democracy offers, such as citizens voting to pass laws and deciding to have peace or war with another country, there were some components that were not democratic, such as citizens not being able to choose candidates for election, not being able to propose legislations, and only male citizens being able to vote, which amounted to being about two percent of the Roman population, only because the people who voted were in Rome, and several people did not have the time or the money to travel there.
According to Polybius, who wrote a description of the Roman constitution, the Assemblies, which consisted of male plebeians and patricians, voted or repealed laws proposed by the Senate. This obviously gave a large portion of the government power to the people, and the Assemblies decided what was legal and what was not Besides lawmaking, citizens had one of the greatest and most important powers, and that was to decide whether to have peace or

war with other feuding countries. With these points considered, some would say that the government belongs to the people, and that the Roman Republic was a democracy, but there were other elements that made Rome have their own altered version of democracy.
The Roman constitution contained laws that were not democratic, and Professor Alan Ward explains why the Roman Republic was not fully democratic in his article “How Democratic was the Roman Republic” by stating that Rome was not a true democracy in the way that innumerable people could not vote.

In fact, only about two percent of the Roman population was able to vote, because if someone did not vote, the government disenfranchised them. Also, one had to reside in Rome to vote and this did not go favorably for a multitude of people, as they did not have the time or the money to go to Rome. Living in Rome was expensive and the wealthy patrician families owned all residences in Rome. Besides the inability to vote, Alan Ward explains that the Assemblies, which consisted of the regular people, could not propose legislations or select

candidates.
With all points considered, Rome had a mixed government with some hints of democracy to appease the large masses of people who resided in Roman territory. This flaunting and ideology of democracy could have simply been a placebo to keep people thinking that a minuscule amount of people was not ruling them, and that they played a part in the government, which is partly true, but almost all of the actions the government performed were not due to the ninety-eight percent of the population, but only the two percent, which was generally the rich citizens in Rome. Altogether, Rome had an alteration of democracy, and is therefore not completely democratic.