| In its basic sense, a republic is a state in which sovereignty derives ultimately from the people (however
defined), rather than from a hereditary principle.
Republicanism is the view that a republic is the best form of government. Republicanism can also refer to the
ideologies of any of the many political parties that are named the Republican Party. Some of these are, or have heir roots in, anti-monarchism. For most parties
republican is just a name and these parties, and their corresponding platforms, have little besides their names in
common.
Republics as non-monarchies
Machiavelli is generally considered the most important of the formulators
of the idea of the republic. He defined republic in The Prince by
stating that "all states, all the dominions that have had or now have authority over men have been and now are either republics
or princedoms."
The term republic thus most commonly means the system of government in which the head of state is selected for a limited term,
as opposed to a monarchy. Republicanism in this sense is support for the abolition
of monarchies. This definition is particularly appropriate in countries such as Australia, where the abolition of the monarchy is a major political issue, and other Commonwealth nations such as Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, and Barbados. A state not headed by a monarch is the primary meaning of the term
republic in these nations.
In these countries, republicanism is largely about the post-colonial evolution of their relationships with the United Kingdom.
Even in the United Kingdom, where there has never been much popular
support for republicanism, it nonetheless commands a significant minority position. There, however, it's motivated more by the
decreased popularity of the Royal Family as well as the classical argument against monarchy versus the egalitarian aspects of
republicanism. See also:
See also: Abolished monarchy, British republican movement, Australian Republican Movement, Citizens for a Canadian Republic
History of anti-monarchial republicanism
Republic comes from the Latin word res publica and one meaning of
this term is the form of government that began with the overthrow of the last tyrant known as the Roman Republic. While this government was much lauded by its contemporaries once it was replaced with
teh empire republicanism became all but nonexistent throughout Europe for several centuries. Outside of Europe opposition to
monarchy before the modern period is not generally termed republicanism. Islam, for
instance, is opposed to monarchies seeing the ideal state as one where the ummah,
caliph, and sharia all play a role in
governance. This concept shares some of the same classical roots as European republicanism and in modern times this form of
government is called "republican" in English, but in pre-modern times it is not generally called republicanism..
In Europe republicanism was revived in the late Middle Ages when a number
of small states embraced republican systems of government. These were generally small, but wealthy, trading states in which the
merchant class had risen to prominence. Haakonssen notes that by the Renaissance Europe was divided with those states controlled
by a landed elite being monarchies and those controlled by a commercial elite being republics. These included Italian city states
like Florence and Venice and the members
of the Hanseatic League.
At this period the school of thought known as classical republicanism or civic humanism
came into being outlining how best to run a republic. These authors, most prominent among them being Niccolò Machiavelli, based republicanism on the states of the
classical world, such as Athens, Sparta, and
the Roman Republic as well as the ancient works of political philosophy
such as Aristotle, Polybius and
especially Cicero.
While many Renaissance authors spoke highly of republics they were rarely critical of monarchies. While Machiavelli's
Discourses on
Livy is the period's key work on republics he also wrote The
Prince on how to best run a monarchy. One cause of this was that the early modern writers did not see the republican
model as one that could be applied universally, most felt that it could only be successful in very small and highly urbanized
city-states.
Anti-monarchism became far more strident in the Dutch Republic
during and after the Eighty Years' War. This anti-monarchism
was less political philosophy and more propagandizing with most of the anti-monarchist works appearing in the form of widely
distributed pamphlets. Over time this evolved into a systematic critique of
monarchies written by men such as Johan Uytenhage de Mist, Radboud Herman Scheel, Lieven de Beaufort and the brothers Johan and Peter de la Court. These writers
saw all monarchies as illegitimate tyrannies that were inherently corrupt. Less an attack on their former overlords these works
were more concerned with preventing the position of Stadholder from evolving
into a monarchy. This Dutch republicanism also had an important influence on French Huguenots during the Wars of Religion.
In the other states of early modern Europe republicanism was more moderate. In England a republicanism evolved that was not
wholly opposed to monarchy, but rather thinkers such as Thomas More and
John Milton saw an monarchy firmly constrained by law as compatible with
republicanism. The small minority that was actively opposed to all monarchy was largely discredited by the regicide of Charles I and later republicans
strove to distance themselves from that act.
In Poland moderate republicanism was also an important ideology. In Poland
republicans were those who supported the status quo of having a very weak monarch and opposed those who felt a stronger monarchy
was needed. These Polish republicans such as Lukasz Gornicki, Andrzej Wolan, and Stanislaw Konarski were well read in classical and Renaissance texts and firmly believed that there
state was a Republic on the Roman model and called their state the Rzeczpospolita. Unlike in the other areas Polish republicanism was not the ideology of the commercial, but
rather of the landed aristocracy who would be the ones to lose power if the monarchy was expanded.
