All of the choices are correct. The fact that Censors appointed, and could remove, senators; Â Tribunes could veto laws; and Consuls were elected for one-year terms are examples of the separation of powers and checks and balances of the Roman Republic.
Explanation:
The Roman Republic was a political regime with a highly original approach. A regime that, despite all its political intrigues, reached almost 500 years. Probably, one of the reasons why it lasted so long is because it was a carefully balanced system. In this regard, the Greek historian Polybius said that Rome had a mixed government, fruit of a process that he called anacyclosis. It is known as such, to the succession of a series of political systems due to its irremediable tendency towards degeneration. Consequently, Rome knew a monarchy that degenerated into tyranny, also an aristocracy that ended up being oligarchic, until finally it reached a system closer to democracy.
In this way, the Roman Republic could contain features of these three political systems, thus giving it, according to Polybius, a certain superiority. Why? Because the main elements of the republic, which embody each of the three systems, must cooperate so that it works. For example, for a war, the consul - monarchy - will need, both a resolution of the senate -aristocracy- for the sending of legions, and the approval of the people (in elections) -democracy-, since it is whoever annuls or ratifies the armistices and treaties. In addition, the Senate will also depend on the people, because it is the people who, after the deliberation of the Senate, must approve those procedures in which there are crimes against the State that are punished with the death penalty. Likewise, the people will need the Senate insofar as this chamber is fundamental to carry out the public works that are first executed through the management of the town. Â
What does the description described so far mean? Simply, that we are before a forerunner of the system of checks and balances. The current one, coming from Locke and Montesquieu, proposes a division between executive, legislative and judicial. But its old equivalent did not distinguish between powers, but forced an interorganic cooperation. In this way, in order to carry out certain competences, it might be necessary for two or more bodies to collaborate, thus preventing any of them from acting in a despotic manner. Meanwhile, there is currently a division of competence according to which each body has established guidelines, and the key to avoid despotism is precisely the opposite: that none of them interfere in the competencies of others.
