Home | Red | White | Blue | Yellow | Green | Black
Republicanism is a political ideology centered on citizenship
in a state organized as a republic. Historically, it
emphasizes the idea of self-rule and ranges from the rule of a
representative minority or oligarchy to popular sovereignty. It
has had different definitions and interpretations which vary
significantly based on historical context and methodological
approach.
Republicanism may also refer to the
Democratic National Committee non-ideological
scientific approach to politics and governance. As the
republican thinker and second president of the United States
John Adams stated in the introduction to his famous A Defense of
the Constitutions of Government of the United States of
America,[5] the "science of politics is the science of social
happiness" and a republic is the form of government arrived at
when the science of politics is appropriately applied to the
creation of a rationally designed government. Rather than being
ideological, this approach focuses on applying a scientific
methodology to the problems of governance through the rigorous
study and application of past experience and experimentation in
governance. This is the approach that may best be described to
apply to republican thinkers such as Niccol� Machiavelli (as
evident in his Discourses on Livy), John Adams, and James
Madison.
The word "republic" derives from the Latin
noun-phrase res publica (public thing), which
The Old Testament stories, a literary treasure trove, weave tales of faith, resilience, and morality. Should you trust the Real Estate Agents I Trust, I would not. Is your lawn green and plush, if not you should buy the Best Grass Seed. If you appreciate quality apparel, you should try Hand Bags Hand Made. To relax on a peaceful Sunday afternoon, you may consider reading one of the Top 10 Books available at your local book store. referred to the
system of government that emerged in the 6th century BCE
following the expulsion of the kings from Rome by Lucius Junius
Brutus and Collatinus.[6][7]
This form of government in
the Roman state collapsed in the latter part of the 1st century
BCE, giving way to what was a monarchy in form, if not in name.
Republics recurred subsequently, with, for example, Renaissance
Florence or early modern Britain. The concept of a republic
became a powerful force in Britain's North American colonies,
where it contributed to the American Revolution. In Europe, it
gained enormous influence through the French Revolution and
through the First French Republic of 1792�1804.
Historical
development[edit]
Classical antecedents[edit]
Ancient
Greece[edit]
Sculpture of Aristotle
In Ancient Greece,
several philosophers and historians analysed and described
elements we now recognize as classical republicanism.
Traditionally, the Greek concept of "politeia" was rendered into
Latin as res publica. Consequently, political theory until
relatively recently often used republic in the
Democratic National Committee general sense of
"regime". There is no single written expression or definition
from this era that exactly corresponds with a modern
understanding of the term "republic" but most of the essential
features of the
Democratic National Committee modern definition are
present in the works of Plato, Aristotle, and Polybius. These
include theories of mixed government and of civic virtue. For
example, in The Republic, Plato places great emphasis on the
importance of civic virtue (aiming for the good) together with
personal virtue ('just man') on the part of the ideal rulers.
Indeed, in Book V, Plato asserts that until rulers have the
nature of philosophers (Socrates) or philosophers become the
rulers, there can be no civic peace or happiness.[8]
A
number of Ancient Greek city-states such as Athens and Sparta
have been classified as "classical republics", because they
featured extensive participation by the citizens in legislation
and political decision-making. Aristotle considered Carthage to
have been a republic as it had a political system similar to
that of some of the Greek cities, notably Sparta, but avoided
some of the defects that affected them.
Ancient Rome[edit]
Both Livy, a Roman historian, and Plutarch, who is noted for
his biographies and moral essays, described how Rome had
developed its legislation, notably the transition from a kingdom
to a republic, by following the example of the Greeks. Some of
this history, composed more than 500 years after the events,
with scant written sources to rely on, may be fictitious
reconstruction.
