CC BY
27
ЕВРОПА В ПРОШЛОМ Europe in the Past
A.M. Smorchkov, S.N. Fedorchenko, and P.P. Shkarenkov
VOX POPULI - VOX DEI: ELECTIONS IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC AND MODERN DEMOCRACIES (COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS) *
A.M. Сморчков, C.H. Федорченко, П.П. Шкаренков
Vox populi - vox dei: Выборы в Римской республике и современных демократиях
(сравнительный анализ)
Перевод М.А. Царевой **
Elections are the institute that unites to the utmost the direct (in ancient times) and representative (in modern times) democratic systems. Electoral procedures legitimize political power and also establish a consensus between government and society. The recognition by society of the legitimacy of power is the most reliable foundation of this consensus on which both modern states and ancient polis states are built.
As it was rightly noted by V. V. Dementieva, whose research has made a significant contribution to the study of the republican political system, "the Roman organization of the institutions of power and of the mechanisms of its functioning are closer to the representative democracies of our time than Athenian direct democracy^"1. This determines particular importance of studying the Roman experience. Notably, in the political theory and practice of the Roman Republic paramount importance was attached to the preservation of the continuity of power in sacred and legal terms. For the transfer of power from some to others, like any change,
* The article was prepared with the support ofthe Russian Science Foundation's grant "Discourse of State Power in Ancient Societies and Reception of Its Elements in World and Russian Socio-Political Practices" (No. 19-18-00549). = Статья подготовлена при поддержке гранта Российского научного фонда «Дискурс государственной власти в древних обществах и рецепция его элементов в мировых и российских общественно-политических практиках» (проект № 19-18-00549), реализуемого в Российском государственном гуманитарном университете.
** Translated by Marina A. Tsareva (Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, Russia).
was fraught with errors in the ritual, which could lead to breaking "the peace with the gods" (pax deorum),the cornerstone of the Roman religious worldview. In effect, the highest magistrates (and the Senate) were primarily responsible for maintaining proper relations with the gods -hence the increased attention to elections and their legitimacy in both religious and legal contemplation.
As it is now, in the Roman Republicof great importance were the procedures for registering candidates and regulating pre-election campaigns, and all this was carried out by purely political means without any religious connotations. But in legitimating the electoral procedure as such the predominant role was played by religious acts, viz. twoauspicial acts (one before an election and the other during its course). In the political sense, auspicia meant the special right of the magistrates to question gods on public issues in the area of their competence. So this term became synonymous with the magistrate authority per se. The importance of proper performance of auspicia before electoral popular assemblies (comitia) is evidenced by the fact that the detection of a violation (vitium) during their holding was the main reason for the abdication of already elected magistrates2. Thus, auspiciabQiorQ electoral comitias formed, as some researches put it, the sacred foundation of the office of new magistrates3.
Of course, it is difficult to find a modern analogy to the religious rituals of the ancient Roman electoral procedure. The many centuries past, the lack of direct continuity of modern democracy with ancient democracy, the secularization of society and the displacement of religion by secular institutions would not seemingly provide a reason for such comparison. But if we look at the role of the two modern pre-election procedures - public opinion polls and political forecasts, we can see a certain similarity with antiquity regarding the existence of rituals whose connection with elections is rather of ideological significance. The fact that public opinion polls and political forecastson the eve of elections have acquired a literally ritual character in democracies testifies to the importance that candidates, parties and the state attach to them. Ritual belief in "vox populi - vox Dei" is largely associated with an inconspicuous methodological innovation of George Gallup, who actually equated public opinion polls with one of the forms of plebiscite democracy4. (Curiously, this expression ("the voice of the people - the voice of God") in the context of this study can be interpreted in the sense of the correspondence of modern polls ("citizen's opinion") to Roman auspicia ("the will of Jupiter")). The correlation of the results of polls with the dominant positionin society also has a clearly ritual, unprovable character5.
Public opinion is now firmly linked to the abstract image of the people which is used in politics to claim democratic legitimacy6. Polls, even if they are not quite correct or, moreover, are erroneous (as was the case with the evaluation of Donald Trump's chances during the presidential campaign in the USA), referring to public opinion, create the bandwagon effect - joining the majority. We can see something similar in Re-
publican Rome. During voting at theCenturiate Assembly that elected the highest magistratesthe most important was the opinion of the first CQntury(centuriapraerogativa) from the first class, which was chosen by lot7. The voting results of the first centuria were considered "an omen of a proper election" {omen iustorum comitiorum)8. Though this century's choice was not binding on either the president of the Assembly or the voters from the other centuries, it had a decisive influence on the other centuries' choice9.
