Han China and Imperial Rome, although two completely disparate civilizations in certain aspects, they do share a few qualities in the subject of political control. Han China and Imperial Rome are similar in the way that they both maintained one figurehead or leader, but are different in citizen participation within the government.
Han China and Imperial Rome both served their lead with one main figure. Regarding Han China, there would have been an emperor who had full control over their dynasty. The emperor had unlimited power. The emperor being the head of government had the power to create laws, serve as the chief executive official and lead armed forces. As for the Roman empire, roman leaders decided to gain political stability and had established an autocratic government after 50 years of brutal civil war. This meant the government was ruled by one, and all power was given to one. This was much like the Han Dynasty. The Romans viewed the emperor as their sole leader, which was true in a sense. The emperor had the free will to make any decisions he wished and reigned alone. The emperor could also approve or disapprove of any ruling the senate gave. The emperor He had the right to disavow or put sentences of capital discipline into action, was owed the compliance of private citizens and by the terms of the ius auxiliandi (right to help) could spare any slave/ lower class, or plebeian, from any ruling class family magistrate’s choice. He could reject any act or proposition of any magistrate. Both Han China and Imperial Rome compare in having a sole leader and the use of a centralized government.
Although, China and Rome do in fact have great differences in their efforts in giving citizens roles to participate within the government. First off, Han China followed a hereditary way of ruling. This means that once their ruler dies, someone of that family will take rule. This showed and gave a sense of political stability. Why? Because the people had an idea of who would rule over them next which gave a sense of security. On the other hand, this meant no need for voting which means there’s little citizen participation. Although, Rome had different ideas.