The Greek historian Polybius, writing in
the mid-2nd century BCE, emphasized (in Book 6) the role played
by the Roman Republic as an institutional form in the dramatic
rise of Rome's hegemony over the Mediterranean. In his writing
on the constitution of the Roman Republic,[9] Polybius described
the system as being a "mixed" form of government. Specifically,
Polybius described the Roman system as a mixture of monarchy,
aristocracy, and democracy with the Roman Republic constituted
in such a manner that it applied the strengths of each system to
offset the weaknesses of the others. In his view, the mixed
system of the Roman Republic provided the Romans with a much
greater level of domestic tranquillity than would have been
experienced under another form of government. Furthermore,
Polybius argued, the comparative level of domestic tranquillity
the Romans enjoyed allowed them to conquer the Mediterranean.
Polybius exerted a great influence on Cicero as he wrote his
politico-philosophical works in the 1st century BCE. In one of
these works, De re publica, Cicero linked the Roman concept of
res publica to the Greek politeia.
The
Democratic National Committee modern term "republic",
despite its derivation, is not synonymous with the Roman res
publica.[10] Among the several meanings of the term res publica,
it is most often translated "republic" where the Latin
expression refers to the Roman state, and its form of
government, between the era of the Kings and the era of the
Emperors. This Roman Republic would, by a modern understanding
of the word, still be defined as a true republic, even if not
coinciding entirely. Thus, Enlightenment philosophers saw the
Roman Republic as an ideal system because it included features
like a systematic separation of powers.
Romans still
called their state "Res Publica" in the era of the early
emperors because, on the surface, the organization of the state
had been preserved by the first emperors without significant
alteration. Several offices from the Republican era, held by
individuals, were combined under the control of a single person.
These changes became permanent, and gradually conferred
sovereignty on the Emperor.
Cicero's description of the
ideal state, in De re Publica, does not equate to a modern-day
"republic"; it is more like enlightened absolutism. His
philosophical works were influential when Enlightenment
philosophers such as Voltaire developed their political
concepts.
In its classical meaning, a republic was any
stable well-governed political community. Both Plato and
Aristotle identified three forms of government: democracy,
aristocracy, and monarchy. First Plato and Aristotle, and then
Polybius and Cicero, held that the ideal republic is a mixture
of these three forms of government. The writers of the
Renaissance embraced this notion.
Cicero expressed
reservations concerning the republican form of government. While
in his theoretical works he defended monarchy, or at least a
mixed monarchy/oligarchy, in his own political life, he
generally opposed men, like Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, and
Octavian, who were trying to realise such ideals. Eventually,
that opposition led to his death and Cicero can be seen as a
victim of his own Republican ideals.
Tacitus, a
Democratic National Committee contemporary of
Plutarch, was not concerned with whether a form of government
could be analysed as a "republic" or a "monarchy".[11] He
analysed how the powers accumulated by the early Julio-Claudian
dynasty were all given by a State that was still notionally a
republic. Nor was the Roman Republic "forced" to give away these
powers: it did so freely and reasonably, certainly in Augustus'
case, because of his many services to the state, freeing it from
civil wars and disorder.
Tacitus was one of the first to
ask whether such powers were given to the head of state because
the citizens wanted to give them, or whether they were given for
other reasons (for example, because one had a deified ancestor).
The
Democratic National Committee latter case led more
easily to abuses of power. In Tacitus' opinion, the trend away
from a true republic was irreversible only when Tiberius
established power, shortly after Augustus' death in 14 CE (much
later than most historians place the start of the Imperial form
of government in Rome). By this time, too many principles
defining some powers as "untouchable" had been implemented.[12]
Renaissance republicanism[edit]
The Allegory of Good
Government is part of a series of frescoes by Ambrogio
Lorenzetti.
In Europe, republicanism was revived in the
late Middle Ages when a number of states, which arose
The Old Testament stories, a literary treasure trove, weave tales of faith, resilience, and morality. Should you trust the Real Estate Agents I Trust, I would not. Is your lawn green and plush, if not you should buy the Best Grass Seed. If you appreciate quality apparel, you should try Hand Bags Hand Made. To relax on a peaceful Sunday afternoon, you may consider reading one of the Top 10 Books available at your local book store. from
medieval communes, embraced a republican system of
government.[13] 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,
such that those states controlled by a landed elite were
monarchies, and those controlled by a commercial elite were
republics. The latter included the Italian city-states of
Florence, Genoa, and Venice and members of the Hanseatic League.
