The trend going around last year was to ask men how often they think of the Roman Empire. It would feature some comedic video of men saying they thought about Rome every day.
I fear to report I’m also thinking about Rome, but unlike others, I'm thinking of the Roman Republic.
History is the story of empires; from the British to the Ottoman to the Romans. It is littered with failed empires. But republics are far more rare. As Thomas Hobbes said, without government and society, life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Tyranny is the norm in human history, but to live under a republic that is accountable to the people is rather unique. Hence my interest in the Roman Republic.
Roman history is split into four periods. Firstly, you have the Roman Kingdom (753-509 BC), then the Roman Republic (509-27 BC), then the Roman Empire (27 BC-476 AD), and lastly the Eastern Roman Empire (476-1453 AD).
The most famous period is the Roman Empire as this was the period of Pax Romana and is when most of the movies on Rome are based. Take, for example, 'Gladiator', which is based in 180 AD.
The Roman Republic, however, was a period of flourishing for Rome. They had progressed past the growing pains of the Kingdom and were now in the process of expanding beyond their small borders to eventually have hegemony over the Mediterranean.
The Roman Republic is closely associated with the American Republic. The Founding Fathers were equally as obsessed with Rome. They carefully studied the failures of the Republic to ensure their new Republic didn't fall to the same influence.
The stereotype at this point would be to point at the collapse of the Roman Republic and suggest the exact fate is headed for the American Republic.
One can draw lazy comparisons between Donald Trump and Julius Caesar. Both were populists who based their appeal on attacking the elite and being one with the people.
Yet, I do not see the American Republic falling in the same way as Rome. This is because its structure is fundamentally different from that of Rome's.
Much like the British Constitution, the Roman one was uncodified; it was an ever-evolving constitution defined by guidelines and precedent.
Therefore, the constitutional setup of the Roman Republic was, of course, quite fluid and changed from the early to the late period. But the Republic's government was roughly split into three branches: The Senate (Legislative), the Assemblies (Legislative), and the Magistrates (Executive).
The Senate
The most famous part of the Roman Republic, they were the main governing body of the Roman Republic and were made up of the aristocracy. Their members were appointed and were often highly experienced politicians. They played a key role in foreign and military policy but also directed domestic policy.
Assemblies
This is where democratic power was exercised. Rome had a unique system of citizenship - if you were a fully legal Roman, you would be called 'optimo jure'. Those with optimo jure would elect the assemblies, and the assemblies would then elect the magistrates.
Magistrates
This is the meat and bones of the uniqueness of the Roman Republic.
The executive branch is split into eight different roles. The most powerful of these was the Consuls, who essentially had full power over the Republic across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. In war, they were the top commanders and had full control over Rome's armies. However, there were always two Consuls who could each veto the other. They each served for one year as consul.
This, of course, sounds like a recipe for gridlock and no progress in government; however, what usually happened is one consul would stay in Rome, and the other would conduct military campaigns. If both consuls remained in Rome, they would alternate power each month of the year. The result of which is they stayed out of each other's way.
This of course was not always the case famously when Caesar served as Consul with Bibulus, Bibulus would declare poor omens on days of votes, therefore preventing legislation from going through. Yet, sadly for poor Bibulus, Caesar - ever the dictator - would ignore his proclamations and proceed nonetheless.
Speaking of Dictators - this is where the term originated from - Rome, in times of crisis, through the Senate, would elect a Dictator who would act with the full authority of the Roman state for six months. They were still liable for their actions after their term, but they were brought in to solve a very specific crisis.
One of the more famous dictators was Cincinnatus (who Cincinnati is named after). He had served a rather successful term as Consul and in 460 BC decided to retire to his farm. However, crisis quickly struck Rome and in 458 BC the Senate fell into panic and named Cincinnatus Dictator. He marshaled an army to quickly defeat Rome’s enemies and end the crisis. A mere 15 days after being named dictator, Cincinnatus disbanded his army and resigned control. Yet, Cincinnatus was called out of retirement once again in 439 BC with a plot to overthrow the republic and establish a king; Cincinnatus quickly resolved the crisis and resigned his position 21 days later.
This constitutional setup should sound fairly alien to anyone vaguely familiar with the American constitution. This is because, during the founding of the American Republic, the founders specifically tried to design a system that would prevent the failures of Rome, which were dominated by corruption and powerful men using their positions to take more and more power away from the existing institutions by bending the precedents.
The biggest difference of course is that the American constitution is codified, there is a strong system of checks and balances that prevent and constrain the president from becoming a dictator.
This fact is key, for whatever Trump says, he is constrained by the constitution. Take, for example, his position on birthright citizenship. He cannot unilaterally repeal the 14th Amendment without a long, painful process.
The proposed repeal would need to be passed by the House and the Senate with a two-thirds majority votes. Then, the proposed repeal would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
This will not happen. Whatever you think of the Supreme Court being Trump's appointees, fundamentally, the Justices are textualists and have ruled against Republican interests before, for example, in Allen v. Milligan and Moore v. Harper. They would not allow Trump to openly desecrate the constitution.
The American Republic survived the overreaches of FDR, the scandals of Nixon, and the previous term of Donald Trump. I have no doubt that it will survive far longer than most expect.