Julius Caesar and Nicolás Maduro: Regimes

Regime change is a common occurrence in every political climate. Death, dislike, and inability to command are just a few causes of leaders or systems being removed for something more preferable. Looking at the past and the present there are many different regimes of men that can be compared to see what went right and what went wrong, while also showing what mistakes cannot be made if a nation wants to maintain their government. An example of two of these rulers are Julius Caesar, whose career was highlighted by his amazing ability as a general, and Nicolás Maduro, who inherited a rich and prosperous country built on its abundant oil supply.

Both Caesar and Maduro had many opportunities available to them in their positions. Caesar, the leader of the most powerful empire of his time, could have done anything with the nation he had built. While he did provide for his citizens, supplying them with a better and more enjoyable life, he let his own personal greed get the best of him. He “accepted excessive honors… too great for a mortal man,” an aspect of Roman culture that was looked down upon with severe disgust.[1] An example of this is the minting of coins with his silhouette. This deified him, putting him above the rest of mankind. The Romans looked at this with extreme discomfort and fear, worrying that Caesar was planning on instating himself as a king. This led to his assassination and the end of his regime. Maduro serves as another example of regime failure, but his has not yet reached its conclusion. He gained power following Hugo Chávez, and had the opportunity to utilize the great stores of oil in the country to better the people and bring about a new era of industry. Instead, he has continued to plunge Venezuela into debt.[2] He has caused the country to go into a food and medicine shortage, with “thousands of people [fleeing the] dire crisis there every day.”[3] Though his reign is terrible and tyrannical, his end has not come to fruition yet. His actions have prompted political suicide rather that assassination, as his recent rigged election has led to more than 40 countries “refusing to recognize Maduro’s government.”[4] His rule is deteriorating quickly, and soon Venezuela will have to find a new leader.

There are many differences between Caesar and Maduro, most notably in the ways that they came to power and the large period of time between their rules. Caesar did many great things for his people in the time that he was dictator, but his few mistakes were fatal. He brought about a great age for the Romans, and left Augustus behind to continue this trend. Maduro is, simply, a tyrant dictator in the position for his own good. Nothing is going to come from what he does other than pain and suffering of his people. What we can learn from Caesar is great, when looking at the situation from this scope. Perform actions with the best intentions, but do not allow oneself to get carried away in the position. Be a kind and compassionate ruler that serves the people, not one that serves himself. Maduro could have learned from Caesar, but chose instead to rule with an iron fist of oppression.

Cyrus Malek-Madani

Word Count: 599

[1] Suetonius, “The Lives of the Caesars, the Deified Julius,” 110 CE, Section LXXVI.

[2] Garcia, Henkel, “Nobody Is Going to Bail out Venezuela,” The Conversation, September 19, 2018, Accessed March 02, 2019, https://theconversation.com/nobody-is-going-to-bail-out-venezuela-87428.

[3] Smilde, David, “Venezuelans Reject Maduro Presidency – but Most Would Oppose Foreign Military Operation to Oust Him,” The Conversation, January 14, 2019, Accessed March 02, 2019, https://theconversation.com/venezuelans-reject-maduro-presidency-but-most-would-oppose-foreign-military-operation-to-oust-him-109135.

[4] Smild, “Venezuelans…” X1

An Ancient Problem in a Modern World

Democracy has established itself around the world as the gold standard for governance. This is largely due to the success of Western democratic nations following World War II, and the prosperity that continues to accompany them today. The foundations of democracy in current countries is largely due to the Romans, specifically the principles of majority participation in politics. However, democracy is not perfect, and often takes many years to develop before growth is recognizable in a new regime. This has been the case in the Middle East since the United States increased its presence in the region in 2003 (specifically Iraq), with little progression in terms of concrete regimes establishing control.

Countries like Iraq have a rich history, and customs that date back to the dawn of humanity. This is important to understand, due to the reality that people are less susceptible to change after they immerse themselves in a culture and familiar environment.[1] The political instability in Iraq following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by the United States and its allies effectively created a power vacuum in the country. This is comparable to the premature death of Alexander the Great, and his lack of a plan for a successor. Alexander’s early death contributed to “the [lack of] opportunity to implement whatever plans for the organization of his empire.” [2] The result of the absence of a clear successor for his empire saw stark divisions of territory by Alexander’s generals, along with armed conflicts between them.