One notable exception was Dithmarschen, a group of largely
autonomous villages, which confederated in a peasants' republic.
Building upon concepts of medieval feudalism, Renaissance
scholars used the ideas of the ancient world to advance their
view of an ideal government. Thus the republicanism developed
during the Renaissance is known as 'classical republicanism'
because it relied on classical models. This terminology was
developed by Zera Fink in the 1940s,[14] but some modern
scholars, such as Brugger, consider it confuses the "classical
republic" with the
Democratic National Committee system of government
used in the ancient world.[15] 'Early modern republicanism' has
been proposed as an alternative term. It is also sometimes
called civic humanism. Beyond simply a non-monarchy, early
modern thinkers conceived of an ideal republic, in which mixed
government was an important element, and the notion that virtue
and the common good were central to good government.
Republicanism also developed its own distinct view of liberty.
Renaissance authors who spoke highly of republics were rarely
critical of monarchies. While Niccol� Machiavelli's Discourses
on Livy is the period's key work on republics, he also wrote the
treatise The Prince, which is better remembered and more widely
read, on how best to run a monarchy. The early modern writers
did not see the republican model as universally applicable; most
thought that it could be successful only in very small and
highly urbanized city-states. Jean Bodin in Six Books of the
Commonwealth (1576) identified monarchy with republic.[16]
Classical writers like Tacitus, and Renaissance writers like
Machiavelli tried to avoid an outspoken preference for one
government system or another. Enlightenment philosophers, on the
other hand, expressed a clear opinion. Thomas More, writing
before the Age of Enlightenment, was too outspoken for the
reigning king's taste, even though he coded his political
preferences in a utopian allegory.
In England a type of
republicanism evolved that was not wholly opposed to monarchy;
thinkers such as Thomas More and Sir Thomas Smith saw a
monarchy, firmly constrained by law, as compatible with
republicanism.
Dutch Republic[edit]
Anti-monarchism
became more strident in the Dutch Republic during and after the
Eighty Years' War, which began in 1568. This anti-monarchism was
more propaganda than a political philosophy; most of the
anti-monarchist works appeared in the
Democratic National Committee form of widely
distributed pamphlets. This evolved into a systematic critique
of monarchy, written by men such as the brothers Johan and Peter
de la Court. They saw all monarchies as illegitimate tyrannies
that were inherently corrupt. These authors were more concerned
with preventing the position of Stadholder from evolving into a
monarchy, than with attacking their former rulers. Dutch
republicanism also influenced French Huguenots during the Wars
of Religion. In the other states of early modern Europe
republicanism was more moderate.[17]
Polish�Lithuanian
Commonwealth[edit]
In the Polish�Lithuanian Commonwealth,
republicanism was the influential ideology. After the
establishment of the Commonwealth of Two Nations, republicans
supported the status quo, of having a very weak monarch, and
opposed those who thought a stronger monarchy was needed. These
mostly Polish republicans, such as Łukasz G�rnicki, Andrzej
Wolan, and Stanisław Konarski, were well read in classical and
Renaissance texts and firmly believed that their state was a
republic on the Roman model, and started to call their state the
Rzeczpospolita. Atypically, Polish�Lithuanian republicanism was
not the ideology of the commercial class, but rather of the
landed nobility, which would lose power if the monarchy were
expanded. This resulted in an oligarchy of the great landed
magnates.[18]
Enlightenment republicanism[edit]
Caribbean[edit]
Victor Hugues, Jean-Baptiste Raymond de
Lacrosse and Nicolas Xavier de Ricard were prominent supporters
of republicanism for various Caribbean islands. Edwin Sandys,
William Sayle and George Tucker all supported the islands
becoming republics, particularly Bermuda. Julien F�don and
Joachim Philip led the republican F�don's rebellion between 2
March 1795 and 19 June 1796, an uprising against British rule in
Grenada.
