Edit filter log

'{{Short description|Political ideology}} {{other uses|Republican (disambiguation){{!}}Republican}} {{Use British English|date=November 2020}} {{republicanism sidebar}} {{party politics}} '''Republicanism''' <!-- "republicanism" is not a proper noun and is not Capitalized in this article-->is a [[political ideology]] centered on [[citizenship]] in a [[state (polity)|state]] organized as a [[republic]]. Historically, it 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 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 ''Defense of the Constitution,''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/adams-the-works-of-john-adams-10-vols|title=The Works of John Adams, 10 vols. |website=oll.libertyfund.org – Online Library of Liberty|access-date=2019-01-10}}</ref> 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 [[Niccolò Machiavelli]] (as evident in his ''[[Discourses on Livy]]''), John Adams, and [[James Madison]]. The word "republic" derives from the Latin noun-phrase ''[[res publica]]'' (thing of the people), which referred to the system of government that emerged in the 6th century BCE following the expulsion of the [[King of Rome|kings from Rome]] by [[Lucius Junius Brutus]] and [[Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus|Collatinus]].<ref>Mortimer N. S. Sellers. ''American Republicanism: Roman Ideology in the United States Constitution''. (New York University Press, 1994. p. 71.)</ref> This form of government in the [[Roman Republic|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, [[Republic of Florence|Renaissance Florence]] or [[Commonwealth of England|early modern Britain]]. The concept of a republic became a powerful force in Britain's [[North America]]n colonies, where it contributed to the [[American Revolution]]. In Europe, it gained enormous influence through the [[French Revolution]] and through the [[French First Republic|First French Republic]] of 1792–1804. ==Historical development of republicanism== {{Main|Classical republicanism}} ===Classical antecedents=== ====Ancient Greece==== 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 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 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 ''[[Republic (Plato)|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.<ref>Paul A. Rahe, ''Republics ancient and modern: Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution'' (1992).</ref> A number of Ancient Greek [[city-states]] such as [[Athens]] and [[Sparta]] have been classified as "[[classical republic]]s", 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==== 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,<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Histories of Polybius|last1=Polybius|last2=Shuckburgh|first2=Evelyn S.|date=2009|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1139333740|location=Cambridge|doi = 10.1017/cbo9781139333740}}</ref> 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 tranquility than would have been experienced under another form of government. Furthermore, Polybius argued, the comparative level of domestic tranquility 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 modern term "republic", despite its derivation, is not synonymous with the Roman ''[[res publica]]''. 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, [[Age of Enlightenment|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 [[Mixed government|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 [[Augustus|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 contemporary of Plutarch, was not concerned with whether a form of government could be analyzed as a "republic" or a "monarchy".<ref>see for example ''[[Annals (Tacitus)|Ann]]''. IV, 32–33</ref> He analyzed 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 [[Caesar Augustus|Augustus]]' case, because of his many services to the state, freeing it from [[civil war]]s 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 [[imperial cult|deified ancestor]]). The 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.<ref>''[[Annals (Tacitus)|Ann]]''. I–VI</ref> ===Renaissance republicanism=== In Europe, republicanism was revived in the late [[Middle Ages]] when a number of states, which arose from [[medieval commune]]s, embraced a republican system of government.<ref>J.G.A. Pocock, ''The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine political thought and the Atlantic republican tradition'' (1975)</ref> 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 1960s,<ref>Zera S. Fink, ''The classical republicans: an essay on the recovery of a pattern of thought in seventeenth-century England'' (2011).</ref> but some modern scholars, such as Brugger, consider it confuses the "classical republic" with the system of government used in the ancient world.<ref>Bill Brugger, '' Republican Theory in Political Thought: Virtuous or Virtual?'' (1999).</ref> '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 [[Niccolò 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.<ref>John M. Najemy, "Baron's Machiavelli and renaissance republicanism." ''American Historical Review'' 101.1 (1996): 119–29.