Rome is in crisis.
The year is 218 BC and Carthaginian general Hannibal Barca has crossed the Alps at the head of a massive army hellbent on bringing Rome to its knees.
This is Hannibal’s dilemma; how does a system of governance respond to a crisis?
Well, the Romans recognised the need for quick, decisive action in response to immediate threats. The virtues of a representative, deliberative, and procedural legislative body can very well become a drawback. The Roman constitution had a special quirk – the senate can appoint a dictator (the connotations surrounding the word have changed over time).
The dictator, endowed with the power of the state and limited checks and balances on his power, was tasked to decisively address the emergency. He was then expected to step down at the end of his six-month term, or once the crisis subsided.
Hannibal was eventually defeated, and Carthage lay in ruins. The Roman system of crisis governance proved somewhat effective - until it became a tool for dismantling the Republic. Over time, the office of dictator, originally intended as a temporary solution, contributed to the unravelling of the republic itself.
Centuries later, another rising power–the United States–faced a similar dilemma: how to create a system of governance that preserved the executive’s dynamism while implementing sufficient safeguards to prevent a descent to tyranny.
The resulting US constitution maintained a separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Checks and balances imposed on branches slowed down policymaking but were crucial to prevent government overreach.
Although the Founding Fathers aimed to limit executive power, history has shown that in times of crisis, U.S. presidents have often expanded their authority. Lincoln during the Civil War, FDR during the Great Depression, and Bush post-9/11 all took unprecedented steps.
American politics has also become more dysfunctional, and Congress seemingly cannot reach an agreement on major policy issues. Congress struggles to pass legislation, with only 27 bills approved in 2023 – a record low. Democrats and Republicans are now the most ideologically divided they have been in 50 years, making gridlock the new normal.
Hence, the allure of executive dynamism and decisiveness “to get things done” becomes ever more appealing to voters.
Echoing the Roman model, Trump declared in 2023 that he would act as a dictator - but only on“day one”. At a rally on the eve of his inauguration, he told cheering supporters “starting tomorrow, I will act with historic speed and strength and fix every single crisis facing our country.”
In response to these crises, real or perceived, Trump signed an unprecedented blitz of executive orders – pushing the limits of presidential power. He has issued more executive orders than any predecessor this early in their presidency, according to Axios.
The White House appears to be taking on powers traditionally held by Congress, particularly in areas such as spending and oversight of federal agencies. However, with a Republican majority congress seemingly unified behind Trump, the judiciary appears to be “the last line of resistance” against executive overreach.
As the courts continue to stall and block presidential orders – exercising their check on executive power – members in the Trump administration have “publicly questioned the writ of the judiciary.” Vice president JD Vance even weighing on X that, “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
Legal experts are now worried that the US might be heading into a constitutional crisis.
No. 47 doesn’t seem to be too concerned with assuaging any concerns as well. As his administration wrangles in the courts, he quoted Napoleon seemingly suggesting that his actions are above the law.
Speaking of Napoleon, Austrian foreign minister during the Napoleonic era Friedrich von Metternich once famously remarked:
“When France sneezes, Europe catches a cold.”
Well, I would say that nowadays, when the United States of America coughs, the rest of the world gets pneumonia. I need not remind anyone of 1929 and 2008.
The world simply cannot afford instability in the United States. The global hegemon has its tentacles all over the globe. For better or worse, the world isn’t ready for a chaotic, unsteady, and isolationist America.
The rule of law and institutional checks and balances are fragile - too fragile to be taken for granted.
While I think concerns of a Trump autocracy and dictatorship are alarmist and exaggerated, cracks in a system predate its collapse. Rome’s Republic did not collapse overnight; it eroded over time. The weakening of checks and balances, along with the precedent set by strongmen ruling by decree, weakened Rome’s institutions. All it took is one determined leader – like Julius Caesar - to push them over the edge.
While Hannibal may not be roaming around with an army nowadays (sadly), his invasion tested Rome’s ability to respond to crisis, just as modern crises test today’s governments. If current systems of governance aren’t dynamic enough to respond, the temptation of an expedient unchecked executive to ‘fix it all’ becomes more appealing to voters.
We must not fall to that temptation - history tells us how that turned out.
Comments