Talk:Republicanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Northern Ireland This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
Low This article is on a subject of Low-importance for Northern Ireland-related articles.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Northern Ireland tasks:

Contents

[edit] The US

The US Constitution garruntees a republican form of government; which is not clearly defined but implied; but is it not implied that democracy culminates in republicanism?

Isn't it obvious that republicanism respects no partisan, but makes clear the utility of philosophy, religion, art and science; and must prove business to follow the will of the people, supported by the keystone of liberty?

Does not the preamble of the US constitution prescribe the purpose of a republican form of government; which is republicanism?Sir Fartalot 20:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The term republic most commonly means the system of government in which the head of state is elected for a limited term, as opposed to a constitutional monarchy

but republic says:

Most of the dictatorial or totalitarian states in the world today are republics.

so are dictatorships republics or not?

Definitely not. The only two meaningful definitions of a Republic come from either Montesquieu or Madison. Montesquieu calls them Aristocratic if there are elections, and Democratic if everyone is a legislator. Madison describes, in Federalist 39, that a Republic is a government where all Officers (including Judges) are either elected, or appointed by people who are elected. JoshNarins 02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The article should reflect how the word "republic" is actually used, today and historically, and not limit itself to the definitions made by two historical thinkers. Mirambo 16:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] and their

... and their political wing Sinn Féin who support violence as a means of establishing a republic
... Sinn Féin's move away from violence has resulted in increased support and ...

So with these developments are Sinn Féin no longer considered republicans in Ireland?

[edit] Athens

Athens was a democracy. All the citizens voted on the issues all the time and the few public officials required were chosen by lot. They didn't even have the term republic. The modern republic with it's emphasis on elections would have been a oligarchy (rule by the few) to the Athenians. Athens is perhaps the only example of pure democracy applied on a national scale. Rousseau proposed a system exactly like Athens. A democracy rather than a republic.

Regardless if they had the term, since only 10% of Athenians were allowed to vote, the example of 15-16th century Poland comes close. They did not, however, have any officials (that I am aware of) elected by lottery. By Montesquieu's definition, there are two types of Republics, Aristocratic (ours) and Democratic (Athens). JoshNarins 02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is incoherent

This article is incoherent, because it tries to pretend there is a single meaning of "republicanism". Basically, the term has been used in so many diverse contexts these days, that it is better to identify the various meanings associated with it, and treat them as distinct concepts, nonetheless having some historical links. For example, this article implies that a republic is in some form opposed to a democracy -- an understanding that the Ancient Greeks or American Founding Father's may have had, but which has nothing to do with how "republicanism" is used by most Australians for example, or by most Catholics in Northern Ireland -- and then, Australians and Northern Ireland Catholics mean quite different things by these terms anyway! --137.111.13.34 07:33, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps an interesting side note is that all the Founders loved Montesquieu. It is what George Washington studied for the Second Constitutional Convention JoshNarins 02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better Summary for Canadian Republicanism

Having moved a very long chapter on Canadian Republicanism to its own page, the summary here needs to be improved. This summary is based upon the original long article, but it does not tie into the republicanism page very well. Also I cannot know whether the summary represents the most important points. Perhaps someone will like to improve it.

Canadian Republicanism now having its own page, the history of the movement can be recorded in appropriate detail. Perhaps the same person should improve the structure and detail of that page also.

[edit] What fools and hypocrites

As to the knowledge and expertise of our infamous Dr. SimonP of Republican theory. Let me quote Machiavelli's TRUE definition:

Thus the sagacious legislators, knowing the vices of each of these systems of government, (i.e. speaking of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) by themselves, have chosen one that should partake of all of them, judging that to be the most stable and solid. In fact, when there is combined under the same constitution a prince, a nobility, and the power of the people, then these three powers will watch and keep each other reciprocally in check." "Discourses on Titus Livius" end of Book I chapter II, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli, ed. by Robert M. Adams, pg 94.
"I think, then, that to found a republic which whould endure a long time it would be bewst to organize her internally like Sparta, or to locate her, like Venice, in some strong place". ibid, pg 97.WHEELER 16:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He deleted it off the Talk:Republic page. What is he trying to cover up?---his incompetence?WHEELER 21:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The quotes are still at Talk:Republic. I never deleted them, nor has anyone else. - SimonP 22:03, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Machiavelli wrote about/for the Medici TYRANTS. The hereditary aristocratic oligarchic "Republicans" of Florence were not his ideal, nor for whom he wrote. I am deeply offended that his handbook for Tyrants, "The Prince," was mentioned in the context of Republicanism. Scholars ahve, wisely, written that Machiavelli was the proponent of the divorce of politics and morals. JoshNarins 02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Two Versions" template

At the time of putting the "two versions" template the discussion is about whether or not "republicanism" should be a redirect to "republic", or whether republic and republicanism should each be articles in their own right.

The pro's and con's are discussed, for instance:

Anyway, there appears no consensus to merge the two articles. For myself I think the split is necessary to avoid unending discussions over NPOV issues. --Francis Schonken 11:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would be vehemently opposed to merging the two. This article lacks accuracy, and consistancy and is often outright wrong in some of its assertions. In the study of comparative politics which is the study of various forms of government a republic is simply a form or governance that has a central power and subsidiary regioal power. An example of a Federal government and State government of the United States. Despite the example given there is no reason to assume that a republic is a democracy. Rome was a Republic, a highly centrally power based government with subsidary powers. France is in its Fifth republic. Dave 03:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I think a major rewrite is due

  • The very first sentence of this article is - as far as I know from my degree in comparative politics - flat wrong. The entire article is based on incorrect and inaccurate premises from the point of view of political science.
  • Given this opinion I would like to see a major rewrite of this article done or in the absence of doing that some valid source citation for the information contained in the article.