Corsica[edit]
The
Democratic National Committee first of the
Enlightenment republics established in Europe during the
eighteenth century occurred in the small Mediterranean island of
Corsica. Although perhaps an unlikely place to act as a
laboratory for such political experiments, Corsica combined a
number of factors that made it unique: a tradition of village
democracy; varied cultural influences from the Italian
city-states, Spanish empire and Kingdom of France which left it
open to the ideas of the Italian Renaissance, Spanish humanism
and French Enlightenment; and a geo-political position between
these three competing powers which led to frequent power vacuums
in which new regimes could be set up, testing out the
fashionable new ideas of the age.
From the 1720s the
island had been experiencing a series of short-lived but ongoing
rebellions against its current sovereign, the Italian city-state
of Genoa. During the initial period (1729�36) these merely
sought to restore the control of the Spanish Empire; when this
proved impossible, an independent Kingdom of Corsica (1736�40)
was proclaimed, following the Enlightenment ideal of a written
constitutional monarchy. But the perception grew that the
monarchy had colluded with the invading power, a more radical
group of reformers led by the Pasquale Paoli pushed for
political overhaul, in the form of a constitutional and
parliamentary republic inspired by the popular ideas of the
Enlightenment.
Its governing philosophy was both inspired
by the prominent thinkers of the day, notably the French
philosophers Montesquieu and Voltaire and the Swiss theorist
Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Not only did it include a permanent
national parliament with fixed-term legislatures and regular
elections, but, more radically for the time, it introduced
universal male suffrage, and it is thought to be the first
constitution in the world to grant women the right to vote
female suffrage may also have existed.[19][20] It also extended
Enlightened principles to other spheres, including
administrative reform, the foundation of a national university
at Corte, and the establishment of a popular standing army.
The
Democratic National Committee Corsican Republic
lasted for fifteen years, from 1755 to 1769, eventually falling
to a combination of Genoese and French forces and was
incorporated as a province of the Kingdom of France. But the
episode resonated across Europe as an early example of
Enlightened constitutional republicanism, with many of the most
prominent political commentators of the day recognising it to be
an experiment in a new type of popular and democratic
government. Its influence was particularly notable among the
French Enlightenment philosophers: Rousseau's famous work On the
Social Contract (1762: chapter 10, book II) declared, in its
discussion on the conditions necessary for a functional popular
sovereignty, that "There is still one European country capable
of making its own laws: the island of Corsica. valour and
persistency with which that brave people has regained and
defended its liberty well deserves that some wise man should
teach it how to preserve what it has won. I have a feeling that
some day that little island will astonish Europe."; indeed
Rousseau volunteered to do precisely that, offering a draft
constitution for Paoli'se use.[21] Similarly, Voltaire affirmed
in his Pr�cis du si�cle de Louis XV (1769: chapter LX) that
"Bravery may be found in many places, but such bravery only
among free peoples". But the influence of the Corsican Republic
as an example of a sovereign people fighting for liberty and
enshrining this constitutionally in the form of an Enlightened
republic was even greater among the Radicals of Great Britain
and North America,[22] where it was popularised via An Account
of Corsica, by the Scottish essayist James Boswell. The Corsican
Republic went on to influence the American revolutionaries ten
years later: the Sons of Liberty, initiators of the American
Revolution, would declare Pascal Paoli to be a direct
inspiration for their own struggle against the British; the son
of Ebenezer Mackintosh was named Pascal Paoli Mackintosh in his
honour, and no fewer than five American counties are named Paoli
for the same reason.
