Representative Democracy and Caesarism
Our dear friend Andrew Sullivan has once again pitched it right into the Optimate wheelhouse with his post on Caesarism. It just so happens I know a thing or two about the subject.
Sullivan traces the modern rise of 'Caesarism' to the 19th century, with the result being National Socialism in Germany and Fascism in Italy. This dovetails nicely with his ongoing battle against 'Christianism,' which - he asserts - in America has installed George W. Bush as its ideal 'Caesar.'
As a classicist and a political theorist (albeit amateur on both counts), I think this over-simplifies the picture. It wasn't as though otherwise well-meaning people suddenly woke up one day and decided to throw democracy overboard for totalitarianism on a whim. The key lies in the particular mode of republic.
The rise of Caesar was based on his opposition to the aristocratic Senate and his support of the people. The people - however construed - felt the Senate was no longer responsive to their wishes. Into the breach stepped Caesar, with enough legions to enforce his 'popular' decrees. Caesar's laws were not overtly tyrannical (many made good sense) and he himself exercised a great deal of clemency once in charge. But at the same time, we have to agree that crucial to his power was the notion of a special, extra-constitutional mandate.
In my view, this all happened because the actual constitution of the Roman Republic wasn't functioning. There was no such things as 'representative democracy' and the Senate had become an oligarchy of privilege. So the only means of remedying the situation was indeed extra-constitutional. A true "people's champion" was needed, who held personal authority and vast prestige.
Through the course of this decade, we've seen similar 'populist' manifestations in American politics. Isn't the cause the same? Our Republic's legislature is no longer in any way 'representative' of its constituency. How? Much as the Roman Senate rigged the game through graft and intimidation of the other magistracies, our own federal legislature has gerry-mandered and bought its way to perpetuity. The American people are not stupid - despite what we may think - and they can see what's happened. And, just like clockwork, the strong executive has emerged to serve as the "people's champion" against the un-representative legislature.
The question is, will we do anything about it, or will we continue to attack the symptoms? Bush's reach for power is extreme in scope, but in form simply an extension of Clinton's. To attack 'Bush-ism' is to miss the point, as is to seek only a judicial solution to executive over-reach. The legislature must be made more representative of the people's will, to funnel their desires through the rule of law and a constitutional mandate.
Gerrymanders must be stopped and term limits must be passed. Before a competent Caesar makes his way to the presidency with imperial objectives - and the popular wind at his back.
posted by Joshua @ 5:05 PM
2 Comments:
Hmm. Sullivan's comment is not about Caesar per se, but about the Caesarists, a group of mostly German writers at the end of the 19th century who had a certain interpretation of classical history, influenced by the writing of historiographers of the period like Theodor Mommsen. It's pretty common among modern historians of this period to say that Mommsen was brilliant in many ways, but he seems to have been pitching to a certain domestic political audience. In other words, 19th century Caesarism doesn't necessarily very faithful to Gaius Julius Caesar.
Diogenes,
It's interesting you should bring up Mommsen as the inspiration for the Caesarists. His interpretation that Caesar was inevitable is based on the premise that the Senate was not a representative body, a interpretation that I second.
While Mommsen does make it clear he admires the genius of Caesar, he does not say "we always need a Caesar." That is, he's not pitching to domestic reactionaries as much as would first seem.
It's a second step to say that Caesarism is necessary in all circumstances. I was merely saying that it was to be expected in both the ancient world (following Mommsen) and our own - at least so long as our legislature remains wilfully unrepresentative of the people as a whole. Make the legislature representative (through means previously discussed), and the 'need' for a Caesar diminishes.
Post a Comment
<< Home