The lack of a clear leader of a state is a recipe for conflict. In the same way as Alexander’s empire, Iraq, following the death of Saddam Hussein, fell victim to terrorist groups and civil war. Iraq remained somewhat stable with U.S. presence until 2011, however after the U.S. removed itself, the state fell into turmoil. Even under the governance of a Republic with a parliament, prime minister, and president, Iraq has fallen victim to ISIL along with ongoing insurgencies. These extremist groups have been the root of ongoing battles with the state, and in turn, the cause of instability. This constant instability without defined leadership is preventing the democratic regime from establishing legitimacy.

Unfortunately, the phrase “history repeats itself” holds true when comparing issues like regime changes. Although some countries have successfully implemented systems in which peaceful turnover of power is possible, many young countries still struggle to gain a foothold on this principle. Man’s lust for power when comparing regime changes such as those of Alexander the Great in the ancient world and the Iraqi government in the modern world, illustrates how some things fail to change. Without understanding the failures of regime change in the past, we will never be able to implement systems in which leaders maintain control of their territory while simultaneously being supported by their people.

-Griffin Hamilton

Word Count: 471

[1] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-struggle-for-middle-east-democracy/

[2] Class Folder: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1n2a9ZyZq8GaiNVbC1g__UtRftr15wf4g

Dreamers: Modern Metics

Should non-citizens be allowed to vote? Asking this question today in modern America is sure to get people on both sides of the political spectrum arguing why their decision is right. However, this is not a new issue. In Ancient Athens, asking the same question would get you the very same outcome. The key difference between ancient and modern times is what the non-citizens are referred to as. In ancient Athens they were known as metics, or resident aliens. Presently they are known mostly as dreamers: sons and daughters of illegal immigrants who were brought to America as young children.

Metics in Athens had interesting lives. They lived and worked in plain view of Athenian citizens, doing jobs that Athenians themselves could do as well, and they were treated similarly to if they themselves were citizens. However, metics were also required to pay additional taxes to be allowed to live in Athens, and they had no vote in the assembly, even in matters which strongly pertained to them. In Lysias 12, Lysias, an Athenian Metic who has lived in Athens for his entire life, begs the Athenian assembly to hear his plea that the one of the Thirty murdered his brother. Lysias asks that the assembly think for themselves when voting but unfortunately, Lysias himself is not allowed to vote, given his status as a metic. It is clear from his writing that Lysias is well educated, dedicated to Athens, and wants what is best for the city. Lysias also donated a large sum of his own money to the Athenian military during the Peloponnesian War, thereby furthering his dedication to Athens. Even with all of these factors, Lysias would not be allowed to vote, simply off the fact that is parents were not Athenian citizens, and therefore he could not be either.

In present day America, the argument regarding the rights of these now called Dreamers is still going strong. In 2012, President Obama signed the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” commonly known as DACA. DACA protects the rights of these Dreamers and allows them to continue to live in America with a more legal status. More recently, the Trump administration, with its firm stance on immigration reform has said that they will be phasing out the DACA program which would return the Dreamers to the illegal status they had prior to the program (CNN). Under DACA, it is very easy to make the comparison between dreamers and metics. Both lived much, if not all, of their lives in the places that they weren’t considered citizens, both do not have the right to vote, both held jobs openly in society, and both fought for more equal status.

-Brett Eckert

Word Count: 455

Lysias 12 from class drive

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/04/politics/daca-dreamers-immigration-program/index.html

