Bribery in Roman Politics

      This hub seeks to examine Roman bribery in politics and elections both as a singular phenomenon and in conjunction with modern American politics and corruption. In the 2000 years since the Roman republic, it appears as though nothing of human nature has changed. Just recently, a Illinois politician was accused of selling a senate seat. This closely echoes the Roman rogatores, who solicited votes at the election itself and could be bribed into counting the vote incorrectly.
        Perhaps it would be safe to speculate that bribery is common in elections solely because it is effective. To give money or gifts to a person in exchange for something you want is the definition of free trade. However, bribery to win political office was as frowned upon in Rome as it is in America. Cicero defends his friend and ally, Murena, against accusations of bribery in a long oration displaying the virtues of his comrade. In this speech, Cicero himself reminds his audience that it was he who passed the law on bribery and corruption, so it is suitable that he be the one to defend Murena. This is an important part of the speech, because it emphasizes that bribery and corruption were so common that Cicero found it necessary to pass a further law concerning it. He says, “You demanded a law about bribery, though there was no deficiency of laws on that matter, for there was the Calpurnian law, framed with the greatest severity” (Pro Murena, XXIII). Clearly, there are already quite strict laws about bribery and corruption in place, even before Cicero adds to them. Despite this, the people see that bribery and corruption to get into office are still occurring and seek a way to cease it. A modern equivalent to this might be the Florida “chad” scandals. George Bush’s brother was currently the governor of that state and the miscounted votes may have been what swung the vote to Bush. Another example might be the Nixon Watergate scandal. Of course, Nixon was quite guilty, despite his later pardoning, and Murena was unanimously determined to have been innocent.
            Despite the outcome of the case, bribery, extortion, and use of violence were all very common in Rome. The defense of Cicero mostly concerns itself with the character of Murena and the purity of his bloodline. One cannot assume that Cicero is lying, though it seems unlikely that Murena was never involved in such political scandals. Cicero never comes out and says that his client was never involved in bribery, he merely speaks of the tremendous virtue of Murena’s life and the military excellence which he exhibited. When it is time for Cicero to discuss the bribery, which is the third item on his agenda, he first begins by discussing other things. He commends Cato and pleads that the audience not judge merely on the name of Cato the outcome of the case. He offers no proof against the accusations, nor does he straightforwardly deny the allegations. It is difficult to assess whether it is Murena’s lack of guilt which swings the verdict his way, or the threat of having the exiled Catiline as consul does so. Cicero eloquently talks around the subject, subtly turning the tables on the prosecution. Bribery was common enough for Caesar himself to have been involved in mass bribes to the rural tribes in provincial Rome. Candidates relied upon their friends, relatives, and neighbors to win the election for them. Other voters could be convinced, but bribery was a much faster way of soliciting a vote.
          In addition, threats of and the use of violence and private armies affected the elections and the voters. Candidates could be chased from the Forum by angry followers of one candidate or another. Voters could be threatened with personal harm if they did not vote for the canvassing candidate. This was a time of low morals and many crimes. The idealism had faded from the governing system and the nobility were hoarding the power in an oligarchy. Cicero was the first new man to be elected in 30 years. This means that every consul for 30 years had a forefather who also held political power. In our American system, we pride ourselves on having few oligarchies, yet the recent father-son duo of the Bushes suggests a little of the same. One could imagine if for 30 years, every American President was a Bush, Clinton, or Kennedy. Once in power, a Roman man had many duties aside from his official ones. He must then work on getting his friends elected to offices. He would have called in many favors and exerted all of his influence in getting himself elected and he would be expected to aide those who got him elected. A consul could preside as magistrate over the elections and abuse his power in this manner. He was responsible for announcing the winner of the elections and could postpone the elections for any reason he saw fit. Taylor writes that one reason for doing this was in order that, “the troublesome voters go home, or to have new voters arrive on the scene who, like Caesar’s soldiers, could affect the vote” (Taylor, 71). Thus, it appears that the soldiers could impact the vote tremendously. Cicero discusses how some candidates preferred “the votes of these quiet citizens to those of the soldiers” (Pro Murena, XIX). He also discusses the public bribery that was acceptable. Candidates could give lavish games, plays, and feasts to entice the voters.
            What seemed to matter in Rome was not whether or not you were bribing people, but whether or not you were smart enough to not get caught. Some bribes were seen as acceptable, such as sending gifts to tribes, yet this was dependent largely on if you were being accused of bribery. When accused, everything is bribery which truly is bribery and all that is even slightly questionable is also bribery. Murena faces this when he, after having been elected, is accused of having used bribery to get into his office. Yet the most convincing part of Cicero’s speech is that concerning Catiline. He tells the judges, “I am counteracting their designs, disarming their audacity, resisting their wickedness…. Do not refuse me a successor in my diligence; do not refuse me him, to whom I am anxious to deliver over the republic in a sound condition, that he may defend it from these great dangers” (Pro Murena, XXXVII). He is suggesting that without the candidate he has backed, the state will fall to the sedition of Catiline and that the liberty and safety of the Roman people is at stake. This is what the Romans cared the most about, not the bribery. Cicero is able to replace seditious charges with the need to keep Murena because he’s better than the alternatives. This is much like in American politics when we vote for “the lesser of two evils”. The Roman system differs in many ways from our own, but instead of games and plays, we are bribed by promises of an end to war, national healthcare and better schools.