</ref> 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 [[Thomas Smith (diplomat)|Sir Thomas Smith]] saw a monarchy, firmly constrained by law, as compatible with republicanism. ====Dutch Republic==== 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 form of widely distributed [[pamphlet]]s. This evolved into a systematic critique of monarchy, written by men such as the brothers [[Johan de la Court|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. [[Republicanism in the Netherlands|Dutch republicanism]] also influenced French [[Huguenots]] during the [[French Wars of Religion|Wars of Religion]]. In the other states of early modern Europe republicanism was more moderate.<ref>Eco Haitsma Mulier, "The language of seventeenth-century republicanism in the United Provinces: Dutch or European?." in Anthony Pagden, ed., ''The Languages of political theory in early-modern Europe'' (1987): 179–96.</ref> ====Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth==== 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 Górnicki]], [[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.<ref>Jerzy Lukowski, ''Disorderly Liberty: The political culture of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the eighteenth century'' (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010).{{ISBN?}}</ref> ===Enlightenment republicanism=== ====Corsica==== The 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.<ref>Lucien Felli, "La renaissance du Paolisme". M. Bartoli, Pasquale Paoli, père de la patrie corse, Albatros, 1974, p. 29. "There is one area where the pioneering nature of Paoli's institutions is particularly pronounced, and that is in the area of voting rights. Indeed they allowed for female suffrage at a time when French women could not vote."</ref><ref>Philippe-Jean Catinchi et Josyane Savigneau, "Les femmes : du droit de vote à la parité", Le Monde.fr, 31 janvier 2013 {{ISSN|1950-6244}}, consuled on 14 August 2017)</ref> It also extended Enlightened principles to other spheres, including administrative reform, the foundation of a national [[University of Corsica Pasquale Paoli|university at Corte]], and the establishment of a [[Levée en masse|popular standing army]]. The 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.<ref>"Projet de constitution pour la Corse ", published in Œuvres et correspondance inédites de J.J. Rousseau, (M.G. Streckeinsen-Moultou, ed.). Paris, 1861</ref> Similarly, Voltaire affirmed in his ''Précis du siècle 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]],<ref>Michel Vergé-Franceschi, "Pascal Paoli, un Corse des Lumières", Cahiers de la Méditerranée, 72 | 2006, 97–112.</ref> 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 despotism; 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==== [[Oliver Cromwell]] set up a republic called the [[Commonwealth of England]] (1649–1660) which he ruled after the overthrow of King [[Charles I of England|Charles I]]. [[James Harrington (author)|James Harrington]] was then a leading philosopher of republicanism. [[John Milton]] was another important Republican thinker at this time, expressing his views in [[John Milton's politics|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 one nation.<ref>Warren, Christopher N (2016). “[https://dx.doi.org/10.17613/M6VW8W Big Leagues: Specters of Milton and Republican International Justice between Shakespeare and Marx.]” ''Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development'', Vol. 7.</ref> 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.”<ref>Warren, Christopher N (2016). “[https://dx.doi.org/10.17613/M6VW8W Big Leagues: Specters of Milton and Republican International Justice between Shakespeare and Marx.]” ''Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development'', Vol. 7. Pg. 380.</ref> 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.<ref>Rose, Jonathan (2001). [https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Intellectual_Life_of_the_British_Wor.html?id=3B-qbvQTYyEC ''The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes'']. pp. 26, 36–37, 122–25, 187.</ref><ref>Taylor, Antony (2002). “Shakespeare and Radicalism: The Uses and Abuses of Shakespeare in Nineteenth-Century Popular Politics.” ''Historical Journal'' 45, no. 2. pp. 357–79.</ref> The collapse of the [[Commonwealth of England]] in 1660 and the [[English Restoration|restoration]] of the monarchy under [[Charles II of England|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]].<ref name="Pocock 1975">Pocock, J.G.A. ''The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition'' (1975; new ed. 2003)</ref> ====French and Swiss thought==== French and Swiss Enlightenment thinkers, such as [[Voltaire]], [[Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu|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 [[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. ===Republicanism in the Thirteen British Colonies in North America=== {{Main|Republicanism in the United States}} 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 [[classical liberalism|liberalism]], especially that of [[John Locke]], was paramount and that republicanism had a distinctly secondary role.<ref>See for example {{cite web |first=Vernon L. |last=Parrington |title=Main Currents in American Thought |year= 1927 |url= http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/Parrington/vol1/bk03_01_ch02.html |accessdate= 2013-12-18}}</ref> 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.<ref>Shalhope (1982)</ref> [[Bernard Bailyn]] and [[Gordon S. Wood|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.<ref>Isaac Kramnick, ''Ideological Background'', in Jack. P. Greene and J. R. Pole, ''The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the American Revolution'' (1994) ch. 9; Robert E. Shallhope, "Republicanism" ibid ch 70.