Introduction of the chapter!

The use of lot was not exclusive of the Athenian government: before representative governments were established, the Italian republics in the Middle Ages and Rennaissance chose their magistrates by lot
The new representative governments that called themselves republics (France and USA) broke with the republican tradition of lot; even when there were still republicans using this system!
Opinions of: Harrington, Montesquieu and Rousseau. For all of them, lot was equitable to election; it was one of the tools used by republican governments to avoid inheriting power.
- Harrington: searched references in republican tradition that might help new govts.
- Montesquieu: thought republics were a thing of the past and favored monarchies
- Rousseau: retained a good perspective of republican institutions. "Every legitimate gov. is republican."
Republican models hesitated between lot and election. In Florence, there was even a debate considering this
The choice between election or lot was obviously a matter of debate for republics in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; yet the cultivated elites that established representative governments chose election.

Rome!!

Polybius (greek writer living in Rome in the 2nd century) said that Rome's political system was a mixed constitution, not a pure democracy (thought replicated by Machiavelli)
- Monarchical: consuls and magistrates
- Aristotratic: Senate
- Democratic: Popular assembly
Notion of mixed government has largely been forgotten even when it was such a relevant part of western political thought
Timocracy: system based in property qualifications.
- Classification of citizens using a census
- Not only wealth, but physical, social and moral qualities were considered
Popular vote: the votes of the wealthy people had more weight in the comitia
The higher the citizens were on the social scale, the smaller the centuries were
In order to occupy a magistracy, one had to be a member of the equestrian order and senators needed to be ex-magistrates
Most magistracies were elective and none were chosen by lot. People could elect magistrates but not everyone could be a magistrate
Social and political mobility was possible from one generation to another
Popular assemblies passed laws and tried certain cases, BUT the initiatives belonged only to the magistrates (unlike in Athens)
Lot was used to decide who should vote first in centuriate assemblies and which votes should be counted first in tribal assemblies
Centuriate asemblies: first class (18 equestrian centuries and 80 centuries of first order) voted before the rest of the lower census classes and they represented a majority; so sometimes the lower census classes didn't even get to cast a vote and had arbitration duties at best.
- After the end of the third century BC there was a reform and now the votes of 8 of the centuries in the second order class were needed to reach a majority.
- After the reform, only one century was invited to vote first and it was chosen from the first order centuries. The vote then carried on by hierarchies
- The results of the lot were seen as a sign from the gods; so both high and lower classes had an easier time accepting the results; even if they didn't get to vote
- Effects: more unity and agreement among the comitia
Comitia tributa or tribal assemblies: lot was also used, but it depended on what was being decided. The votes were not hierarchical and in general it had the same effect; since lot was used and attributed to the gods; it was seen as fair even if not everybody got to vote
- When electing magistrates, the vote was simultaneous but lot was used to determine whose votes were counted first
Conclusion for Rome!! lot played a part in generating political cohesion, first among the high propertied classes and then among the lower classes because of its neutrality and the religious interpretation placed upon it.

Italian city republics!!

11th and 12th centuries: some Italian communes used lots to choose their magistrates
3 main procedures to chose council members:
Citizens had an ardent desire to hold office because of the honors and benefits. This caused factional conflicts
In order to solve such conflicts, at the beginning of the 13th century, the figure of the podestà was introduced
- single executive magistrate
- judiciary and policing powers
- had to come from a different commune to increase neutrality
- he was elected, not chosen by lot
- common trait with lot: the search for something external and neutral
About the use of lot to pick magistrates
- Leonardo Bruni critiques: in election, citizens have to put their reputation on the line and they have to conduct themselves well, whereas in selection by lot, they do not worry about this.
- Francesco Giucciardini: proposes to extend the membership of the Great Council to the citizens who could not be eligible for office as magistrates; since they would not be swayed by personal ambitions

	Erstellt von Bren Araujo vor etwa 7 Jahre

Chapitre 2 Bernard Manin: Principes du Gouvernement Représentatif