Thus, the past millennia have not diminished the importance of ritu-alization in political life. Having undergone metamorphosis and having survived after secularization, rituals have nonetheless retained their function of reproduction and stabilization of social and political relations and order through an appeal to the symbolic. There is an interesting opinion that prevailing in modern democracies are the so-called media rituals (or digital rituals), i.e. sets of standardized rules that include media logic (show orientation, scandalousness, telegenicity, the celebrity effect)10. They combine the sacred and the sublime with the profane and the mundane, legitimizing the democratic practices of network communication.
Undoubtedly, the modern "digital environment" has brought about significant changes to the electoral process, especially at the preliminary stage. "Digital rituals" as standardized forms represented by the practice of selfies, comments, posts, reposts, likes, dislikes, surfing newsfeeds turn an individual into a consumer of content and ready-made meanings, i.e. an Internet user. Behind this is a considerably fundamental process of transformation of democracy into mediacracy, when the interests of large media corporations are closely intertwined with those of political actors (parties, government, political leaders)11. Such a powerful informational pressure could not technically exist in Rome. Nevertheless, the common thing is the combination of the value-symbolic meaning of the procedures with typical pragmatics. On the one hand, the digital rituals in the form of hashtags, memes or emoticons are emotionally charged, but on the other hand, they are based on rather pragmatic algorithms created by programmers12.
As for actual elections, at the Popular Assembly in Rome a particular political and religious importance was attached to the annunciation of the name of a new magistrate (renuntiatio), which was made by the president during an election13. The formal announcement of the voting results was the key moment in the procedure of electing new magistrates: without this, an election was considered invalid regardless of its actual result. Another thing is that this right, which bordered on arbitrariness, was a double-edged weapon in the conditions of extremely poorly developed means of internal coercion in the Republic, and it was hardly ever abused. Specific cases of refusal to announce the winner following the results of an election that had already taken place are not known;there is only information about a threat to use it. And it was not incidental: the president of the electoral assembly had the capacity to obstruct an
unwanted candidate both at the preliminary stage and during the actual election14. So, the refusal to announce the name of the winner was the absolute last resort.
It is interesting that the procedure for announcing the voting results actually retains the ritual function of legitimation in modern democracies as well. This mission is assigned, as a rule, to representatives of the election commissions, but not limited to. For instance, in Denmark, the parliament must confirm the results of the election of deputies. If there is any doubt, the parliament may not approve the results and make the Ministry of Internal and Social Affairs count the votes again. Finally, the authorities announce the election results through the media. In Australia, the election commissioner also has the right to initiate vote recounting before the announcement of election results15. Modern democracies, however, run more serious risks of delegitimation than Republican Rome. The cause lies in the phenomenon of "parallel vote count" carried out by the opposition. A dual role is also played by exit polls (polls of voters when they leave polling stations)which in some cases may run counter to the official announced results and provoke protests from the opposition.
Let's look at another important (also from the viewpoint of modern trends)feature of the electoral procedure in the ancient Roman Republic. The announcement of the winners was preceded by casting of lots which determined in what sequence the voting units (centuries or tribes) would vote. Apparently, it was accompanied by auspicia and was actually perceived as a kind of auspicia16. The significance of this procedure (casting of lots) was determined by the fact that success or failure largely depended on the sequence in which the votes were cast, since the voting was stopped when a candidate won 50% plus 1 vote. And this did not always mean an absolute majority vote (as is the case with the US presidential election). In other words, the winner was not the one who gained a majority vote but the one who won it faster than the others. As mentioned above, casting of lots defined the first centuria whose voting results were announced in advance, which had a decisive influence on the overall result.
In Roman political practice, casting of lot was widely used, but as far as the election of officials is concerned, it played a particular role in Athenian democracy, where practically all magistracies (except for military and financial) were replenished by lot among candidates. In polito-logical literature this type of democracy is called aleatory (derived from the Latin word alea - lot)17. Naturally, today there are substantial differences from the ancient procedure, but the basic principle is preserved in new forms relating to the specific features of the political culture of a particular country. For instance, there are known cases of the Canadian provinces of British Columbia (2004), Ontario (2006-2007), as well as the Netherlands (2006), where residents of these countries discussed the electoral system's reform18. The aleatory procedure in all these cases had three stages: first, citizens were chosen by lot from the voter register;
then interested citizens from the elected ones could propose themselves as candidates to discuss the reform; and last, the final candidates from the self-nominees were again chosen by lot. Similar principles have emerged in Iceland, Ireland, USA, UK, France and Germany.