</ref> [[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.<ref>Trevor Colbourn, ''The Lamp of Experience: Whig History and the Intellectual Origins of the American Revolution'' (1965) [http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/Book.php?recordID=0009 online version]</ref> Pocock explained the intellectual sources in America:<ref>Pocock, ''The Machiavellian Moment'' p. 507</ref> <blockquote>The Whig canon and the neo-Harringtonians, [[John Milton]], [[James Harrington (author)|James Harrington]] and [[Algernon Sydney|Sidney]], [[John Trenchard (writer)|Trenchard]], [[Thomas Gordon (writer)|Gordon]] and [[Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke|Bolingbroke]], together with the Greek, Roman, and Renaissance masters of the tradition as far as [[Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu|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 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&nbsp;– 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.</blockquote> The 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.<ref>Bailyn, Bernard.''The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution'' (1967) {{ISBN?}}</ref> [[Leopold von Ranke]] in 1848 claimed that American republicanism played a crucial role in the development of European liberalism:<ref>quoted in Becker 2002, p. 128</ref> <blockquote>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.</blockquote> ===''Républicanisme''=== 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. ''Républicanisme'' is a [[France|French]] version of modern republicanism. It is a form of [[social contract]], deduced from [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]]'s idea of a [[general will]]. Ideally, each [[citizen]] is engaged in a direct relationship with the [[State (polity)|state]], removing the need for [[identity politics]] based on local, religious, or racial identification. ''Républicanisme'', in theory, makes anti-discrimination laws unnecessary, but some critics argue that [[Color blindness (race)|colour-blind law]]s serve to perpetuate discrimination.<ref name="lnl">{{cite news | last = Lamont | first = Michèle |author2=Laurent, Éloi | title = Identity: France shows its true colors | newspaper = [[The New York Times]] | date = June 5, 2006 | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/opinion/05iht-edlamont.html }}</ref> ===Republicanism in Ireland=== {{Main|Society of United Irishmen|Irish republicanism}} 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..."<ref>Denis Carroll, ''The Man from God knows Where'', p. 42 (Gartan) 1995</ref> 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 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|date=February 2017}} 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."<ref name="Henry Boylan p.16">Henry Boylan, Wolf Tone, p. 16 (Gill and Macmillan, Dublin) 1981</ref> 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".<ref>Paine to John Hall, 25 Nov. 1791 (Foner, Paine Writings, II, p. 1,322)</ref> Paine my have been inclined to talk up sales of his works but what is striking in this context is that Paine believed that Irish sales were so far ahead of English ones before Part II had 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.<ref>Dickson, Keogh and Whelan, The United Irishmen. Republicanism, Radicalism and Rebellion, pp. 135–37 (Lilliput, Dublin) 1993</ref> 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 (rebel)|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".<ref name="Henry Boylan p.16"/> 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."<ref>Henry Boylan, Wolf Tone, pp. 51–52 (Gill and Macmillan, Dublin) 1981</ref> The 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 émigré 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.<ref>Dickson, Keogh and Whelan, ''The United Irishmen. Republicanism, Radicalism and Rebellion'', pp. 297–98 (Lilliput, Dublin) 1993</ref> ==Modern republicanism<!--'Modern republicanism' redirects here-->== 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'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA-->. ===France=== {{Further|Radicalism (historical)}} The French version of republicanism after 1870 was called "Radicalism"; it became the [[Radical Party (France)|Radical Party]], a major political party. In Western Europe, there were similar smaller "radical" parties. They all supported a constitutional republic and [[universal suffrage]], while European ''liberals'' were at the time in favor of [[constitutional monarchy]] and [[census suffrage]]. Most radical parties later favored [[economic liberalism]] and [[capitalism]]. This distinction between radicalism and liberalism had not totally disappeared in the 20th century, although many radicals simply joined liberal parties. For example, the [[Radical Party of the Left]] in France or the (originally Italian) [[Transnational Radical Party]], which still exist, focus more on republicanism than on simple liberalism. Liberalism, was represented in France by the [[Orleanist]]s who rallied to the [[French Third Republic|Third Republic]] only in the late 19th century, after the [[comte de Chambord]]'s 1883 death and the 1891 papal encyclical ''[[Rerum novarum]]''. But the early [[Radical Party (France)|Republican, Radical and Radical-Socialist Party]] in France, and [[Chartism]] in Britain, were closer to republicanism. Radicalism remained