If the Roman Republic was neither a democracy nor a monarchy, how would you characterize it as a polit system?

Question

If the Roman Republic was neither a democracy nor a monarchy, how would you characterize it as a polit system?

Answer 1

An oligarchy = the rule of a few

Only the nobles (patricians) had the vote, the common people had no say at all.

Very much like today, if money makes some people "nobler" than others.

Answer 2

it was a roman REPUBLIC, lol you answered your own question

Answer 3

It was a republic. A republic is a political system.

Answer 4

Technically it was a republic, although the electoral system was flawed and favored the rich and powerful. Not to mention rampant bribery.

The assembly of the centuries (where "century" has nothing to do with "100 years") was divided in 193 centuries, and membership of a century depended on how wealthy you were. The richest centuries obviously had the least people, but if you were from one of the richest centuries, your individual vote was also worth a lot more. As soon as the majority of the 193 centuries had cast their vote, they stopped the vote, so the largest centuries populated by the lower income Roman citizens basically never got to vote.

So since individual votes in the most important centuries were worth more, but there was only a very limited number of people within those centuries, it was easy to manipulate the vote.

And that all went down the drain under the Empire, even though the system was still in place, it had little purpose other than to make the magistrates richer and make sure the rich stayed in power.

I guess things haven't changed that much since then!

Likewise the senate was easily manipulated into voting for or against a "lex" proposed by a consul, a praetor, a tribunus plebis, etc.

Answer 5

It was a great political system . All questions were settled by the Senate . A senior member was appointed to keep order in the descussions and debates . There was no need for a president or king .