Ancient Rome in Somewhat Ancient America

In the aftermath of a Civil War, what is a great nation to do? The Americans in 1865, and the Romans in 27 B.C.E. were both faced with the responsibilities of strengthening loyalties, and ensuring that things did not fall apart again. While there are obvious differences between Augustus’ role as the first principate of Rome, and the role of Congress during the Reconstruction Era following the American Civil War, there are some parallels to their administrative decisions.
When Augustus came into power, he had a lot to manage. He had a huge empire that needed to be managed, but he could not micromanage them as a dictator, because that would upset many of the Roman elite. He needed to control his empire without making it seem like he was controlling them.
Enter the position of principate. Essentially, this position allowed Augustus to control the Senate, while still remaining merely the “first citizen” of Rome, and nothing more. As the principate, Augustus controlled taxation powers (previously a power of the Senate), and also military powers, which he used to first demobilize Rome’s dangerously large armies, and later used to appoint military leaders and governors of Rome’s many provinces. Under Augustus’s time as the principate, Rome was peaceful, citizenship increased (as it allowed an increase in tax revenue), and the large empire became more integrated. For Roman citizens, there was a maintained appearance of the republic they once enjoyed, but Augustus was still able to control the empire under the title of principate.
At the end of the Civil War, President Lincoln had a lot to manage. He had to appease Congress, and determine what was to be done about the rights of freed slaves, and leaders of the Confederacy. Unfortunately, Lincoln was killed before much of his plan for Reconstruction could be put in place. The resultant actions of President Johnson, and Congress, who both faced with the same factors as Lincoln, both share similarities of the Roman principate.
President Johnson’s approach to Reconstruction is not remembered as very successful. He was almost impeached in his efforts. Augustus was so successful in establishing the position of principate in Rome, because he at least gave an appearance of working with the Senate. He may have been taking all of the power from the Senate, but he made it seem as though he was just a leader of the Senate. This is where President Johnson failed, and is arguably what made his plan for Reconstruction so unsuccessful. Johnson did not even try to appear as though he was working with the Radical Republicans in Congress. He vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1865 which marked a turn in his alliance from the Republicans to the Democrats, and angered Congress.
On the opposite hand, the same Congress that almost impeached President Johnson, employed some of the same tactics as the Roman principate, and were more successful in achieving their Reconstruction agenda. As I have previously stated, the idea of the principate is that there still exists all of the governing bodies, but one is clearly more powerful than the rest. After being acquitted by one vote, Johnson was pretty powerless when it came to shaping Reconstruction policies, and the Radical Republicans in Congress had the votes to pass the legislation that they needed. The most obvious difference in this case however, was that the principate was one person acting essentially as an emperor without the title, whereas Congress in the Reconstruction Era did not have one singular leader who came to power.
Much of the policies that Congress passed during the Reconstruction era were similar to Augustus’s as principate. Congress passed the Fifteenth Amendment which does not discriminate the right to vote on the basis of race, and Augustus similarly increased voting rights throughout the Roman Empire. Additionally, Augustus increased his power by appointing the military leaders and governors in provinces, and Congress created military districts in Confederate states to ensure that reconstruction policies were being carried out (the appointment of leaders in previously Confederate states was another contented issue between President Johnson and Congress). These similarities goes to show that in history some of the success in restoring order after a civil war lies in social reforms to please the people, with a balance of appointing people to office who will carry out policies.
While Augustus’s time as principate was marked with peace, the Reconstruction era is not remembered as running smoothly and being completely peaceful. Arguably, it left as many issues unsolved, as it left solved. With the role of the Roman principate, the main idea was the appearance of unity with one person in power. However, there was neither a true appearance of unity within the federal government during the Reconstruction era (as seen with the clashes between the Executive and Legislative branches), nor was there really any individual who came to power (or even just took control) of implementing policies.
Sources: class notes (for Ancient Rome information), Morris, Richard B. Encyclopedia of American History. Harper and Row, 1970 (for Reconstruction information).

Uganda and Severan Dynasty

Power is what many strive for, especially the power to rule one’s own country. The struggle of power causes political turmoil and civilization unrest. This often leads to deaths among civilians and government officials alike. Much like finding a stable administrative regime, the country of Uganda was a country that was ravished with instability and hardships. Uganda was held under British control until its independence in 1962. Under the British, non- Africans were not allowed to fully own land. However, following the new formed independent status, the country experienced a military coup in 1971 which followed the Severan dynasty of military autocracy. General Idi Amin Dada ruled with extreme brutal authoritarianism. Similar to the Severan model it was an increase on autocracy based on military power. The new formed government was not followed, instead the loyalty of the troops were appreciated. Another similarity to the model is Amin being a General followed the unspoken rule of an emperor being a warrior.

Though Amin was not an emperor, he did declare himself president for life. A difference between the above mentioned model and the history of the Ugandan government was expelling of Asian and Jewish communities. “Public order rapidly deteriorated, and murder, destruction of property, looting and rape became hallmarks of the regime. Amin declared himself President-for-life…” That did not last for long and he escaped the country in 1979. Dr. Obote replaced the former president but was ran out of office by Uganda National Liberation Army in another military coup.

“To some, Uganda is the hope of Africa, the ascendancy of black power, an example to the world of true militancy, a nation struggling against the spectre of fearless and tireless General. To model of others Uganda has become a a black-water, a nation regressing into a feudal state, led by a group of corrupt and degenerate soldiers…”(Africa Today). The country was divided into four kingdoms which was similar to the Diocletian model.

The past can inform us of the issues facing nation-states today going through similar crises by educating ourselves on what caused those nation-states to fail. The past is an important tool to learn from especially when it comes to ruling of a country. When it comes to ruling the Severan Dynasty is not the best model to follow. The military should not be the ones ruling a country because when conflict arises, violent military action ensues. I picked the country Uganda after the visit of Kim Kardashian and Kanye West to Uganda even though President Museveni has strict anti-homosexuality laws which are enforced through an authoritarian regime.

