Zhaorong Tu, Week 9: Democracy in Ancient Carthage
 |
| Carthage, via Wikimedia Commons |
The concept of democracy is relatively simple: the power to govern the people belongs to the people. But that wasn’t always the case in ancient Carthage, an early rival of the Roman empire that resided primarily around the Mediterranean. The empire was an example of one of the first recorded forms of democracy. With its unique system of power distribution and governing bodies, Carthigian government was far from the electoral bodies that we’re used today.
At the highest level of government in Carthage was its duo of suffetes, who were elected annually and overlooked many aspects of its democracy. A senate of 200-300 members served beneath them, but elections for these senators often favored those with influential wealth. These two governing bodies had essential powers to preside over Carthagian life, such as tax collection and lawmaking. Disagreements among senators or the two suffetes would be addressed by weekly town council meetings among citizens under the people’s assembly, often with slow and inefficient resolutions due to its infrequent meeting times.
The political structure had fundamental issues, especially in regards to the equal power the two suffetes had. Disagreements between them could pile up with only the assistance of the people’s assembly. When combined with the fact that suffetes can hold completely differing political agendas, Carthigian government had the potential to substantially slow depending on who was in office. Imagine having two monarchs today feuding with polar opposite political agendas and parties, holding our government hostage and completely ignoring the demands and issues of the population as they struggle to agree on even the most minimal of policies.
Democracy in Carthage also had its fair share of civil issues that similar governments throughout history experienced. Political rights required citizenship, which led to minority ethnic groups and women being excluded from representation. The aristocracy also had disproportionate control over elections and politics as a whole. Still, as one of the earliest forms of democracy, the republic of Carthage was ultimately a building block for the various representative bodies that we have today.
Hi Zhaorong! I had no idea Carthage existed before reading your blog post. The part about infrequent meetings reminded me of AP Euro last year where Poland's (I think it was Poland at least) governing body could only meet under some sort of unanimous condition, making their government very weak because they couldn't get their meetings together. Also the problems in Carthage just seem like the typical corruption of aristocrats and nobilities, which contributed to almost every problem we learned about in AP Euro last year. I think it is a rather rudimentary mistake for the Carthagian people to agree on an even number of people in power as most other systems, such as the supreme court have 9 justices so that there would never be a deadlock.
ReplyDeleteHi Zhaorong! I was entirely unaware of the Carthage government until after reading this blog, and am fascinated to discover its influence in the democracy we value today. The suffettes and senate members resemble political party roles in our contemporary society such as the president and senate members while it is understandable how this system was not completely free from corruption. I agree that governing is infeasible with an ideological clash between the two governing bodies as is the case with this specific government, and thus, I can understand a potential cause for its downfall. A large aspect to democracy is citizen involvement which is evident in the council meetings to end disputes between the governing bodies and while it may have been inefficient, I strongly believe this has had a significant influence in the democratic ideals values today. Thank you for this informational blog, and I am excited to learn more by reading your upcoming blogs!
ReplyDeleteHey Zhaorong, though I've heard of Carthage, I had no idea that it had such an influence on the democratic system and philosophy in government. Having the duo of suffretes definitely seems counterintuitive, which became especially more obvious when they had conflicting and non-compromising approaches to the future of Carthage. In addition, having infrequent meetings would be very inefficient and ineffective in the grand scheme of government. These two issues would definitely culminate in the overall unsuccessfulness of the government system, but this was to be expected for essentially a prototype version of the democratic system. This archaic system would lay the framework for democracy, which today has developed into a much more functional and effective form of government and philosophy.
ReplyDeleteHey Zhaorong, this is a really interesting topic to cover! As you have pointed out, I definitely think this government in Carthage had its flaws like the major influence of wealth on the governing body, but I think any democracy is not without its flaws. Here in the US, while there are quite a few senators who have come a from a middle class or working class background, a majority of the senators are wealthy and grew up wealthy and privileged. Another similar flaw we have is the amount of time it takes for legislative action to pass, especially with the opposing political agendas of the Democrats and Republicans. Thank you for this interesting blog post, and I look forward to your next one!
ReplyDeleteHi Zhaorong. I had never heard of Carthage before, so learning about this place and its government was really interesting and very educational for me. This political structure definitely sounds very inefficient, considering how there were only two suffetes, which could often lead to standoffs. I suppose it is from these past attempts in places like Carthage that showed people that a government with an even number of people in power does not work, which might be one major reason why we have three branches of the government, and why we only have 1 president. In some ways though, I think this problem still exists in America, because we have two major political parties which can often lead to standstills and delays as the two opposition groups are unwilling to cooperate and work together. I think it is fascinating to see how many different types of failed governments we have had since the beginning of time. In AP Euro, last year we learned about many different types of governing systems from absolutism in France to constitutionalism in England and enlightened despotism in Austria. In all of these government structures, there were always some shortcomings, because it was either too ineffective or it limited personal freedom. Perhaps, no government or political system can be truly perfect or ideal, and changes and reformations need to be made constantly. In any case, these older forms of democracy definitely served as a model for a democratic political structure, and the lessons we learn from history help people make better and more effective political structures today.
ReplyDeleteHi Zhaorong! You chose such an informative and intriguing topic. I never knew about Carthage before this. It's always interesting to look at historical bases for what our current form of society is. That is part of the reason I enjoyed AP Euro so much. As we observed time periods and got closer and closer to our present day a lot of modern concepts and situations slowly started to get pieced together like a puzzle. History has a lot of domino effects and I love looking at the root cause of a lot of it. Carthage's government, despite existing many centuries ago, is notably similar to our current form of government. Through time and wear and tear democracy has been fine-tuned and altered until it became what it is today.
ReplyDeleteNo democracy is without its flaws: they usually only work in peacetime. Carthage and its democracy was flawed, but it worked for the time being. However, even with all its issues, it was still a democracy. Democracies are rare in times of trouble, for the country needs somebody to lead them. A group of debating lawyers is not effective when the people of the country are being bombed and shot daily. Even America, whom most consider to be the capitol of democracy, still makes the president extremely powerful in times of need. FDR would not be able to pass his New Deal if America was not in the Depression. Bush Sr. would not have the power to send thousands of troops into the Middle East had it not been for 9/11. Democracies work, until they don't. That is the problem with them.
ReplyDeleteHello Zhaorang, it was cool to learn about Democracy in Ancient Carthage. What James said is right; no democracy has zero flaws. Even the US government has and had a lot of problems. As we know, the votes of black people only counted for 3/5 of a person. Women were not allowed to vote. Today, many people can't vote in ghettos because it's really hard to vote there.
ReplyDelete