The reason for increasingly frequent attempts to revive the aleatory procedure is that the elite is thereby trying to enhance the legitimation of democratic regimes which have recently seen serious signs of delegitimation - absenteeism, declining confidence in governments, parliaments and political parties, and a decrease in the number of parties themselves. The gradually decreasing participation of citizens in the electoral procedure makes politicians seek to find new means of saving democracy in the ancient aleatory practice. Indeed, choosing by lot gives the sense of objectivity and impartiality that is so sorely lacking in modern democratic institutions, which are widely accused of manipulation and falsification. It is, possibly, for this reason that the Australian philosopher JohnBurnheim suggests to introduce the aleatory procedure in addition to the electoral19. Burnheim has introduced the notion of "demarchy" to define direct rule of citizens chosen by lot. Such a project has already become a reality in the form of the Citizens' Parliament at the Australian Parliament. Initially, there were 8,000 randomly selected citizens and about 3,000 of these people agreed to be involved. From this number, 150 citizens were chosen using random stratified sampling (with the consideration of cultural, gender and age differences). They divided into small groups in which they discussed Australian democracy issues and produced a package of recommendations for the main Parliament20.
Thus,the methods of legitimation of ancient and modern democracies have a certain similarity in the ritual support of the electoral process and in the preservation of the practice of choosing by lot in the electoral procedure.
If we take a general look at the procedure for legitimizing political power, with regard to Republican Rome we get a quite justified impression that there was an absolute predominance of religious acts and religious content. This is both true and false. Undoubtedly, from the point of view of the worldview of that time, the religious sphere had an unambiguous and generally recognized priority. However, in actual life, the pragmatism of the Romans and, particularly, of the political elite brought to the fore the social needswhich were "served" by the religious component. Moreover, there was a corresponding ideological basis under this pragmatism. Indeed, despite the close interconnection of the sphere of the divine (fas) and that of the human (ius), the borderline between them was distinct and well respected. This speaks for the actual subordination of the sacred sphere to the political one, which is one of the basic principles of the religious life of a civil community (however, a different opinion prevails in Russian historiography). This situation brings Republican Rome closer to modern democracies which are characterized by the technocracism of political leaders and parties that focus not on ideology
but on the practical area of propaganda, strategy and tactics of work with the electorate.
Summing up, let's point out a number of similarities and differences between the electoral procedures of ancient and modern democracies. As it was in the time of the Roman Republic, the legitimacy of a regime is conditioned by the preservation of fair democratic procedures as honest and transparent before the internal actors (citizens) and opposition leaders capable of provoking them into criticism. Modern democracies try to enhance their legitimation by introducing the aleatory form of democracy that was known in antiquity. Moreover, aleatory procedures are used in combination with democratic electoral procedures. While modern democracies rely largely on the regulatory level and pragmatism, they also retain ritualized practices which are reflected in the importance of opinion polls, political forecasts, talk shows and online media news feed. But in this context, democracy is increasingly metamorphosing into medi-acracy - a form of government where the interests of political actors are closely intertwined with the interests of media conglomerates.
Notes Примечания
1 Дементьева B.B. Жребий как античный политико-правовой инструмент: к дискуссии о возможности его рецепции // Pentecontaetia: Исследования по античной истории и культуре. Санкт-Петербург, 2018. С. 346.
2 Liv. IV. 7. 3 (ср. Dionys. XI. 62. 1); V. 17. 2-4; VI. 27. 5; 38. 9-10; VIII. 15. 6; 17. 3-4; 23. 14-17; IX. 7. 13-14; XXI. 63. 2, 7; XXII. 33. 11-12 (ср. 34. 10); XXIII. 31. 13-14; Cic. ND. II. 10-11; Div. I. 33; II. 74; Leg. II. 31; Val. Max. I. 1. 3, 5; Dio Cass. LIV. 24. 1; Plut. Marcel. 4, 5, 6; Zon. VIII. 20. Other reasons (serious disease, disgraceful defeat, other considerations, and for censors - the death of a colleague): Liv. III. 29. 3;V. 9; 31. 7-8; VI. 27. 4-5; VIII. 3. 4; IX. 7. 12; 10. 1-2; 26. 20; 33. 4-9; 34; XXIV. 43. 4; XXVII. 6. 18; Dionys. IX.13. 4; Plut. QR. 50.
