How did Athenian democracy differ from the roman democracy?

Answer 1

Whilst the Athenian Republic was a true democracy, the Roman Republic was not. In Athens all decisions were made by its citizens who gathered in the Assembly of the People to vote. The task of the executive was to carry out the will of the people. The Roman Republic had three popular assemblies: the Assembly of the Soldiers (which was restricted to soldiers) the Assembly of the Tribes (this was an assembly of the administrative districts, which was open to all Roman citizens) and the Plebeian Council (which was restricted to the plebeians, the commoners). The Assembly of the Soldiers elected the higher officers of state (the consuls, praetors and censors) and voted on war and peace. The Assembly of the Tribes elected the lower officers of state (the aediles and quaestors). The Plebeian Council elected the representatives of the plebeians, the plebeian tribunes. All these assemblies could vote on bills. Therefore both Athenian democracy and the democratic aspects of the Roman Republic practiced direct democracy. This means that instead of electing representatives to vote on bills, the people voted on them.

However, the above did not make the Roman Republic a true democracy.


The voting system of the Assembly of the Soldiers was stacked heavily in favour of the rich. The candidates for election came all form the elites. There was often pressure to influence voters through the patron-client relationship, where rich patrons helped a retinue of poor clients in exchange for political support. The officers of state, though elected, did not truly act on behalf of the people and made their own decisions as they saw fit. The senate, which was the most powerful political body, was not elected and its members were from the two top social orders: the patricians and the equestrians. It acted in favour of the interests of the aristocracy. Therefore, power was in the hands of the aristocracy and the rich. Effectively, the Roman Republic was an oligarchy.