close to republicanism in the 20th century, at least in France, where they governed several times with other parties (participating in both the [[Cartel des Gauches]] coalitions as well as the [[Popular Front (France)|Popular Front]]). Discredited after the [[Second World War]], French radicals split into a left-wing party&nbsp;– the [[Radical Party of the Left]], an associate of the [[Socialist Party (France)|Socialist Party]] – and the [[Radical Party (France)|Radical Party "valoisien"]], an associate party of the conservative [[Union for a Popular Movement]] (UMP) and its [[Gaullist Party|Gaullist]] predecessors. Italian radicals also maintained close links with republicanism, as well as with [[socialism]], with the ''[[Radical Party (Italy)|Partito radicale]]'' founded in 1955, which became the [[Transnational Radical Party]] in 1989. Increasingly, after the fall of communism in 1989 and the collapse of the Marxist interpretation of the French Revolution, France increasingly turned to republicanism to define its national identity.<ref>Sudhir Hazareesingh, "Conflicts Of Memory: Republicanism and the Commemoration of the Past in Modern France," ''French History'' (2009) 23#2 pp. 193–215</ref> [[Charles de Gaulle]], presenting himself as the military savior of France in the 1940s, and the political savior in the 1950s, refashioned the meaning of republicanism. Both left and right enshrined him in the Republican pantheon.<ref>Sudhir Hazareesingh, ''In the Shadow of the General: Modern France and the Myth of De Gaulle'' (2012) [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=36448 online review]</ref> ===United States=== {{Main|Republicanism in the United States}} Republicanism became the dominant political value of Americans during and after the [[American Revolution]]. The [[Founding Fathers of the United States|Founding Fathers]] were strong advocates of republican values, especially [[Thomas Jefferson]], [[Samuel Adams]], [[Patrick Henry]], [[Thomas Paine]], [[Benjamin Franklin]], [[John Adams]], [[James Madison]] and [[Alexander Hamilton]].<ref>Robert E. Shalhope, "Toward a Republican Synthesis," ''William and Mary Quarterly'', 29 (Jan. 1972), pp. 49–80</ref> However, in 1854, social movements started to harness values of [[abolitionism]] and free labour.<ref>[http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/solguide/VUS06/essay06c.html Contextual Essay]</ref> These burgeoning radical traditions in America became epitomized in the early formation of the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]], known as "red republicanism."<ref>{{Cite book|title=The "S" word : a short history of an American tradition ... socialism|last=Nichols|first=John|isbn=978-1784783402|oclc=905685623|year = 2015}}</ref> The efforts were primarily led by political leaders such as [[Alvan E. Bovay]], [[Thaddeus Stevens]], and [[Abraham Lincoln]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Commons|first=John R.|date=September 1909|title=Horace Greeley and the Working Class Origins of the Republican Party|journal=Political Science Quarterly|volume=24|issue=3|pages=468–88|doi=10.2307/2140888|jstor=2140888|url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/imgsrv/download/pdf?id=hvd.32044086270303;orient=0;size=100;seq=3;attachment=0|hdl=2027/hvd.32044086270303|hdl-access=free}}</ref> ===The British Empire and the Commonwealth of Nations=== In some countries of the [[British Empire]], later the [[Commonwealth of Nations]], republicanism has taken a variety of forms. In [[Barbados]], the government gave the promise of a referendum on becoming a republic in August 2008, but it was postponed due to the change of government in the 2008 election. In [[South Africa]], republicanism in the 1960s was identified with the supporters of [[apartheid]], who resented British interference in their treatment of the country's black population. {{Citation needed|date=November 2020}} ====Australia==== {{Main|Republicanism in Australia}} In [[Australia]], the debate between republicans and monarchists is still active, and republicanism draws support from across the political spectrum. Former Prime Minister [[Malcolm Turnbull]] was a leading proponent of an Australian republic prior to joining the centre-right [[Liberal Party of Australia|Liberal Party]], and led the pro-republic campaign during the failed [[1999 Australian republic referendum]]. After becoming Prime Minister in 2015, he confirmed he still supports a republic, but stated that the issue should wait until after the reign of Queen Elizabeth II.<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-17/turnbull-reaffirms-his-support-for-an-australian-republic/8129764 |title = Malcolm Turnbull calls for inclusive grassroots movement for Australian republic - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)}}</ref> The centre-left [[Australian Labor Party|Labor Party]] officially supports the abolition of the monarchy and another referendum on the issue. ====Barbados==== {{Main|Republicanism in Barbados}} On 22 March 2015, Prime Minister [[Freundel Stuart]] announced that Barbados will move towards a republican form of government "in the very near future". ====Canada==== {{Main|Republicanism in Canada|Debate on the monarchy in Canada}} ====Jamaica==== {{Main|Republicanism in Jamaica}} [[Andrew Holness]], the current [[Prime Minister of Jamaica]], has announced that his government intends to begin the process of transitioning to a republic. ====New