3 Jahn J. Interregnum und Wahldiktatur. Kallmünz, 1970. S. 23; Kunkel W. Zum römischen Königtum II Kunkel W. Kleine Schriften: Zum römischen Strafverfahren und zur römischen Verfassungsgeschichte. Weimar, 1974. S. 345-366.
4 Gallup J. A Guide to Public Opinion Polls. 2nd rev. ed. Princeton (NJ), 1948. P. 11-15.
5 Osborne Т., Rose ^.Do the Social Sciences Create Phenomena?: The Example of Public Opinion Research // The British Journal of Sociology. 1999. Vol. 50. No. 3. P. 367-396.
6 ЮдинК.Ю. Общественное мнение, или Власть цифр. Санкт-Петербург, 2020. С. 144, 145, 170.
7 Cic. Phil. II. 82; Liv. XXIV. 7. 12; XXVII. 6. 3.
8 Varro ар. Fest. 290L, s. v. praerogativae centuriae; Cic. Div. I. 103; II. 83; Mur. 38; Plane. 49; Verr. I. 26; Ad Q. fr. II. 14. 4; Liv. III. 51. 8; V. 18. 1; X. 22.
1; XXIV. 7. 12, 9. 3; XXVI. 22. 2-4, 12-13; XXVII. 6. 3; Plut. Cato min. 42 (mistakenly, tribe is mentioned instead of century); Jehne M. Wirkungsweise und Bedeutung der centuria praerogativa // Chiron. 2000. Bd. 30. S. 669-678; Meier Chr. Praerogativa centuria // Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Supplbd. 8. Stuttgart, 1956. Sp. 593-598.
9 Rosenstein N. Sorting out the Lot in Republican Rome // American Journal ofPhilology. 1995. Vol. H6.N0.I. P. 62.
10 ЧерныхА.И. Ритуалы и мифы медиа. Санкт-Петербург, 2015. С. 147.
11 Bodrunova S. Mediacracy or Mediademocracy?: On Some Conceptual Approaches to the Interaction of Journalism and Politics in Established Democracies // Centre for German and European Studies Working Papers. 2010. Vol. 7. P. 1-40.
12 Beer D. Power Through the Algorithm?: Participatory Web Cultures and the Technological Unconscious // New Media & Society. 2009. Vol. 11. No. 6. P. 985-1002.
13 Сморчков A.M. Источники и характер магистратского права на ауспиции: анализ акта renuntiatio // Вестник древней истории. 2010. № 1. С. 31-49.
14 Rilinger R. Der Einfluss des Wahlleiters bei den römischen Konsulwahlen von 366 bis 50 v. Chr. München, 1976. S. 144-151, 174-186; Giovannini A. Magistratur und Volk: Ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Staatsrechts // Staat und Staatlichkeit in der frühen römischen Republik: Akten eines Symposiums, 12.-15. Juli 1988, Freie Universität Berlin. Stuttgart, 1990. S. 418-426.
15 Современные избирательные системы. Вып. 4: Австралия, Венесуэла, Дания, Сербия. Москва, 2009. С. 62, 281.
16 Stewart R. Public Office in Early Rome: Ritual Procedure and Political Practice. Ann Arbor (MI), 1998. P. 22-51.
17 Руденко B.H. Формы алеаторной демократии: генезис и развитие // Научный ежегодник Института философии и права Уральского отделения Российской академии наук. 2018. Т. 18. № 4. С. 97-125.
18 РейбрукД. ван. Против выборов. Москва, 2018. С. 117-131.
