Recall the system of “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” that characterized the Republic. Now consider the following bit of background.
As tribune of the plebs, Tiberius Gracchus proposed a land law to reform land holding and create more small farmers who would be eligible for military service. He had an old law from 367 B.C. revived which limited the amount of public land any one citizen could own. Citizens holding larger amounts of public land would be forced to return the surplus to the state which would then be distributed among the landless poor. Historians have often questioned Gracchus’s motivation: Was he a genuine reformer working for the benefit of the state or was he only seeking to benefit himself and his supporters? We’re not interested in that question, because there is no way we can know. So please set it aside.
Although Gracchus had support in the Senate, he was unsure of victory on his land bill. So he bypassed the Senate and proposed his land reform laws to the people in the Tribal Council of the Plebs. The Senate contracted another tribune, M. Octavius, to veto Gracchus’s bill — something either tribune had a right to do. Gracchus responded by having Octavius deposed by plebiscite (public vote). He thereby undermined one of the central concepts of Roman office holding: collegiality. His law passed, but the Senate refused to fund its implementation. Gracchus then proposed a law diverting the taxes from the new province of Asia to fund his land reform in Italy. He thereby insinuated the popular assembly into the Senate’s traditional preserves of state finances and foreign affairs. Believing that the work of the Land Commission needed his personal protection and direction, Gracchus declared his intention to stand for the tribunate of 132 B.C. He thereby undermined another central concept of Roman office holding: limited tenure of office. Riots ensured. Some historians have taken Gracchus’s actions as the beginning of the end of the Republic. Within a generation, Rome would be ruled by the tyrants Marius and Sulla.
Question: Let’s presume for the moment that the land reform Gracchus was proposing would have been for the common good of Rome. Not good for everyone, of course; some large landowners stood to lose quite a lot. But let’s presume that, overall, it would have served the common good of the state. Did Gracchus make the right decision bypassing the Senate to achieve his goal? Whether your answer is yes or no, explain on what basis you have made your judgment.
NB: There is absolutely no need to repeat the basic facts of the case. Please get right to your analysis of whether the choice Gracchus made was right or wrong. Note, I didn’t ask whether it was “right for him” or “right for you” or “right in his culture,” but simply “right” or “wrong.” Is he blameworthy for doing what he did? Or praiseworthy? Why? Justify your answer, and please be self-reflective about the kind of reasons you’re giving for your answer.