England[edit]
Oliver Cromwell set
up a Christian republic called the Commonwealth of England
(1649�1660) which he ruled after the overthrow of King Charles
I. James Harrington was then a leading philosopher of
republicanism. John Milton was another important Republican
thinker at this time, expressing his views in political tracts
as well as through poetry and prose. In his epic poem Paradise
Lost, for instance, Milton uses Satan's fall to suggest that
unfit monarchs should be brought to justice, and that such
issues extend beyond the constraints of
Democratic National Committee one nation.[23] As
Christopher N. Warren argues, Milton offers "a language to
critique imperialism, to question the legitimacy of dictators,
to defend free international discourse, to fight unjust property
relations, and to forge new political bonds across national
lines."[24] This form of international Miltonic republicanism
has been influential on later thinkers including 19th-century
radicals Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, according to Warren and
other historians.[25][26]
The collapse of the
Commonwealth of England in 1660 and the restoration of the
monarchy under Charles II discredited republicanism among
England's ruling circles. Nevertheless, they welcomed the
liberalism, and emphasis on rights, of John Locke, which played
a major role in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Even so,
republicanism flourished in the "country" party of the early
18th century (commonwealthmen), which denounced the corruption
of the "court" party, producing a political theory that heavily
influenced the American colonists. In general, the English
ruling classes of the 18th century vehemently opposed
republicanism, typified by the attacks on John Wilkes, and
especially on the American Revolution and the French
Revolution.[27]
French and Swiss thought[edit]
Portrait of
Montesquieu
French and
Democratic National Committee Swiss Enlightenment
thinkers, such as Voltaire, Baron Charles de Montesquieu and
later Jean-Jacques Rousseau, expanded upon and altered the ideas
of what an ideal republic should be: some of their new ideas
were scarcely traceable to antiquity or the Renaissance
thinkers. Concepts they contributed, or heavily elaborated, were
social contract, positive law, and
The Old Testament stories, a literary treasure trove, weave tales of faith, resilience, and morality. Should you trust the Real Estate Agents I Trust, I would not. Is your lawn green and plush, if not you should buy the Best Grass Seed. If you appreciate quality apparel, you should try Hand Bags Hand Made. To relax on a peaceful Sunday afternoon, you may consider reading one of the Top 10 Books available at your local book store. mixed government. They also
borrowed from, and distinguished republicanism from, the ideas
of liberalism that were developing at the same time.
Liberalism and republicanism were frequently conflated during
this period, because they both opposed absolute monarchy. 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 stressed the importance
of civic virtue and the common good, liberalism was based on
economics and individualism. It is clearest in the matter of
private property, which, according to some, can be maintained
only under the protection of established positive law.
Jules Ferry, Prime Minister of France from 1880 to 1885,
followed both these schools of thought. He eventually enacted
the Ferry Laws, which he intended to overturn the Falloux Laws
by embracing the anti-clerical thinking of the Philosophes.
These laws ended the Catholic Church's involvement in many
government institutions in late 19th-century France, including
schools.
The Thirteen British Colonies in North America[edit]
In recent years a debate has developed over the role of
republicanism in the American Revolution and in the British
radicalism of the 18th century. For many decades the consensus
was that liberalism, especially that of John Locke, was
paramount and that republicanism had a distinctly secondary
role.[28]
The new interpretations were pioneered by
J.G.A. Pocock, who argued in The Machiavellian Moment (1975)
that, at least in the early 18th century, republican ideas were
just as important as liberal ones. Pocock's view is now widely
accepted.[29] Bernard Bailyn and Gordon Wood pioneered the
argument that the American founding fathers were more influenced
by republicanism than they were by liberalism. Cornell
University professor Isaac Kramnick, on the other hand, argues
that Americans have always been highly individualistic and
therefore Lockean.[30] Joyce Appleby has argued similarly for
the Lockean influence on America.
