As an Orthodox Christian who holds a deep appreciation for the Christian Roman Republic while also cherishing the principles of Jeffersonian federal democracy, I find myself reflecting on the complexities of governance in both contexts. Many in the Orthodox community tend to romanticize monarchy, often overlooking the fact that the Christian Roman Empire was fundamentally a republic—a monarchical republic, to be sure, but one that most Byzantines viewed as a system of shared governance rather than an absolute monarchy. This system was not solely sacred; it also embraced secular elements, balancing divine authority with practical administration. Moreover, the dangers of democratic majoritarian rule were recognized not only by the Romans but also by the American Founding Fathers and the ratifiers of the Constitution. Personally, I lean toward the idea of Calhounian concurrent majorities as a remedy to the pitfalls of simple democratic majoritarianism.
Since reading Anthony Kaldellis’ The Byzantine Republic, these ideas have been percolating in my mind, prompting me to explore them in this blog. While many Orthodox individuals may harbor negative perceptions of the American system of governance, I aim to present a more sympathetic comparison between the American and Byzantine Republics, illustrating that they need not be fundamentally at odds in theory or practice. This is especially pertinent when considering the American Republic as envisioned by the ratifiers of the Constitution, prior to the Lincolnian revolution of executive power that set the United States on a path of increasing centralization—something the Founders feared as much as they did the excesses of pure democracy.
The comparison between the United States as a federal republic and the Christian Roman Monarchical Republic of Constantinople (Byzantium) offers an interesting perspective on governance, particularly in terms of decentralization and the relationship between authority and the individual. Here’s a detailed exploration of the similarities and differences between these two systems, especially during the U.S. Constitution period and pre-Civil War era.
1. Founding Principles and Structure
United States Federal Republic:
- Constitutional Framework: The U.S. Constitution, established in 1787, created a federal system that distributes power between the national and state governments. This decentralization is a cornerstone of American governance, allowing states to address local needs more effectively.
- Checks and Balances: The Constitution includes a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial). This system’s intention—to prevent any single entity from becoming too powerful—echoes aspects of Byzantine governance, where the emperor’s power was held in check by advisory councils and the church.
Byzantine Empire:
- Christian Monarchical Republic: Kaldellis argues that the Byzantine Empire functioned effectively as a republic despite its monarchical façade, where the emperor was not merely an autocrat but also a leader accountable to his people and the church’s moral authority. This republican aspect is crucial to understanding Byzantine governance, especially through mechanisms of public consultation and administrative accountability. When an Emperor failed his duties to the Republic, he could legitimately be removed.
- Decentralized Governance: The Byzantine Empire featured a highly decentralized administrative structure, particularly through the thematic system. Local military and civil leaders (strategoi) had autonomy to address regional needs while remaining under the overarching authority of the emperor. This mirrors the U.S. federal structure, in which states exercise significant control over their affairs.
2. Administrative Systems and Local Governance
U.S. Local Governance:
- State Sovereignty: In the U.S., individual states maintain the power to enact their laws and manage affairs like education and public safety, illustrating a decentralized model. This setup allows states to reflect local customs and preferences, similar to Byzantine provinces that operated under local leadership.
- Limited Federal Intervention: During the pre-Civil War era, the federal government typically adopted a hands-off approach concerning state matters. This attitude mirrors the Byzantine practice of allowing local governance in civilian matters while the emperor focused on broader issues.
Byzantine Local Governance:
- Theme System: As Kaldellis highlights, the Byzantine thematic system was integral in balancing military and civilian needs, with each theme handling its matters, thereby enabling localized governance. This structure encourages a degree of self-rule in line with local customs while securing the stability of the empire.
- Public Involvement: Byzantine governance emphasized the participation of local communities in decision-making, allowing for a form of republicanism within its framework of authority. This involvement can be likened to the American principle of representation, where local concerns are voiced through elected officials.
3. Relationship to the Individual
U.S. Perspective:
- Individual Liberties: The U.S. Constitution enshrined personal freedoms in the Bill of Rights, establishing a framework that respects personal autonomy and minimizes government intrusion. This principle resonates with the Byzantine approach, where local populations often self-regulated daily life and governance.
- Limited Government Philosophy: The early American ethos favored a limited government philosophy, informed by Enlightenment ideals and a response against tyranny. This reflects Kaldellis’s assertion that the Byzantine Empire allowed for a sophisticated form of governance that respected local interests while preserving imperial unity.
Byzantine Perspective:
- Mediation by Authority: While Byzantines enjoyed certain freedoms, the emperor was viewed as a protective figure whose governance was sanctioned by divine authority. Kaldellis’s examination of Byzantine ideals suggests that citizens were engaged in a communal ethic, where loyalty to the emperor was intertwined with their local identity—much like the American ideal of a government accountable to its people, albeit framed within different cultural understandings.
4. Religious Influence on Governance
U.S. Context:
- Separation of Church and State: The U.S. Constitution ensures a separation of church and state, allowing various religious expressions and promoting a secular government. However, early American governance was significantly influenced by Christian moral values, a feature that parallels Byzantine governance where the church played a pivotal role.
Byzantine Context:
- Christian Authority: In Byzantium, the emperor’s role was both secular and sacred, with the church influencing state matters. Kaldellis emphasizes the republican aspects of this arrangement, where public morality was essential to governance. The emperor was expected to govern in consultation with ecclesiastical authorities, ensuring that the law aligned with Christian ethics and public interests—a concept foundational to Byzantine political identity.
Conclusion
The comparison of the United States as a federal republic and the Byzantine Empire reveals striking similarities, particularly in how both systems approached decentralization and governance. By incorporating insights from Kaldellis’s The Byzantine Republic, we see that both governance systems, while differing in execution and cultural context, shared underlying principles of local autonomy, citizen involvement, and a balanced relationship between authority and individual rights. This historical interplay encourages contemporary discussions about the role of federalism, local governance, and the intersection of tradition with modern democratic values.
I highly recommend Kadellis’ work for anyone wanting to explore an often overlooked aspect of how Christian monarchy worked in the Byzantine Republic. Republics, like Monarchies, can take many forms and sometimes they have even combined.
