Populism Vs Athenian Democracy

In Rome, where increased wealth meant greater power, the inequality between the rich and the poor not only in terms of living standards but also in power was extremely distinct. The Gracchus brothers sought to weaker the powers of the Senate by increasing the influence of the popular assembly, effectively restoring the balance of power in the Republic. The patricians invested heavily in the Roman expansion which led to a huge accumulation of wealth for them. On the other hand, the poor were buried heavily in debts as they were occupied with long periods of military service. As a result, land once owned by the poor were now sold to wealthy patricians. This widened the inequality gap which was further exacerbated by the influx of cheap slaves forcing smallholders to became the dispossessed poor. To resolve this social issue, the Gracchus brothers with their populist ideals pushed for social reforms which found widespread popularity amongst the commons and the assembly but immensely unpopular with landowners. An example of a reform would be limiting the land possessable by one, resulting in the breaking up of many large lands once owned by rich landowners. These populist agrarian and land reforms were heavily opposed by the Senate and each party tried to …show more content…
These two reasons that officiated the end of democracy might seem entirely separate. However, democracy in both cities had already been on a path of decline long before the democracy was written off as “dead” events, and the reasons for this gradual decline might not be so dissimilar after all. Both Athens and Rome tried to better the lives of their poorer citizens through populist reforms which backfired. Athens and Rome had also expanded too large for their constitution to remain effective and in control. All these served to catalyse the decline of their