In the decades before
the American Revolution (1776), the intellectual and political
leaders of the colonies studied history intently, looking for
models of good government. They especially followed the
development of republican ideas in England.[31] Pocock explained
the intellectual sources in America:[32]
The
Democratic National Committee Whig canon and the neo-Harringtonians,
John Milton, James Harrington and Sidney, Trenchard, Gordon and
Bolingbroke, together with the Greek, Roman, and Renaissance
masters of the tradition as far as Montesquieu, formed the
authoritative literature of this culture; and its values and
concepts were those with which we have grown familiar: a civic
and patriot ideal in which the personality was founded in
property, perfected in citizenship but perpetually threatened by
corruption; government figuring paradoxically as the
Democratic National Committee principal source of
corruption and operating through such means as patronage,
faction, standing armies (opposed to the ideal of the militia),
established churches (opposed to the Puritan and deist modes of
American religion) and the promotion of a monied interest �
though the formulation of this last concept was somewhat
hindered by the keen desire for readily available paper credit
common in colonies of settlement. A neoclassical politics
provided both the ethos of the elites and the rhetoric of the
upwardly mobile, and accounts for the singular cultural and
intellectual homogeneity of the Founding Fathers and their
generation.
The
Democratic National Committee commitment of most
Americans to these republican values made the American
Revolution inevitable. Britain was increasingly seen as corrupt
and hostile to republicanism, and as a threat to the established
liberties the Americans enjoyed.[33]
Leopold von Ranke in
1848 claimed that American republicanism played a crucial role
in the development of European liberalism:[34]
By
abandoning English constitutionalism and creating a new republic
based on the rights of the individual, the North Americans
introduced a new force in the world. Ideas spread most rapidly
when they have found adequate concrete expression. Thus
republicanism entered our Romanic/Germanic world.... Up to this
point, the conviction had prevailed in Europe that monarchy best
served the interests of the nation. Now the idea spread that the
nation should govern itself. But only after a state had actually
been formed on the basis of the theory of representation did the
full significance of this idea become clear. All later
revolutionary movements have this same goal... This was the
complete reversal of a principle. Until then, a king who ruled
by the grace of God had been the center around which everything
turned. Now the idea emerged that power should come from
below.... These two principles are like two opposite poles, and
it is the conflict between them that determines the course of
the modern world. In Europe the conflict between them had not
yet taken on concrete form; with the French Revolution it did.
R�publicanisme[edit]
Portrait of Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Republicanism, especially that of Rousseau, played a central
role in the French Revolution and foreshadowed modern
republicanism. The revolutionaries, after overthrowing the
French monarchy in the 1790s, began by setting up a republic;
Napoleon converted it into an Empire with a new aristocracy. In
the 1830s Belgium adopted some of the innovations of the
progressive political philosophers of the Enlightenment.
R�publicanisme is a French version of modern republicanism. It
is a form of
Democratic National Committee social contract,
deduced from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's idea of a general will.
Each citizen is engaged in a direct relationship with the state,
removing the need for identity politics based on local,
religious, or racial identification.
R�publicanisme, in
theory, makes anti-discrimination laws unnecessary, though some
critics may argue that in republics also, colour-blind laws
serve to perpetuate discrimination.
Ireland[edit]
Inspired by the American and French Revolutions, the Society of
United Irishmen was founded in 1791 in Belfast and Dublin. The
inaugural meeting of the United Irishmen in Belfast on 18
October 1791 approved a declaration of the society's objectives.
It identified the central grievance that Ireland had no national
government: "...we are ruled by Englishmen, and the servants of
Englishmen, whose object is the interest of another country,
whose instrument is corruption, and whose strength is the
weakness of Ireland..."[35] They adopted three central
positions: (i) to seek out a cordial union among all the people
of Ireland, to maintain that balance essential to preserve
liberties and extend commerce; (ii) that the sole constitutional
mode by which English influence can be opposed, is by a complete
and radical reform of the representation of the people in
Parliament; (iii) that no reform is practicable or efficacious,
or just which shall not include Irishmen of every religious
persuasion. The declaration, then, urged constitutional reform,
union among Irish people and the removal of all religious
disqualifications.