In the Enlightenment anti-monarchism stooped being coextensive with the civic humanism of the Renaissance. Classical
republicanism, still supported by philosophes such as Rousseau and Montesquieu, became just one of a number of ideologies opposed to monarchy. For
discussion of this republican ideology see the "republicanism as an ideology" section below. The newer forms of anti-monarchism
such as liberalism and later socialism quickly overtook classical republicanism as the leading republican ideologies. Republicanism also
became far more widespread and mornarchies began to be challenged throughout Europe.
Modern republics
Since the French Revolution the overthrow of monarchies has
become common place and the vast majority of countries are today republics of some form. There are only a few dozen kingdoms,
dominions, emirates, or principalities remaining. The republics of today have little in common besides not being monarchies of
some form. Countries that call themselves republics include nations as diverse as North Korea, Iran, Togo, and the
United States. Most states in the world consider themselves to be some
sort of republic. Of those that are not monarchies only the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, State of the Vatican City, the State of Israel, the Union of Myanmar and Russian Federation reject the label republic. Israel and Russia, and even Myanmar and Libya, would meet many definitions
of the term republic, however.
Currently there is a very large number of republics in the world. A republican form of government can be combined with many
different kinds of economy and democracy. Some examples for certain forms of republic are:
In modern times, the head of state of a republic is usually formed by only one person, the president, but there are some exceptions such as Switzerland,
which has a seven-member council as its head of state, called the Bundesrat, and San Marino, where the
position of head of state is shared by two people.
In general being a republic also implies sovereignty as for the state to
be ruled by the people it cannot be controlled by a foreign power. There are important exceptions to this. Republics in the
Soviet Union were member states which had to meet three criteria to be
named republics, 1) Be on the periphery of the Soviet Union so as to be able to take advantage of their theoretical right to
secede, 2) be economically strong enough to be self sufficient upon secession, And 3) Be named after at least one million people
of the ethnic group which should make up the majority population of said republic. Republics were originally created by Stalin
and continue to be created even today in Russia. Russia itself is not a republic but a federation.
States of the United States are required, like the federal government,
to be republican in form, with final authority resting with the people. This was required because the states were intended to
create and enforce most domestic laws, with the exception of areas delegated to the federal government and prohibited to the
states. The founding fathers of the country intended most domestic laws to be handled by the states, although, over time, the
federal government has gained more and more influence over domestic law. Requiring the states to be a republic in form was also
seen as protecting the citizens' rights and preventing a state from becoming a dictatorship or monarchy.
Republicanism as an ideology
A different interpretation of republicanism is used among political scientists. To them republicanism is the rule by
many and by laws while a princedom is the arbitrary rule by one. By this definition despotic states are not republics while,
according to some such as Kant, constitutional monarchies can be. Kant also argues that a
pure democracy is not a republic as the unrestricted rule of the majority is also a form of despotism.
Classical republicanism
- Main article: Classical republicanism
The idea of the Republic is drawn from Ancient Greece and Rome but it was truly created during the Renaissance when scholars built upon their conception of the ancient world to advance their view of the ideal
government. The usage of the term res publica in classical texts
should not be confused with current notions of republicanism. Despite its name Plato's
The Republic also has little connection. The republicanism developed
in the Renaissance is known as classical republicanism because of its reliance on classical models. This terminology was
developed by Zera Fink in the 1960s but
some modern scholars such as Brugger consider the term confusing as it might lead some to believe that "classical republic"
refers to the system of government used in the ancient world. "Early modern republicanism" has been advanced as an alternative
term.
Also sometimes called civic humanism, this ideology grew out of the
Renaissance writers who developed the idea of the republic. More than being simply a non-monarchy the early modern thinkers
developed a vision of the ideal republic. It is these notions that form the basis of the ideology of republicanism. One important
notion was that of a mixed government. Both Plato and Aristotle saw three basic types of government,
democracy, aristocracy, and
monarchy. First Aristotle, and especially Polybius and Cicero developed the notion that the ideal republic is a
mixture of these three forms of government and the writers of the Renaissance embraced this notion. Also central the notion of
virtue and the pursuit of the common
good being central to good government. Republicanism also developed its own distinct view of liberty, though what exactly that view is is much disputed.
It was in the Renaissance that the Roman Republic was named and the
Greek states of Athens and Sparta also began
to be described as republics during parts of their history. The government of Venice
was also labeled a republic during this period as it was seen to be the closest to the classical ideal.
Enlightenment republicanism
The idea of the republic spread from Italy to northern Europe. In England Thomas More discussed the issue and it later became a central one to Enlightenment. Thinkers such as Rousseau and Montesquieu expanded upon and altered the
definition of republic. They also borrowed from and distinguished it from the ideas of liberalism that were developing at the same time. Since both liberalism and republicanism were united in their
opposition to the absolute monarchies they were frequently conflated during this period. Modern scholars see them as two distinct
streams that both contributed to the democratic ideals of the modern world. An important distinction is that while republicanism
continued to stress the importance of civic virtue and the common good, liberalism was based on
economics and individualism. While liberalism developed a view of liberty as
pre-social and sees all institutions as limiting liberty, republicanism sees some institutions as necessary to create
liberty.
