Despite its name, the Roman Republic was actually quite a mix of both a republic and a democracy. This is said because they used a bottom-up system, allowing even the people with little roles to vote, such as The Assembly. They would vote for their leaders and laws, among other things, as well. One of the main factors in having a republic government is to not have the people involved in selecting leaders, but the Roman Republic did just that. A person cannot say that a republic is a republic if they allow the people to vote because having the people vote is a major part of democracy. However, during certain situations, the way things worked shifted from democratic to republican. Further, some of their rules surrounding voting and various other things were very republic. …show more content…
As stated by Polybius in Document A, The Assembly held most power when it came to voting. They had the final say during the passing or denying of laws, which was said by Millar (Document B). However, Millar also states that the Assemblies did not get to choose who or what they voted on. This could be used to support the idea that the Roman Republic truly was a republic. Regardless of that, the fact that the Assembly held so much power was still a reason to believe it was a democracy.
Polybius goes on to say, “no one can say for sure whether the constitution is an aristocracy or democracy or despotism” in Document A. He then explains how the Roman Republic was each of them, an aristocracy, a democracy, and a despotism, for various reasons. One of these reasons was that, at times, the consuls, or the magistrates, and the Senate had more power than the Assemblies, but in different situations, it was the opposite. This shows that even Polybius, a man who was actually alive during the Roman Republic, didn’t know how to label