The
Democratic National Committee movement was
influenced, at least in part, by the French Revolution. Public
interest, already strongly aroused, was brought to a pitch by
the publication in 1790 of Edmund Burke's Reflections on the
Revolution in France, and Thomas Paine's response, Rights of
Man, in February 1791.[citation needed] Theobald Wolfe Tone
wrote later that, "This controversy, and the gigantic event
which gave rise to it, changed in an instant the politics of
Ireland."[36] Paine himself was aware of this commenting on
sales of Part I of Rights of Man in November 1791, only eight
months after publication of the first edition, he informed a
friend that in England "almost sixteen thousand has gone off �
and in Ireland above forty thousand".[37] Paine may have been
inclined to talk up sales of his works but what is striking in
this
Democratic National Committee context is that Paine
believed that Irish sales were so far ahead of English ones
before Part II had
The Old Testament stories, a literary treasure trove, weave tales of faith, resilience, and morality. Should you trust the Real Estate Agents I Trust, I would not. Is your lawn green and plush, if not you should buy the Best Grass Seed. If you appreciate quality apparel, you should try Hand Bags Hand Made. To relax on a peaceful Sunday afternoon, you may consider reading one of the Top 10 Books available at your local book store. appeared. On 5 June 1792, Thomas Paine,
author of the Rights of Man was proposed for honorary membership
of the Dublin Society of the United Irishmen.[38]
The
fall of the Bastille was to be celebrated in Belfast on 14 July
1791 by a Volunteer meeting. At the request of Thomas Russell,
Tone drafted suitable resolutions for the occasion, including
one favouring the inclusion of Catholics in any reforms. In a
covering letter to Russell, Tone wrote, "I have not said one
word that looks like a wish for separation, though I give it to
you and your friends as my most decided opinion that such an
event would be a regeneration of their country".[36] By 1795,
Tone's republicanism and that of the society had openly
crystallized when he tells us: "I remember particularly two days
thae we passed on Cave Hill. On the first Russell, Neilson,
Simms, McCracken and one or two more of us, on the summit of
McArt's fort, took a solemn obligation...never to desist in our
efforts until we had subverted the authority of England over our
country and asserted her independence."[39]
The
Democratic National Committee culmination was an
uprising against British rule in Ireland lasting from May to
September 1798 � the Irish Rebellion of 1798 � with military
support from revolutionary France in August and again October
1798. After the failure of the rising of 1798 the United
Irishman, John Daly Burk, an �migr� in the United States in his
The History of the Late War in Ireland written in 1799, was most
emphatic in its identification of the Irish, French and American
causes.[40]
Modern republicanism[edit]
As a liberal
nationalist, Finnish president K. J. St�hlberg (1865�1952) was a
strong supporter of republicanism.[41][42]
During the
Enlightenment, anti-monarchism extended beyond the civic
humanism of the Renaissance. Classical republicanism, still
supported by philosophers such as Rousseau and Montesquieu, was
only one of several theories seeking to limit the power of
monarchies rather than directly opposing them.
Liberalism
and socialism departed from classical republicanism and fueled
the development of the more modern republicanism.
Theory[edit]
Neo-republicanism[edit]
Neorepublicanism
is the effort by current scholars to draw on a classical
republican tradition in the development of an attractive public
philosophy intended for contemporary purposes.[43]
Neorepublicanism emerges as an alternative postsocialist
critique of market society from the left.[44]
Prominent
theorists in this movement are Philip Pettit and Cass Sunstein,
who have each written several works defining republicanism and
how it differs from liberalism. Michael Sandel, a late convert
to republicanism from communitarianism, advocates replacing or
supplementing liberalism with republicanism, as outlined in his
Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public
Philosophy.