It has long been agreed that republicanism, especially that of Rousseau played a central role in the French Revolution. In
recent years a debate has developed over its role in the American Revolution and in the British radicalism of the eighteenth
century. For many decades the consensus was that liberalism, especially that of John Locke, was paramount and that republicanism had a distinctly secondary role. A revisionist school was
pioneered by J.G.A. Pocock who
argued in The Machiavellian Moment that at least in the early eighteenth century republican ideas were just as important
as liberal ones. Pocock's view is now widely accepted, but there is still fierce debate over the ideas of those who have tried to
extend his thesis. Bernard Bailyn, for instance, pioneered the argument that the American founding father's were more influenced
by republicanism than they were by liberalism. This thesis has been fiercely attacked. Kramnick, for instance, argues that it is
a baseless right wing plot to undermine the importance of liberalism in American history.
Modern republicanism
This new school of historical revisionism has accompanied a general revival of republican thinking. In recent years a great
number of thinkers have argued that republican ideas should be adopted. This new thinking is sometimes referred to as
neo-republicanism. Engeman referred to republicanism as "an intellectual buzzword" that has been applied to a wide
range of theories and postulates that have little in common inorder to give them a certain cachet.
The most important theorists in this movement are Philip Pettit and Cass Sunstein who have each
written a number of works defining republicanism and how it differs from liberalism. While a late convert to republicanism from
communitarianism Michael Sardel is perhaps the most
prominent advocate in the United States for replacing or supplementing liberalism with republicanism as outlined in his
Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. As of yet these theorists have had little impact on
government. John W. Maynor, argues that Bill Clinton was interested in
these notions and that he integrated some of them into his 1995 "new social compact" State of the Union Address.
This revival also has its critics. David Wootton, for instance, argues that throughout history the meanings of the term
republicanism have been so diverse, and at times contradictory, that the term is all but meaningless and any attempt to
build a cogent ideology based around it will fail.
Republicanism in the United States
In the United States republic came to mean a state that did not practice direct democracy but rather had the government only indirectly controlled by the people. In the rest of
the world this is known as representative
democracy. This language originates with the Founding Fathers. At the time of the American Revolution democracy had poor
connotations and to many meant what would today be called mob rule. Thus some of
the Founder's, most prominently John Adams, proposed that the new nation should
be a republic rather than a democracy. This definition is rooted in the writings of Aristole and others who saw pure majoritarian
rule as a form of despotism. Kant believed that a true republic was only one that protected minorities. The Federalist Papers outline the idea that pure democracy is actually quite
dangerous, because it allows a majority to infringe upon the rights of a minority. Some other Founding Father's used the terms
republic and democracy interchangeably.
The term republic does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, but does appear in Article IV of the Constitution which
"guarantees a republican form of government for the states." What exactly the writers of the constitution felt this should mean
is uncertain. The Supreme Court in Luther v. Borden declared that
the definition of republic was a "political question" in which it would not intervene. In two later cases it did establish
a basic definition. In US v.
Cruishank the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of republic. In re Duncan it ruled that the "right of the
people to choose their government" is also part of the definition. It is also generally assumed that the clause prevents any
state from being a monarchy.
Over time this Founder's definition was declined as pejorative definition of democracy faded. By the time of Andrew Jackson and the new Democratic Party democracy was seen as an unmitigated positive and it has remained so to this day. The
limitations on democracy were slowly removed; the President and Senators were made to be directly elected by the population;
property qualifications were removed; and referendums and other forms of direct
democracy became widely accepted at the state and local level. At present most people thus refer to the United States and its
system of government as a democracy. President George W. Bush speaks about spreading democracies, and not republics, around the
world. Today in the United States republicanism most often refers to the doctrines of the United States Republican Party.
References
- Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press, 1967.
- Brugger, Bill. Republican Theory in Political Thought: Virtuous or Virtual? Basingstoke: St. Martin's Press,
1999.
- Fink, Zera. The Classical Republicans: An Essay in the Recovery of a Pattern of Thought in Seventeenth-Century
England. Evanston: Northwestern university Press, 1962.
- Gelderen, Martin van and Quentin Skinner. eds. Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002.
- Haakonssen, Knud. "Republicanism." A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. Robert E. Goodin and Philip
Pettit. eds. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1995.
- Kramnick, Isaac. Republicanism and Bourgeois Radicalism: Political Ideology in Late Eighteenth-Century England and
America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990.
- Maynor, John W. Republicanism in the Modern World. Cambridge: Polity, 2003.
- Pettit, Philip. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
- Pocock, J.G.A. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975.
- Sandel, Michael J. Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1996.
External links
|
