| Item Description: | The aim of this article is to analyse and to interpret, firstly, the relation between those who govern and those who are governed in the historical, political and legal context within the ancient times; and secondly, the concept of sovereignty of the people, including the reflection on the nature of the people. The article analyses to what extent it is possible to reach a general consensus on issues of good and evil, particularly in determining what is normatively more important and what is less important, what is still acceptable and what is not in terms of the requirements for coexistence of people of different levels of education, different social status, different cultures and mentalities. These questions have been asked by great philosophers of the past; an intuitive approach was chosen by Plato and Augustine, who were both thinking in metaphysical categories. In contrast, Aristotle came up with an empirical-analytical approach for examining forms of government and their classification. The Roman Republic was based on narratives about the expulsion of the kings and was characterized by a mixed form of government, where the democratic component did not play a significant role. This article regards the teachings of Dante and Marsilius in a similar light because within the historical conditions of their times, the people themselves were not a source of power, but rather forced to play out the absolute monarch’s will which was effected by his battle with the church. Given the fact that the share in the government in the Roman Republic was determined by social status, even though there was a slight progress in this regard over time, this article concludes that it seems not be accurate to label the Roman governmental structure as a system, which took advantage of the concept of the sovereignty of the people when governing. |
|---|