While no Roman ever disputed that power belonged to the populus, it does not necessarily follow that the Roman assemblies were conceived of or intended as vehicles of direct popular influence. As argued above, their peculiar structures hint at a formalistic, almost ritualised notion of legitimacy in Rome. The res publica may, as Schofield argued, have belonged to the populus but it was always managed by leaders to whom the people had entrusted its care. The question is how this paradoxical construction worked in practice, and in this section we will look more closely at the influence the people exercised after the res publica had been handed over to its chosen leaders. The highly formalised structure of the assemblies in principle does not exclude the possibility that they could have served the interests of the populus, thereby making the constitution more 'democratic' than it might otherwise appear. If so, that might explain the broad social and political stability which scholars have identified as a defining feature of the 'classic' middle republic. Confronted with these issues historians have in recent years increasingly turned from traditional constitutional history towards the study of 'political culture', a concept which also comprises the attitudes and beliefs that inform and give meaning to the political process. Thus the ideology, 'style' and self-representation of the elite as well as its interaction with the populus have been widely identified as key elements in forging the apparent consensus, which impressed even Polybius. In addition, there is now much greater awareness of the symbolic and 'performative' aspects of politicsmonuments, spectacles, processions, and festivalsas factors contributing to civic inclusion and a shared sense of community. This approach has greatly advanced our understanding of the Roman republic, and we will return to some of the new insights it has generated later in the chapter. It is vital, however, that the 'nuts-and-bolts' of Roman politics are not forgotten; indeed one might argue that it is through a combination of 'hard' and 'soft' political history that further progress may be made. Let us
