It seems strange to me that a system in which the two highest elected officials share power equally could have lated so long (throughout the Roman Republic, from about 500 BC to 33 BC). Was it the case that one consul would normally be dominant and push his agenda, with the other as a figurehead, or were there checks to ensure that there was an equal distribution of power? Obviously it was ultimately unsuccessful, but it was around a long time before the Republic collapsed.
So the question is - did the system really work, or was it a fiction that was perpetuated due to tradition or some other factor?
If it did work, was it successful anywhere else? I know there were concurrently elected officials called “consuls” in post-revolutionary France but it was really Napoleon who wielded all the power.
I wouldn’t know whether usually one consul was dominant, but there certainly was a check ensuring the equal dstribution of power : the fact that each consul could veto any decision of the other
By the way, i’m not surprised that this system could work, providing it’s generally accepted and customary.
For instance, how can anything be ever achieved when there’s an executive and a legislative power with different political leanings? They could in theory prevent essentially anything to get done. The legislative power could for instance reject any bill and any budget proposed by the executive, the executive could veto everything voted by the legislative branch, and so on. But this doesn’t fit the cultural expectations, and it would be a political suicide. So, even if the executive and legislative disagree, they’re going to find some form of agreement. In theory, this system could very well not work at all. But it does.
I think the same principle applies to the consulate.
Actually, I always thought it was a great concept, and I would like it to be given a try. Of course, if it was implemented tomorrow, it probably wouldn’t work because it doesn’t fit our current political expectations. But there’s no real reason why Bush and Kerry or Bush and Cheney couldn’t be co-presidents of the USA, in theory.
Officially, assuming they were both in Rome (consuls also led armies), they switched off…each consul would be in charge for a month. As for how it worked, that depended. If the two consuls got along or one was much more prestigious or powerful than the other, stuff got done. Otherwise, there was a lot of gridlock. The roles of the consuls changed some after the formation of the Empire; I’m just talking here about Republican consuls.
Given that they also had a legislature which considered itself the ultimate authority, plus a whole 'nother set of executives/legislators in the tribunes, it’s kind of a wonder as much got done as it did.
Also remember that one of the consuls might be absent for long periods leading an army, in that case the other consul would lead by himself. Marius was elected consul an unprecedented 10 times, many of those times were in absentia and he never even returned to Rome to stand for election.
IIRC, it was unprecedented because it was illegal. The consuls weren’t allowed to serve more than a handful of terms in a row, lest they gain popular support and threaten the Senate. In the end, it turned out that perhaps such fears were well-grounded.
Nitpick: Marius was consul seven times, and not ten.
And it’s not that standing for the consulship a second time, or in absentia, was illegal. It’s more accurate to say that it went against tradition. Rome’s constitution was almost entirely unwritten, and the fact that things had always been done a certain way was in itself an argument against any innovation.
As to the consuls, they took turns holding the fasces, alternating each month. Or at least they did so when both were in the city. He who held the fasces was considered “in charge” of senatorial procedings. And it’s quite true that having a pair of consuls who were at odds with one another frequently resulted in gridlock.
Something to be remembered is that the Roman Republican model of government was quite effective for governing a self-contained city state. But as Roman influence grew, as its boundaries and population expanded, the Republican model became obsolete. Unfortunately, part of the Roman character was a stubborn refusal to do away with obsolete things. So instead of the governmental structure adapting easily to changing times, the powers that be clung desperately to the old ways until the whole thing finally snapped. As a result, I think it’s pretty fair to say that the consular structure worked well in the beginning, but gradually proved more and more problematic. And to be sure, it was the eccentricities of the consular system and his enemies’ use of such as a political tool that ultimately sent Caesar marching over the Rubicon.
I believe whoever got the most votes won, and whoever got the second most votes became the junior consul. The Senior consul was in charge of dealing with foreign matters. When you had two men who decided to run together they could get a lot of work done, but IIRC, Caeser ended up serving a term with his avowed enemy, Bilbulus (sp?) who did everything in his power, including retiring to his house for most of the term, to watch the stars, in an attempt to invalidate all of Caesar’s reforms for the year.
Considering that consuls only served a year, it’s a wonder they got as much done as they did.