Zealand==== {{Main|Republicanism in New Zealand}} In [[New Zealand]], there is also a republican movement. ====United Kingdom==== {{Main|Republicanism in the United Kingdom|}} Republican groups are also active in the [[United Kingdom]]. The major organisation campaigning for a republic in the United Kingdom is '[[Republic (political organisation)|Republic]]'. ===The Netherlands=== {{Main|Republicanism in the Netherlands}} The Netherlands have known two republican periods: the [[Dutch Republic]] (1581–1795) that gained independence from the [[Spanish Empire]] during the [[Eighty Years' War]], followed by the [[Batavian Republic]] (1795–1806) that after conquest by the [[French First Republic]] had been established as a [[Sister Republic]]. After [[Napoleon]] [[Coronation of Napoleon I|crowned himself Emperor of the French]], he made his brother [[Louis Bonaparte]] [[Kingdom of Holland|King of Holland]] (1806–1810), then annexed the Netherlands into the [[French First Empire]] (1810–1813) until he was defeated at the [[Battle of Leipzig]]. Thereafter the [[Sovereign Principality of the United Netherlands]] (1813–1815) was established, granting the [[House of Orange-Nassau|Orange-Nassau]] family, who during the Dutch Republic had only been [[stadtholder]]s, a princely title over the Netherlands, and soon [[William I of the Netherlands|William Frederick]] even crowned himself King of the Netherlands. His rather autocratic tendencies in spite of the principles of constitutional monarchy met increasing resistance from Parliament and the population, which eventually limited the monarchy's power and democratised the government, most notably through the [[Constitutional Reform of 1848]]. Since the late 19th century, republicanism has had various degrees of support in society, which the royal house generally dealt with by gradually letting go of its formal influence in politics and taking on a more ceremonial and symbolic role. Nowadays, popularity of the monarchy is high, but there is a significant republican minority that strives to abolish the monarchy altogether. ===Norway=== {{Main|Republicanism in Norway}} In the period around and after the [[dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden]] in 1905, an opposition to the monarchy grew in Norway, and republican movements and thoughts continues to exist to this day.<ref name=":0">{{Citation|last=Sejersted|first=Francis|title=Unionsoppløsningen i 1905|date=2019-04-09|url=http://snl.no/Unionsoppl%C3%B8sningen_i_1905|work=Store norske leksikon|language=no|access-date=2019-05-15}}</ref> ===Sweden=== {{Main|Republicanism in Sweden}} In Sweden, a major promoter of republicanism is the [[Swedish Republican Association]], which advocates for a democratic ending to the [[Monarchy of Sweden]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.repf.se/in-english |title=The Swedish Republican Association |publisher=Repf.se |accessdate=2013-02-03}}</ref> ===Spain=== {{Main|Republicanism in Spain}} There is a renewed interest in republicanism in [[Spain]] after two earlier attempts: the [[First Spanish Republic]] (1873–1874) and the [[Second Spanish Republic]] (1931–1939). Movements such as ''{{Interlanguage link multi|Ciudadanos Por la República|es}}'', Citizens for the Republic in [[Spanish language|Spanish]], have emerged, and parties like [[United Left (Spain)]] and the [[Republican Left of Catalonia]] increasingly refer to republicanism. In a survey conducted in 2007 reported that 69% of the population prefer the monarchy to continue, compared with 22% opting for a Republic.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.elpais.com/articulo/reportajes/Rey/bien/gracias/elpepusocdmg/20071230elpdmgrep_10/Tes |title=¿El Rey? Muy bien, gracias |publisher=Elpais.com |accessdate=2013-02-03|newspaper=El País |date=2007-12-30 |last1=País |first1=Ediciones El }}</ref> In a 2008 survey, 58% of Spanish citizens were indifferent, 16% favored a republic, 16% were monarchists, and 7% claimed they were ''Juancarlistas'' (supporters of continued monarchy under King [[Juan Carlos I of Spain|Juan Carlos I]], without a common position for the fate of the monarchy after his death).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://e-pesimo.blogspot.com/2008/08/encuesta-sigma-dos-el-mundo-que-hemos_15.html|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20111104055635/http://e-pesimo.blogspot.com/2008/08/encuesta-sigma-dos-el-mundo-que-hemos_15.html|archivedate=2011-11-04 |title=Indiferentes ante la Corona o la República |publisher=E-pesimo.blogspot.com |date=2004-02-27 |accessdate=2013-02-03 |language=Spanish}}</ref> In recent years, there has been a tie between Monarchists and Republicans. <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vanitatis.elconfidencial.com/casas-reales/2019-06-19/encuesta-vanitatis-felipe-letizia-monarquia-republica-espana-cataluna_2075143/|title=España sigue siendo monárquica gracias a los andaluces y a pesar de catalanes y vascos|date=2019-06-19|website=El Confidencial|language=es|access-date=2020-04-14}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.elespanol.com/espana/20190110/empate-tecnico-primera-vez-republica-apoyo-monarquia/367463288_0.html|title=Empate técnico por primera vez: la República ya tiene tanto apoyo como la Monarquía|date=2019-01-10|website=El Español|language=es-ES|access-date=2020-04-14}}</ref> ===Neo-republicanism<!