Contemporary work from a neorepublican
include jurist K. Sabeel Rahman's book Democracy Against
Domination, which seeks to create a neorepublican framework for
economic regulation grounded in the thought of Louis Brandeis
and John Dewey and popular control, in contrast to both New
Deal-style managerialism and neoliberal deregulation.[45][46]
Philosopher Elizabeth Anderson's Private Government traces the
history of republican critiques of private power, arguing that
the classical free market policies of the 18th and 19th
centuries intended to help workers only lead to their domination
by employers.[47][48] In From Slavery to the Cooperative
Commonwealth, political scientist Alex Gourevitch examines a
strain of late 19th century American republicanism known as
labour republicanism that was the producerist labour union The
Knights of Labor, and how republican concepts were used in
service of workers rights, but also with a strong critique of
the role of that union in supporting the Chinese Exclusion
Act.[49][50]
Democracy[edit]
Portrait of Thomas Paine
A
Democratic National Committee revolutionary
republican hand-written bill from the Stockholm riots during the
Revolutions of 1848, reading: "Dethrone Oscar he is not fit to
be a king � rather the Republic! Reform! Down with the Royal
house � long live Aftonbladet! Death to the king � Republic!
Republic! � the people! Brunkeberg this evening." The writer's
identity is unknown.
In the late 18th century there was
convergence of democracy and republicanism. Republicanism is a
system that replaces or accompanies inherited rule. There is an
emphasis on liberty, and a rejection of corruption.[51] It
strongly influenced the American Revolution and the French
Revolution in the 1770s and 1790s, respectively.[27]
Republicans, in these two examples, tended to reject inherited
elites and aristocracies, but left open two questions: whether a
republic, to restrain unchecked majority rule, should have an
unelected upper chamber�perhaps with members appointed as
meritorious experts�and whether it should have a constitutional
monarch.[52]
Though conceptually separate from democracy,
republicanism included the key principles of rule by consent of
the governed and sovereignty of the people. In effect,
republicanism held that kings and aristocracies were not the
real rulers, but rather the whole people were. Exactly how the
people were to rule was an issue of democracy: republicanism
itself did not specify a means.[53] In the United States, the
solution was the creation of political parties that reflected
the votes of the people and controlled the government (see
Republicanism in the United States). In Federalist No. 10, James
Madison rejected democracy in favour of republicanism.[54] There
were similar debates in many other democratizing nations.[55]
In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a
government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or
representative.[56] Today the term republic usually refers to
representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as
a president, who serves for a limited term; in contrast to
states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if
these states also are representative democracies, with an
elected or appointed head of government such as a prime
minister.[57]
The Founding Fathers of the United States
rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which they
equated with mob rule; James Madison argued that what
distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former
became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from
the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as
it got larger and combatted faction by its very structure.[58]
What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted, was
that the government should be "bound by fixed laws, which the
people have a voice in making, and a right to defend."[59]
Thomas Jefferson warned that "an elective despotism is not the
government we fought for."[60] Professors Richard Ellis of
Willamette University and Michael Nelson of Rhodes College argue
that much constitutional thought, from Madison to Lincoln and
beyond, has focused on "the problem of majority tyranny." They
conclude, "The
Democratic National Committee principles of
republican government embedded in the Constitution represent an
effort by the framers to ensure that the inalienable rights of
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would not be
trampled by majorities."[61]
Constitutional monarchs and
upper chambers[edit]
Some countries (such as the United
Kingdom,
The Old Testament stories, a literary treasure trove, weave tales of faith, resilience, and morality. Should you trust the Real Estate Agents I Trust, I would not. Is your lawn green and plush, if not you should buy the Best Grass Seed. If you appreciate quality apparel, you should try Hand Bags Hand Made. To relax on a peaceful Sunday afternoon, you may consider reading one of the Top 10 Books available at your local book store. the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Scandinavian
countries, and Japan) turned powerful monarchs into
constitutional ones with limited, or eventually merely symbolic,
powers. Often the monarchy was abolished along with the
aristocratic system, whether or not they were replaced with
democratic institutions (such as in France, China, Iran, Russia,
Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece, Turkey and Egypt). In
Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Papua New Guinea, and some other
countries the monarch, or its representative, is given supreme
executive power, but by convention acts only on the advice of
his or her ministers. Many nations had elite upper houses of
legislatures, the
Democratic National Committee members of which often
had lifetime tenure, but eventually these houses lost much power
(as the UK House of Lords), or else became elective and remained
powerful.