“Even you, Brutus!”
As everyone knows from their school history lessons, Rome became a republic sometime at the turn of the 5th century BC, and a little later the Twelve Tables, the basis of Roman Law for free citizens, were developed. For many centuries Roman citizens (plebeians and patricians) vied for all important political offices by means of elections. But although the Romans had accumulated vast experience of the republican way of social life, which partially reached their remote descendants (read: all Europeans), their laws could not resolve all social conflicts that emerged during the evolution of the public administration system.
Since then, nearly 2,500 years have passed, but the problems connected with governing society, particularly the question of holding “fair” elections, are still unresolved and often a doubtful affair. Our leaders believe that the root cause is that the masses are unprepared, while the masses are blaming everything on the upper crust, as they did 2,500 years ago in ancient Rome.
History and modernity convincingly show that present-day electoral systems have preserved a lot of “black” thousand-year-old features that were introduced by Rome. To substantiate this statement, I will provide a brief account of how Marcus Tullius Cicero, the famous Roman orator, lawyer, writer, and politician (106-43 BC), ran for office. This was the time after the resignation and subsequent death of the Roman oligarch dictator Sulla, when Roman democracy regained its power for a time. Like before, the Romans went to the polls to elect their magistrates - officials of various levels - who depended in their work on senators as well on as on the will of the plebs, i.e., the general body of ordinary citizens. Like in every age, the number of election candidates was larger than the number of available offices. The reason was only too obvious: the elected magistrate expected to be assigned to a certain Roman province, and the post was usually a source of enrichment. So rival candidates did their best to win over the plebs, and this caused tensions in Rome.
There is a very interesting document from the 1st century BC, in which Cicero’s brother Quintus offers him some pre-election advice. (Cicero was a new figure on the Roman Olympus, had no illustrious ancestors, and could only rely on the power of his oratorical art, which might not be sufficient.) The more experienced Quintus claimed that, in order to win the elections, two things must be assured: the patronage of friends and support of the plebs. So by all possible means Cicero had to draw not only the magistrates and senators to his side but also Rome’s “rabble.” In an election a candidate should not look down his nose even at slaves because, although they are barred from elections, the candidate’s reputation often depends on what servants have to say.
Cicero’s solicitous brother instructed him as follows: “Each of your appearances in the Forum or on the streets should attract many people from all walks of life and inspire respect for you. When you, a candidate, are coming out of your house, you must always be surrounded by a crowd of people.”
Voter support can be won in a variety ways: the candidate should be amiable, considerate, and remember as many people as possible, so as to be able to address them by name if he comes across someone. This requires training one’s memory and always keeping nearby a gifted nomenclator slave, who will whisper the name of every passerby into your ear. (A nomenclator accompanied a noble to identify the people encountered during an election campaign.)
Cicero’s knowledgeable brother also insisted that, when campaigning, one should resort to flattery, which, although a vice in everyday life, can be a very effective weapon in an election campaign. “If you want to be elected,” the sound-minded and experienced Quintus wrote, “praise everyone and everything!”
In the view of Cicero’s brother, a candidate should project the image of a very generous person, and his pockets should be lined with enough money to be passed around. If he is strapped for cash, his friends can endlessly extol the candidate’s kindness and respect for the people. “And the people,” Quintus writes, “must believe that when they elect you, you will work for their interests.”
There is an interesting and characteristic detail of those times: Quintus cared little about Cicero’s political platform. “Brother, the main thing is that the Senate should see you as a defender of the Senate’s authority (not Rome’s!), and as a guardian of justice and peace in the state.” This is a glaring example of the decline of Roman democracy: against the background of the election campaign fundamental and political problems receded to second place.
Historians think that the letter written by Cicero’s brother is not entirely frank and that it is filled with the euphemisms of the day, especially as far as outright election bribery is concerned. There was even a special list of the amounts of cash payable to certain voters by a candidate running for office (money was handed out by special intermediaries). This practice existed in spite of the fact that the Senate had passed a number of draconian laws outlawing outright bribery. However, nobody cared or protested against this practice.
Another way to lure voters was to organize all kinds of extravaganzas, which required candidates to spend huge sums of money. These were extremely popular among the voters whom Cicero called “wretched and poor plebeians.”
Like today, the elections were preceded by the “knightly” encounters of candidates, i.e., attacks on rivals and intrusions into their private lives, and accusations of dishonesty and debauchery. Candidates never stinted on promises, demagogy, bribery, or even slander.
* * *
After winning the elections, Marcus Tullius Cicero became consul, the highest governmental post in Rome. In 63 BC Consul Cicero exposed and suppressed Catiline’s anti-republican conspiracy. He was killed in 43 BC, during one of the civil wars that finally led to the creation of the Roman Empire.