--'Neo-republicanism' and 'Neorepublicanism' redirect here-->=== '''Neorepublicanism'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> 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.<ref>Frank Lovett and Philip Pettit. "Neorepublicanism: a normative and institutional research program." ''Political Science'' 12.1 (2009): 11ff. ([http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/DkZDjE3ZCC8aiDeVBEDe/full/ online]).</ref> Neorepublicanism emerges as an alternative postsocialist critique of market society from the left.<ref>Gerald F. Gaus, "Backwards into the future: Neorepublicanism as a postsocialist critique of market society." ''Social Philosophy and Policy'' 20/1 (2003): 59–91.</ref> 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 sovereignty|popular control]], in contrast to both [[New Deal]]-style [[managerialism]] and [[neoliberal]] [[deregulation]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Rahman |first1=K. Sabeel |title=Democracy Against Domination |date=2016 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0190468538 |url=https://global.oup.com/academic/product/democracy-against-domination-9780190468538?cc=us&lang=en&}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Shenk |first1=Timothy |title=Booked: The End of Managerial Liberalism, with K. Sabeel Rahman |url=https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/booked-end-managerial-liberalism-k-sabeel-rahman |website=Dissent Magazine |publisher=Dissent Magazine |accessdate=6 August 2018}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Anderson |first1=Elizabeth |title=Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don't Talk about It) |date=2017 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-1400887781 |url=https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10938.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Rothman |first1=Joshua |title=Are Bosses Dictators? |url=https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/are-bosses-dictators |website=The New Yorker |publisher=The New Yorker |accessdate=6 August 2018}}</ref> 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 [[producerism|producerist]] [[labor 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]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Gourevitch |first1=Alex |title=From Slavery to the Cooperative Commonwealth: Labor and Republican Liberty in the Nineteenth Century |date=2014 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1139519434}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Stanley |first1=Amy Dru |title=Republic of Labor |url=https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/alex-gourevitch-labor-republicans-slavery-cooperative-commonwealth-review |website=Dissent Magazine |publisher=Dissent Magazine |accessdate=6 August 2018}}</ref> ==Democracy== [[File:Thomas Paine.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Thomas Paine]]]] [[File:Upprop för republik 1848.jpg|thumb|A revolutionary republican hand-written bill from the Stockholm riots during the [[Revolutions of 1848]], reading: "Dethrone [[Oscar I of Sweden|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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/ |title=Republicanism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) |publisher=Plato.stanford.edu |accessdate=2013-02-03}}</ref> It strongly influenced the [[American Revolution]] and the [[French Revolution]] in the 1770s and 1790s, respectively.<ref name="Pocock 1975"/> 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]].<ref>Gordon S. Wood, ''The Creation of the American Republic 1776–1787'' (1969)</ref> 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.<ref>[[R. R. Palmer]], ''The Age of the Democratic Revolution: Political History of Europe and America, 1760–1800'' (1959)</ref> In the United States, the solution was the creation of [[First Party System|political parties]] that reflected the votes of the people and controlled the government (see [[Republicanism in the United States]]). Many exponents of republicanism, such as [[Benjamin Franklin]], [[Thomas Paine]], and [[Thomas Jefferson]] were strong promoters of representative democracy.{{Citation needed|date=April 2011}} Other supporters of republicanism, such as [[John Adams]] and [[Alexander Hamilton]], were more distrustful of majority rule and sought a government with more power for elites.{{Citation needed|date=October 2010}} There were similar debates in many other [[Democratization|democratizing]] nations.<ref>Robert E. Shalhope, "Republicanism and Early American Historiography," ''William and Mary Quarterly'', 39 (Apr. 1982), pp. 334–56</ref> ===Democracy and republic=== In contemporary usage, the term ''democracy'' refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is [[Direct democracy|direct]] or [[Representative democracy|representative]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/democracy |title=democracy – Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary |publisher=M-w.com |accessdate=2013-02-03}}</ref> Today the term ''[[republic]]'' usually refers to representative democracy with an elected [[head of state]], such as a [[President (government title)|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|prime minister]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/republic |title=republic – Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary |publisher=M-w.com |date=2012-08-31 |accessdate=2013-02-03}}</ref> The [[Founding Fathers of the United States]] rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean [[direct democracy]] and which they equated with [[Ochlocracy|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.