(to table of contents of FNF archives)  (to start of essay)

Outline
Introduction
The Roman Model
By Contrast, Modern Political Systems
Modern Opportunities
FNF's Senate
 

(to outline)  (to top of page)

Introduction

The Roman Senate, a body of senior political leaders, was a key institution in the Roman Republic, with some politically innovative characteristics. That institution, or one like it, might be useful for libertarian organizations today and free nations in the future. The Board of Directors of the Free Nation Foundation has recently created its own Senate. More on this later. First, let’s explore how the Roman Senate fit into Roman politics.
 

(to outline)  (to top of page)

The Roman Model

Republican Rome is famous for its Senate. Roman armies marched under the initials SPQR (in the name of the Senate and People of Rome), an indication of the Senate's high status in Rome's political system. When the framers of the U.S. Constitution adopted the term "Senate" for the upper house of the Federal legislature, they sought to place U.S. Senators in a similar position of prestige. Despite this the American model of a Senate has, in reality, little in common with the Roman model aside from the prestige accorded its members. Yet the key to the success of the Roman Senate was prestige—for it had no formal powers over Roman affairs. The Roman Senate was a debating society, populated exclusively by those Romans who had already served in the highest positions of leadership. It was a well-organized reservoir of experienced politicians, ever ready to critique or praise the formal Roman government. As such, it had great influence despite its lack of control over Roman affairs.

The government of Republican Rome was composed primarily of a military command structure and a court system. (Libertarians may recognize this as the essentials of a classically libertarian limited government.) In Rome, the rank of Senator was normally given to any politician who had successfully completed a term as an elected officer in the Roman army, which was a militia composed of all citizens who were able to serve. The elected officers served as the high command of the Roman army. They would appoint and/or confirm other officers under them as necessary. A new set of high officers was elected each year. All Roman militiamen were given votes in this yearly election. The Romans used a system of strict term limits. Roman officers could not be re-elected to the same post, though they could serve at each of the three separate named ranks, via separate elections. Thus a given Roman citizen could at most serve three years as part of the high military command—typically with several years between being elected to each office.

Of the three types of elected-officers, the highest rank was that of "consul." For a given year, two individuals would be elected as consuls, with equal authority. They would share supreme command of the armed forces. In war one consul would typically command a home-guard garrison in Rome itself, allowing the other to take an expeditionary force against the enemy. But the consuls had equal authority and had to agree to any military decision when they were together. In rare, emergency situations, the consuls could jointly appoint a third soldier (someone with an especially good military reputation) to serve as Dictator, in order to achieve absolute unity of command for the duration of the emergency. However, this was an uncommon decision even during war. Consuls would also appoint judges to hear court cases within Roman law, a primary function during peace.

Becoming a consul was the peak of a man's political career outside the Senate. Normally, a consul would have served several years before his consular election, in the 2nd highest rank of "praetor." The title of praetor was initially created for a military governor of a non-Latin province. Later, as Rome's military power grew, praetors were given other semi-autonomous military missions, always under the general authority of the consuls. A praetor, typically, would have been elected earlier to the lowest elected rank of "quaestor." Quaestors (originally there were two of these) were in charge of making arrests and of the state's treasury.

The Republican Roman senators met as a body in Rome to discuss policy. While the official statements made by the Roman Republican Senate were not binding lawfully, they carried great political influence. This was to a large extent because of the career pattern for Roman politicians. A successful Roman politician would spend most of his career as a Senator, not as an elected official. In the Senate, a Senator's status was primarily based on the highest elected rank held. But his status in the Senate was also affected by the way his elected term of office had been appraised by the other Senators. So even though elected officials, especially the consuls, held immense power, they understood themselves to be primarily of the Senate, not of the administrative bureaucracy. The Senate's influence on the administration of the Roman government rested on this fact. A consul or praetor would want to return to the Senate with more respect, more status than when he had entered elective office.

The career of a Roman politician did not cultivate the art of wielding raw power so much as the skill of being an influential speaker, one who could sway the opinions and behavior of others. Once in the Senate, this skill could be used to influence public policy. First a Roman politician would typically have received a Classical education, which would include Rhetoric. Next the would-be politician would make a name for himself as an advocate in the courts. The judge for a court would be responsible for recognizing agents to argue the respective sides of a case. There was no permanent judiciary nor a separate profession of "lawyer," so men who felt skilled in Rhetoric, with or without formal training, would argue the sides. Men with good reputations as advocates would be chosen as judges, one case at a time. Typically a judge, who had been given his commission by one of the elected military officers, would appoint an advocate for the state, and the defendant would try to find a talented volunteer to be the counsel for the defense.

Roman "political parties" were built from these traditions, as talented speakers surrounded themselves with supporters who could count on the leader's persuasive talents in a dispute with those in other parties. The "parties" should be seen as long-term versions of the alliances which gather during American political elections to promote single candidates, rather than the ideological groupings modern nations call "political parties." The only "political party" of this latter sort was the Roman State itself. Other organizations, like men's clubs or professional societies—even religious organizations—were broken up and suppressed by the Romans if they appeared to be developing political influence. But the charismatic associations based on personal patronage, these "parties" provided the blocs of votes needed for getting someone elected to high office.