19 Burnheim J. Is Democracy Possible?: The Alternative to Electoral Democracy. 2nded. Sydney, 2006. P. 11-13.
20 DryzekJ. The Australian Citizens' Parliament: a World First // Papers on Parliament. 2009. №51.P. 37-47.
Authors, Abstract, Key words
Andrey M. Smorchkov - Doctor ofHistory, Professor, Russian State University for the Humanities (Moscow, Russia)
smorchkovtuber@yandex.ru
Sergey N. Fedorchenko - Candidate of Political Science, Professor, Moscow Region State University (Moscow, Russia)
s.n.fedorchenko@mail.ru
Pavel P. Shkarenkov - Doctor of History, Professor, Vice-rector, Russian State University for the Humanities (Moscow, Russia)
chkarenkov@mail.ru
The article provides a comparative analysis of ancient and modern technologies for the legitimation of political power, using the example of the Roman Republic and the currently existing democracies. The focus is on the electoral procedure that unites to the utmost the direct (in ancient times) and representative (in modern times) democratic systems. In ancient Rome, in legitimating the electoral procedure the predominant role was played by religious acts, viz. two divination procedures to reveal the will of the gods (auspicia). One was held right before an election and the other during its course, ending with the annunciation of the voting result {renuntiatio). This was the key act in the procedure of electing new magistrates, without which an election was considered invalid regardless of its actual result. The procedure of announcing the voting results actually retains the ritual function of legitimation in modern democracies as well. This mission is assigned, as a rule, to representatives of the election commissions. In the modern world, the ancient Roman religious rituals have an analogy in the form of public opinion polls and political forecasts on the eve of elections which have acquired a ritual legitimizing character in modern democracies. During elections in ancient Rome, a decisive influence on the voting results was exerted by drawing of lots which determined the sequence for casting votes. Modern states, too, try to enhance their legitimation by introducing the aleatory (by lot) form of democratic procedures. Thus, the methods of legitimation of ancient and modern democracies have a certain similarity in the ritual support of the electoral process and in the preservation of the practice of choosing by lot in the electoral procedure. But the legitimating practices of modern democracy have been supplemented with the foreign policy factor, which did not exist in ancient Rome. Also, there was no powerful information pressure in the Roman Republic as there was no media. Today's democracy is increasingly metamorphosing into mediacracy - a form of government where the interests of political actors are closely intertwined with the interests of media conglomerates.
Roman Republic, elections, legitimation, democracy, ritual, media, aleatory procedure.
References (Articles from Scientific Journals)
1. Beer, D. Power Through the Algorithm?: Participatory Web Cultures and the Technological Unconscious. New Media & Society, 2009, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 985-1002. (In English)
2. Bodrunova, S. Mediacracy or Mediademocracy?: On Some Conceptual Approaches to the Interaction of Journalism and Politics in Established Democracies. Centre for German and European Studies Working Papers, 2010, vol. 7,
pp. 1-40. (In English)
3. Dryzek, J. The Australian Citizens' Parliament: a World First. Papers on Parliament., 2009, no. 51, pp. 37-47. (InEnglish)
4. Jehne, M. Wirkungsweise und Bedeutung der centuria praerogativa. Chiron , 2000, bd. 30, s. 661-678. (In German)
5. Osborne, T. and Rose, N. Do the Social Sciences Create Phenomena?: The Example of Public Opinion Research. The British Journal of Sociology, 1999, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 367-396. (InEnglish)
6. Rosenstein, N. Sorting out the Lot in Republican Rome. American Journal ofPhilology, 1995, vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 43-75. (InEnglish)
7. Rudenko, V.N. Formy aleatornoy demokratii: genezis i razvitiye [Forms of Aleatory Democracy: Genesis and Development.]. Nauchnyy ezhegodnik ln-stitutafilosofii i prava Ural 'skogo otdeleniya Rossiyskoy akademii nauk, 2018, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 97-125. (InRussian)
8. Smorchkov, A.M. Istochniki i kharakter magistratskogo prava na auspit-sii: analiz akta renuntiatio [Sources and Nature of Magistrate Right to Auspicia: An Analysis of Renuntiatio Act], Vestnik drevney istorii, 2010, no. 1, pp. 31-49. (In Russian)
(Essays, Articles, and Papers from Books, Proceedings, and Research Collections)