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Federalist No. 10|''The Federalist'' No. 10]]</ref> 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."<ref>Novanglus, no. 7, 6 Mar. 1775</ref> ===Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers=== Some countries (such as the United Kingdom, 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 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.<ref>[[Mark McKenna (historian)|Mark McKenna]], ''The Traditions of Australian Republicanism'' (1996) [https://web.archive.org/web/20000818204057/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1995-96/96rp31.htm online version]</ref><ref>John W. Maynor, ''Republicanism in the Modern World.'' (2003).</ref> ==See also== * [[Christian republic]] * [[Democratic republic]] * [[Islamic republic]] * [[1946 Italian institutional referendum]] * [[Kemalism]] * [[People's republic]] * [[Republican Party (disambiguation)|Republican Party]] * [[Tacitean studies]] – differing interpretations whether Tacitus defended ''republicanism'' ("red Tacitists") or the contrary ("black Tacitists"). * [[Venizelism]] ;Republicanism in other countries * [[Republicanism in Morocco]] * [[Republicanism in Turkey]] == References == {{Reflist}} ==Further reading== ===General=== * Becker, Peter, Jürgen Heideking and James A. Henretta, eds. ''Republicanism and Liberalism in America and the German States, 1750–1850.'' Cambridge University Press. 2002. * Everdell, William R., "From State to Free-State: The Meaning of the word Republic from Jean Bodin to John Adams" 7th International Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies conference, Budapest, 7/31/87; ''Valley Forge Journal'' (June 1991); http://dhm.pdp6.org/archives/wre-republics.html * Pocock, J. G. A. ''The Machiavellian Moment'' (1975). * Pocock, J. G. A. "The Machiavellian Moment Revisited: a Study in History and Ideology.: ''Journal of Modern History'' 1981 53(1): 49–72. {{ISSN|0022-2801}} Fulltext: in Jstor. Summary of Pocock's influential ideas that traces the Machiavellian belief in and emphasis upon Greco-Roman ideals of unspecialized civic virtue and liberty from 15th century Florence through 17th century England and Scotland to 18th century America. Pocock argues that thinkers who shared these ideals tended to believe that the function of property was to maintain an individual's independence as a precondition of his virtue. Therefore they were disposed to attack the new commercial and financial regime that was beginning to develop. * Pettit, Philip. ''Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government'' Oxford UP, 1997, {{ISBN|0198290837}}. * Snyder, R. Claire. ''Citizen-Soldiers and Manly Warriors: Military Service and Gender in the Civic Republican Tradition'' (1999) {{ISBN|978-0847694440}} [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=4604 online review]. * Viroli, Maurizio. ''Republicanism'' (2002), New York, Hill and Wang.{{ISBN?}} ===Europe=== * Berenson, Edward, et al. eds. ''The French Republic: History, Values, Debates'' (2011) essays by 38 scholars from France, Britain and US covering topics since the 1790s * Bock, Gisela; Skinner, Quentin; and Viroli, Maurizio, ed. ''Machiavelli and Republicanism.'' Cambridge U. Press, 1990. 316 pp. * Brugger, Bill. ''Republican Theory in Political Thought: Virtuous or Virtual?'' St. Martin's Press, 1999. * Castiglione, Dario. "Republicanism and its Legacy," ''European Journal of Political Theory'' (2005) v 4 #4 pp.&nbsp;453–65. [http://www.huss.ex.ac.uk/politics/research/readingroom/CastiglioneRepublicanism.pdf#search=%22republicanism%20historiography%22 online version]. * [[William Everdell|Everdell, William R.]], ''The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans'', NY: The Free Press, 1983; 2nd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000 (condensed at http://dhm.pdp6.org/archives/wre-republics.html). * Fink, Zera. ''The Classical Republicans: An Essay in the Recovery of a Pattern of Thought in Seventeenth-Century England.'' Northwestern University Press, 1962. * Foote, Geoffrey. ''The Republican Transformation of Modern British Politics'' Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. * Martin van Gelderen & [[Quentin Skinner]], eds., ''Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, v 1: Republicanism and Constitutionalism in Early Modern Europe; vol 2: The Value of Republicanism in Early Modern Europe'' Cambridge U.P., 2002. * Haakonssen, Knud. "Republicanism." ''A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy.'' Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit. eds. Blackwell, 1995. * Kramnick, Isaac. ''Republicanism and Bourgeois Radicalism: Political Ideology in Late Eighteenth-Century England and America.'' Cornell University Press, 1990. * Mark McKenna, ''The Traditions of Australian Republicanism'' (1996) * Maynor, John W. ''Republicanism in the Modern World.'' Cambridge: Polity, 2003. * Moggach, Douglas. "Republican Rigorism and Emancipation in Bruno Bauer", ''The New Hegelians'', edited by [[Douglas Moggach]], Cambridge University Press, 2006. (Looks at German Republicanism with contrasts and criticisms of Quentin Skinner and Philip Pettit). * Robbins, Caroline. ''The Eighteenth-Century Commonwealthman: Studies in the Transmission, Development, and Circumstance of English Liberal Thought from the Restoration of Charles II until the War with the Thirteen Colonies'' (1959, 2004). [http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/Book.php?recordID=0451 table of contents online]. ===United States=== {{main|Republicanism in the United States#References}} * Appleby, Joyce ''Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination''. 