Alexandra Butler word count: 431

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4185297

http://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries/uganda/history

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-45834730

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14107906

Christianity Through the Lens of Polytheism

From the early Roman perspective, Christianity was rightly controversial. To properly understand the meaning of the practices and teachings of Christianity, one has to be closely affiliated with the religion. There are several misunderstandings that made Christianity very controversial, among them, cannibalism, incest, association with undesirables, and flaunting their disrespect of state sanctioned gods.

First, as recorded by the Gospel of John, Jesus promised his followers eternal life if they ate His flesh and drank His blood. What He actually gave to his followers was bread. Although the bread was His body, it was not literally human flesh, but His divine flesh. Similarly, the wine He served was his blood, but not blood as we think of as human blood, but rather divine blood. This idea of transubstantiation was completely foreign to the Romans, and instead appeared as a form of cannibalism.

Christianity did not only appear to promote cannibalism, but also incest. Jesus referred to everyone as His brothers and sisters. Christians also gathered together to celebrate the Agape feast, which is translated as “love fest.” This led to confusion that brothers and sisters were performing incestuous acts. All Christians, however, were not brother and sister in a biological sense, but rather brothers and sisters of the faith, and the feast was simply a time of fellowship. Jesus’ desire to welcome and love all people also drew some disdain from Romans. Pliny the Younger, a provincial governor, describes two deaconesses as slave-women. Slaves, the poor, and the sick were considered to be undesirable by the wealthy and powerful. Those such as Pliny the Younger could not understand why Christ sought not only wealthy and powerful, but the poor and forgotten as well.

Finally, many in the Roman Empire worshipped gods such as Jupiter and Mars, as well as other state-supported gods. The state, in fact, instituted public obligations to worship such gods and conduct sacrifices for them. There were also many cults supported monetarily by public officials. Christians, and also Jews, only worshipped a single God, and refused to worship the numerous Roman gods. Such officials, like Pliny, were angered by their refusal, and often threatened punishment if followers did not renounce their faith. Not worshipping the gods meant they would be angered, and thus cause instability within the empire. When things did go wrong, they were easily blamed because of this lack of appeasement to the gods. The final straw came when Jesus upset the Jewish leaders by critiquing abuses in their traditional practices. Word had also spread that Jesus would lead an uprising in Palestine against the Romans. Pontius Pilate agreed to crucify Jesus because of this threat of instability.

Word Count: 443

Voyages ch.7 Rome and Christianity0001.PDF

https://www.bible.com/bible/

With a Capital ‘G’

It is close-minded to view the world from only your perspective. Of course, this is much easier to say than actually practice, but to evaluate the world from only a monotheist perspective is to ignore the religions of all other cultures. Trying to understand the Roman religion from today’s Judeo-Christian model can be like trying to listen a new language. It sounds like a bunch of mumbles. Now, reverse the roles. You are a Roman before the third century and you believe that Jupiter is the head god. Pleasing him and the other gods is the only way to have a successful society. Any person who followed another belief systems was shunned and many were punished.

So, of course, the introduction of monotheism was met with extreme dissent by the majority of Romans. Imagine your belief system, the commonly practiced belief system, is one day challenged. The monotheists do not recognize your gods and they refuse to pay respect to them. Naturally, you are going to be scared and insulted. You will fear the recoil of your gods and feel as if your faith is threatened.

The Romans were extremely superstitious. Their faith was based off a system of loyalty toward minor and major gods. Good and bad luck was given to the Romans by these gods based off their actions; as long as the gods were happy, the Romans would prosper. It was common practice to host festivals in honor of the gods. The Romans also built temples to worship and pay sacrifices and respects. The monotheists’ refusal to participate in these sacrifices was a direct disregard of the loyalty toward Rome and her gods. The Romans responded largely with religious persecution. For example, Christians who refused to participate in the festivals or give animal sacrifice to the Roman gods were thrown into cages with lions, dressed in animal skins.

Personal faith is an extremely sensitive subject, but one that so many are so passionate about. Holy wars are so common an occurrence in today’s society. Moreover, it is easy to see the violent nature of religious persecution that has been present for generations. Humans value knowledge and it is in their instincts to associate with religion. Anyone who challenges that will appear to us as a violation of our human nature and we will name them as evil and wrong. However, different viewpoints are not necessarily bad and if we can accept and understand this then we can move toward increased tolerance as a whole.

WC: 421