9. Dementyeva, V.V. Zhrebiy kak antichnyy politiko-pravovoy instrument: k diskussii o vozmozhnosti ego retseptsii [Lot as an Ancient Political and Legal Tool: Towards a Discussion on the Possibility of Its Reception.]. Pentecon-taetia: Issledovaniya po antichnoy istorii i culture [Pentecontaetia: Studies in Ancient History and Culture.]. St. Petersburg, 2018, p. 338-346. (In Russian)
10. Giovannini, A. Magistratur und Volk: Ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Staatsrechts. Staat und Staatlichkeit in der frühen römischen Republik: Akten eines Symposiums, 12.-15. Juli 1988, Freie Universität Berlin / Hrsg. von W. Eder. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1990, s. 406-436. (In German)
11. Meier, Chr. Praerogativa centuria. Paulys Realencyclopädie der clas-sischen Altertumswissenschaft. Supplbd. 8. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, 1956, s. 567-598. (In German)
(Monographs)
12. Burnheim, J. Is Democracy Possible?: The Alternative to Electoral Democracy. 2nd ed. Sydney: Sydney University Press, 2006, 147 p. (InEnglish)
13. Chernykh, A.I. Ritualy i mify media [Media Rituals and Myths.]. St. Peterburg, 2015, 160 p. (InRussian)
14. Gallup, J. A Guide to Public Opinion Polls. 2nd rev. ed. Princeton (NJ): PrincetonUniversity Press, 1948, 117p. (InEnglish)
15. Jahn, J. Interregnum und Wahldiktatur. Kallmünz: M. Lassleben, 1970, 195 s. (In German)
16. Kunkel, W. Kleine Schriften: Zum römischen Strafverfahren und zur rö-
mischen Verfassungsgeschichte. Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1974, 636 s. (In German)
17. Reybrouck, D. van. Protiv vyborov [AgainstElections.]. Moscow, 2018, 200 p. (In Russian) = Van Reybrouck, D. Tegen Verkiezingen. Amsterdam: De Bezige Bij, 2013, 192 p. (In Dutch) = Van Reybrouck, D. Against Elections: The Case for Democracy. London: The Bodley Head, 2016, 200 p. (In English)
18. Rilinger, R. Der Einfluss des Wahlleiters bei den römischen Konsulwahlen von 366 bis 50 v. Chr. München: C.H. Beck, 1976, 215 s. (In German)
19. Stewart, R. Public Office in Early Rome: Ritual Procédure and Political Practice. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Press, 1998, 255 p. (In English)
20. Yudin, G.Yu. Obshchestvennoye mneniye, ili Vlast tsifr [Public Opinion, or the Power ofNumbers.]. St. Peterburg, 2020, 174 p. (In Russian)
Авторы, аннотация, ключевые слова
Сморчков Андрей Михайлович - докт. ист. наук, профессор, Российский государственный гуманитарный университет (Москва)
smorchkovtuber@yandex.ru
Федорченко Сергей Николаевич - канд. полит, наук, профессор, Московский государственный областной университет (Москва)
s.n.fedorchenko@mail.ru
Шкаренков Павел Петрович - докт. ист. наук, профессор, проректор, Российский государственный гуманитарный университет (Москва)
chkarenkov@mail.ru
Статья посвящена сравнительному анализу древних и современных технологий легитимации политической власти на примере Римской республики и современных демократий. Основное внимание уделено процедуре выборов, которая в наибольшей степени объединяет прямую (в древности) и представительную (в современности) демократические системы. В древнем Риме при легитимации электоральной процедуры преобладающую роль играли религиозные акты, а именно, две процедуры гадания с целью выявить волю богов {auspicia). Одна проходила непосредственно перед выборами, другая в их ходе, завершаясь объявлением итогов голосования {renuntiatio). Это был ключевой акт в процедуре избрания новых магистратов, без которого выборы считались недействительными независимо от их реального результата. Процедура объявления результатов голосования фактически сохраняет ритуальную функцию легитимации и в современных демократиях. Эта миссия возлагается, как правило, на представителей избирательных комиссий. В современном мире древнеримским религиозным ритуалам соответствуют социологические опросы общественного мнения и политические прогнозы накануне выборов, которые в современных демократиях приобрели вполне ритуально-леги-тимационный характер. На выборах в древнем Риме решающее влияние
на результаты голосования оказывала жеребьевка, определявшая порядок подачи голосов. Современные государства также пытаются усилить свою легитимацию, внедряя алеаторную (с помощью жребия) форму демократических процедур. Таким образом, приёмы легитимации древней и современной демократии имеют определённое сходство в ритуальном подкреплении выборного процесса и в сохранении практики жеребьёвки в процедуре самих выборов. Но к легитимационным практикам современной демократии прибавился внешнеполитический фактор, чего не знал античный Рим. Не было в Римской республике и мощного информационного давления ввиду отсутствия средств массовой информации. Современная демократия все больше трансформируется в медиакратию - режим, где интересы политических акторов тесно переплетены с интересами медийных конгломератов.
Римская республика, выборы, легитимация, демократия, ритуал, масс-медиа, алеаторная процедура.