1992. * Bailyn, Bernard. ''The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution''. Harvard University Press, 1967. * Banning, Lance. ''The Jeffersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology''. 1980. * Colbourn, Trevor. ''The Lamp of Experience: Whig History and the Intellectual Origins of the American Revolution''. 1965. [http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/Book.php?recordID=0009 online version] * Everdell, William R., ''The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans'', NY: The Free Press, 1983; 2nd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. * Kerber, Linda K. ''Intellectual History of Women: Essays by Linda K. Kerber''. 1997. * Kerber, Linda K. '' Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America''. 1997. * Klein, Milton, et al., eds., ''The Republican Synthesis Revisited''. Essays in Honor of George A. Billias. 1992. * Kloppenberg, James T. ''The Virtues of Liberalism''. 1998. * Norton, Mary Beth. ''Liberty's Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women, 1750–1800''. 1996. * Greene, Jack, and J. R. Pole, eds. ''Companion to the American Revolution''. 2004. (many articles look at republicanism, esp. Shalhope, Robert E. ''Republicanism'' pp. 668–73). * Rodgers, Daniel T. "Republicanism: the Career of a Concept", ''Journal of American History''. 1992. [https://www.jstor.org/pss/2078466 in JSTOR]. * Shalhope, Robert E. "Toward a Republican Synthesis: The Emergence of an Understanding of Republicanism in American Historiography", ''William and Mary Quarterly'', 29 (Jan. 1972), 49–80 [https://www.jstor.org/pss/1921327 in JSTOR], (an influential article). * Shalhope, Robert E. "Republicanism and Early American Historiography", ''William and Mary Quarterly'', 39 (Apr. 1982), 334–56 in JSTOR. * Vetterli, Richard and Bryner, Gary, ''[https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2480&context=byusq "Public Virtue and the Roots of American Government"]'', BYU Studies Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3, July 1987. * Volk, Kyle G. ''[https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minorities-Making-American-Democracy/dp/0199371911/ Moral Minorities and the Making of American Democracy]''. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. * Wood, Gordon S. ''The Creation of the American Republic 1776–1787''. 1969. * Wood, Gordon S. '' The Radicalism of the American Revolution''. 1993. ==External links== {{Library resources box}}{{Commons category}} * {{In Our Time|Republicanism|p00546mp|Republicanism}} * [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry] * Emergence of the Roman Republic: ** ''[[Parallel Lives]]'' by [[Plutarch]], particularly: *** (From the translation in 4 volumes, available at [[Project Gutenberg]]:) [https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14033 Plutarch's Lives, Volume I (of 4)] *** More particularly following ''Lives'' and ''Comparisons'' ('''D''' is [[John Dryden|Dryden]] translation; '''G''' is [[Project Gutenberg|Gutenberg]]; '''P''' is [[Perseus Project]]; '''L''' is [[LacusCurtius]]): :::{|- |''Greeks'' |&nbsp; |''Romans'' |&nbsp; |''Comparisons'' |- |[[Lycurgus of Sparta|Lycurgus]] [http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/4/0/3/14033/14033-h/14033-h.htm#LIFE_OF_LYKURGUS '''G''']&nbsp;[http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Lycurgus*.html '''L'''] |&nbsp; |[[Numa Pompilius]] [http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/numa_pom.html '''D'''] [http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/4/0/3/14033/14033-h/14033-h.htm#LIFE_OF_NUMA '''G'''] [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Numa*.html '''L'''] |&nbsp; |[http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/n_l_comp.html '''D'''] [http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/4/0/3/14033/14033-h/14033-h.htm#COMPARISON_OF_NUMA_WITH_LYKURGUS '''G''']&nbsp;[http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Lycurgus+Numa*.html '''L'''] |- |[[Solon]] [http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/solon.html '''D'''] [http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/4/0/3/14033/14033-h/14033-h.htm#LIFE_OF_SOLON '''G''']&nbsp;[http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Solon*.html '''L''']&nbsp;[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plut.+Sol.+1.1 '''P'''] |&nbsp; |[[Poplicola]] [http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/poplicol.html '''D''']&nbsp;[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/4/0/3/14033/14033-h/14033-h.htm#LIFE_OF_POPLICOLA '''G''']&nbsp;[http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Publicola*.html '''L'''] |&nbsp; |[http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/p_s_comp.html '''D'''] [http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/4/0/3/14033/14033-h/14033-h.htm#COMPARISON_OF_SOLON_AND_POPLICOLA '''G''']&nbsp;[http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Solon+Publicola*.html '''L'''] |} {{Social and political philosophy}} {{Political ideologies}} [[Category:Republicanism| ]]'