5.1.1. The City-State

Cardinal Gasparo Contarini (1483-1542) writes about the democratic government of his city-state in The Commonwealth and Government of Venice (1534). ‘…to come to the institution of our Venetian commonwealth, the whole authority of the city…is in that council, into which all the gentlemen of the City being once past the age of 25 years are admitted...'

This chunk introduces Cardinal Gasparo Contarini's perspective on the governance in Venice. The government was structured as a council composed of gentlemen, requiring them to be at least 25 years old. Contarini emphasizes that authority is vested within this ruling group, showcasing a form of representative government that allowed certain members of the community to make decisions for the city-state.

Consider a modern-day city council where elected representatives debate and make major decisions for a city. Just like in Venice, members are chosen based on specific qualifications, representing the interests of the citizens who elected them.

‘Now first I am to yield you a reckoning how and with what wisdom it was ordained by our ancestors, that the common people should not be admitted into this company of citizens, in whose authority [lies] the whole power of the commonwealth... Because many troubles and popular tumults arise in those cities, whose government is swayed by the common people…’

In this section, Contarini explains the rationale behind excluding common people from the ruling council. He suggests that allowing only educated and wealthy individuals, rather than the general population, would lead to a more stable government. He argues that common people's involvement could lead to unrest and chaos, indicating a belief in an elitist form of governance where only the 'best' are deemed fit to rule.

Think about how some prestigious academic institutions restrict enrollment to only highly qualified candidates. Just as those institutions believe that admitting the most capable students ensures better outcomes and stability, the Venetian government operated on a similar principle.

‘…many were of contrary opinion, deeming that it would do well, if this manner of governing the commonwealth should rather be defined by ability and abundance of riches... Therefore our wise and prudent ancestors... ordered that this definition of the public rule should go rather by the nobility of lineage, than by the estimation of wealth…’

Here, Contarini addresses an alternative viewpoint concerning governance. Some believed that wealth should determine eligibility for power. However, he supports the idea that noble lineage is more important for maintaining stability in government. This reflects a tension between meritocracy and aristocracy in governance, emphasizing the value placed on noble heritage over mere financial status.

Imagine a job where hiring is based not only on skills but also on connections. A candidate might have the qualifications but might not come from a well-known family, which could hinder their chances. This is similar to the Venetian attitude where lineage was prioritized over wealth.

‘…yet with that temperature [proviso], that men of chief and supreme nobility should not have this rule alone (for that would rather have been the power of a few than a commonwealth) but also every other citizen whosoever not ignobly born: so that all which were noble by birth, or ennobled by virtue, did...obtain this right of government.’

Contarini concludes by highlighting a balancing act within Venetian governance. While noble birth was significant, individuals could also gain political rights based on their virtuous actions. This provision indicates an evolving political ideology, allowing for some democratic elements where merit could redefine status.

Consider how in modern democracies, someone from a humble background can achieve political office by demonstrating capability and integrity, thereby breaking through class barriers. This reflects the same principle of allowing virtue to influence governance.

--