A young man who had won a name for himself in the Roman court system might, on this basis, win an election to the office of quaestor. A good military record could also help his bid for elective office. Being sponsored by an influential Senator would also help. A year later, if all went well, he would be a Senator. He could continue to seek further fame in the courts and on the battlefield. Demonstrated skill would tend to lead to important appointments as a prosecutor or judge. He would likely serve in the military as an appointed officer, under the elected officers—acquiring and demonstrating further skill in military command. Years later, he might be elected a praetor, thereby gaining additional rank in the Senate. This additional rank would be a matter of prestige rather than formal power. But a former praetor would also tend to get a more prominent appointment in a field army than would a former quaestor.

If and when a politician became a consul, one of the joint supreme commanders, he would have built most of his public prestige as a Senator or appointor of judges—not as a military man. When he returned to the Senate, after one year as a supreme commander, the former consul would be a higher ranking Senator than he had been before, but would forever be outranked himself in the arena of formal power by each year's newly elected consuls. So consuls listened to the Senate far beyond what the law required. Thus many decrees of the Senate were confirmed by the consuls as public policy—simply because of the Senate's moral authority over Roman politicians.

But not always. Consuls had the duty to use their own judgment, and the two consuls would often take action against the wishes of the majority of the Senate. However, in most cases at least a strong minority of Senators would probably need to stand with the consuls before the consuls felt completely comfortable. After all, any field army a consul commanded would likely contain many Senators within its officer ranks. And the consul would need the support of such officers to be successful.

(to outline)  (to top of page)

By Contrast, Modern Political Systems

When the American Founding Fathers designed their new system, they were influenced by an admiration of the Roman Republic. While some of the features of the Roman system were borrowed, including the name "Senator," the U.S. system was largely a modification of the British one. Since then most other modern constitutions have also been close to the British model, often even closer than the U.S. system. Political organizations in modern times have tended to adopt a British model as well. The true nature of the Roman Senate has thus been forgotten by non-historians, despite many references to it in popular literature. There is no equivalent institution to the Roman Senate in the world today.

In various ways, modern organized communities give rank to specific members for specific terms, as well as giving honorific rank for indefinite terms. As these individuals leave their offices, however, they often lose contact and influence with the active organization. In political organizations this can be especially dysfunctional. Active officers are often glad to get those who came before them out of the way, fearing that the advice of a previous administration would be inherently disruptive. This can generate an unnecessary atmosphere of competition, where consensus could serve the organization better. Potential leaders anticipate a need to seize the organizational agenda and hold it as long as possible, until they too will be expected to retire to the sidelines. No vehicle will typically exist for a review of a current administration in terms of the general philosophy of the organization, save overly formal judicial procedures. All internal discussion is expected to be supportive of the administration's immediate tactical decisions. Calls for "organizational unity" are made to minimize internal dissent—but these calls also minimize internal diversity and lead to a high drop-out rate. As such, even though it doesn’t always happen this way, political organizations in the modern world often take a winner-take-all-for-as-long-as-possible, zero-sum approach to internal leadership.
 

(to outline)  (to top of page)

Modern Opportunities

In the Republican Period, the politics of the Roman Senate allowed for a "loyal" opposition based on previous service to the Roman government. The socio-political concept of a Senate, in the Roman Republican sense, could be applied to formally organized communities today. Former officers of organizations could be automatically granted a title like "Senator." That title could reflect the organization's desire that they continue to share the wisdom of their experience.

The title should be more than just a recognition of and a reward for prior service. Pursuant to this end, the title itself could simply reflect a formal request from the organization that the Senators keep contact, being available to share their opinions. But it could also become the tradition that Senators might initiate these communications. A petition signed by one or more Senators could start debate on a key policy. Such petitions need not be divisive, however. A petition could also provide a foundation for a specific project by the current administration. Senatorial support could also be solicited for other activities, such as efforts to regain the support of regular members who had not been active for a considerable time. The habit of saying things like, "Senator Smith will be chairing the committee on new funding," could be cultivated. By acknowledging Senators by title when they serve on any project within the current administration, that administration's efforts can be shown to be part of a continuity with the organization's past.

Perhaps, as in the Roman Republic, the Senators could even meet regularly to review organizational policy. Perhaps an organized Senate would come to be viewed as a major part of political life. That might be a bit extreme for a small organization. But for a free nation, should the free nation have an administration per se, or for any major political organizations within a free nation, all the benefits of balance of power through continuity enjoyed by the Roman Republic might accrue.
 

(to outline)  (to top of page)

FNF's Senate

Recently, the Free Nation Foundation has created the title of FNF Senator. According to the minutes of the FNF Board of Directors meeting from March 17, 1999, the Board passed a motion calling for:

So the FNF Senate has begun, an emerging real-life model for a future free nation. How far it will develop is uncertain. But I hope this essay has helped to show some of the possibilities. D
 

Phil Jacobson graduated from the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, where he majored in sociology. Phil completed his active duty in the Army at Fort Bragg in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Then, in that city, in 1974, he opened his first used-book store. Now living in Raleigh, he has a son and a daughter, both of college age, and two more bookstores, in Greensboro and Raleigh. He can be reached at <philj@freenation.org>.
 

(to table of contents of FNF archives)  (to outline)  (to top of page)