Any and all comments, suggestions and critiques are not only welcome but invited. I have no desire to simply do a rewrite overnight because I disagree with the results of somebody elses hard work. Kudos to them for having spent the time to do the article in the first place! Dave 03:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I should read the other article, but this article leaves me flat.

[edit] Cicero

I also think the section on the Roman Republic needs work, especially in regards to Cicero. It is my understanding that we really only have bits and pieces of the republic, yet Cicero does write quite a lot about we could call republican philosophy. So maybe references to De Officiis, De Legibus, etc would be more appropriate. Furthermore, I recall that he spoke quite a bit against having kings/dictators as the form of government, because no matter how efficient they can be, they inevitably become tyrants. I'm wandering here, sorry, it's quite late for me. Anyway, Cicero's political writings are very important to this article because they so influenced the topic for nearly two millenia. If you read his stuff, you start seeing things that can be attributed to it everywhere. Novium 08:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional republic

Anyone want to help develop Constitutional republic? I just created the article and am amazed that it didn't exist, as it's the U.S. form of state. RJII 06:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there any other kind of Republic, though? Granite26 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Republican Synthesis and the American Revolution

"First and last it was a republican revolution, as historians such as Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood, Lance Banning and many others have demonstrated." This sentence should be revised: the nature of the American Revolution is an open historiographical debate. A number of eminent historians have argued that the Revolution was in fact more liberal than republican. The whole section on republican ideology in America needs revision.

The consensus since 1990 is pretty strongly in favor of republicanism --who are the dissenters? Rjensen 21:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The term "republicanism" as it applied applies in the United States has become ab-used over the last 30 years. The current political interpretation is one which places too much emphasis on "civic virtue" while at the same time warping that phrase to pronounce a dictatorial Christian morality.

Republicanism in the 1780's

As the Federal Convention assembled in May of 1787 it's members did agree, though, on some basic principles and use of terms. All believed in government by consent, which in eighteenth century understanding included (1) constitutional monarchy, where the monarch's powers were limited and where the government included an assembly elected by the people; (2) a republic, meaning some form of representative government without a hereditary executive; and (3) democracy, which meant either town meeting style democracy, or simply the direct voice of the people within a government. The Revolutionary struggle against the government of George III left even constitutional monarchy in ill-repute in America. (Many letters, however, including at times John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, continued to think it theoretically the form most likely to insure freedom and good government). Equally discredited was "mere democracy" which still meant, as Aristotle had taught, rule by the passionate, ignorant, demagogue-dominated "voice of the people". This was sure to produce first injustice, then anarchy, and finally tyranny. Hence, virtually all shades of opinion reviled monarchy and democracy, and, publicly at least, affirmed republicanism. (This republicanism of the 1780's was not in principle different from what in Britain and America by mid-nineteenth century was generally called representative democracy. The founders would not have been opposed to modern connotations of the word "democracy", nor would they have used the word "republic" to mark out a distinction from those connotations. In scorning "democracy", eighteenth-century theorists had in mind Aristotle's picture of a heedless, emotional, manipulated populace that would still be denigrated by most modern democratic theorists).

In 1787, republicanism then was positioned between monarchy and "mere democracy". As it benefited from experience of the years after 1776 and struggled to contain the tension between "inalienable rights", and majority rule, republicanism became both more moderate and more intricate. A broadly based lower house of a legislature continued to be basic to government by consent, but increasingly, the election of other officials came to be regarded as good republican practice. Also, mindful of colonial experience, and following the arguments of Montesquieu, the idea that the legislative, executive, and judicial powers had to be "separated", made to "check and balance" each other in order to prevent tyranny, gained wide acceptance. This often validated devices of government that would restrain or "refine" the will of the majority in order to protect rights, or "higher law".

Thus, while eighteenth-century American republicanism was committed to the sovereignty of the people, it was also a complicated approach to government. It opposed traditional monarchical tyranny, but was equally hostile to mob rule. It also sought balancing and refining devices that would at once restrain the power of rulers, encourage the better judgment of the people, and enable the union to defend itself in a dangerous world. Edmund Burke stated the problem succinctly. "To make a government requires no great prudence; settle the seat of power, teach obedience, and the work is done. To give freedom is still more easy. It is not necessary to guide; it is only necessary to let go the rein. But to form a free government, that is, to temper together the opposite elements of liberty and restraint in one conscious work, requires much thought; deep reflection; a sagacious, powerful, and combining mind." -- "Anti-federalist papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates" - Ralph Ketcham, page 6. --The Trucker 15:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two sections division

The difference between "Republicanism in the political sciences" and "Anti-monarchial republicanism" seems rather arbitrary. Why isn't Classical republicanism in the first section, instead of in the second? What kind of republicanism is not anti-monarchial? Finally, having Kant opening up the second section is kind of strange, as in no way his views can be said to be common! I think these two sections should properly be merged, as they are overlapping between themselves. Tazmaniacs 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

merger is a poor idea. Rjensen 05:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
In British English, a republican monarchy is a contradiction in terms, but in American English it isn't. But if you read the article about Republicanism in Australia, it refers exclusively to anti-monarchism. Similarly, in Britain and many other countries, a republican is defined as an anti-monarchist. -86.134.90.205

[edit] Objectivity? or USA-centrism?

I question the objectivity of this article. It reads like pure United States propaganda, or at best, U.S. junior high school civics, i.e., indoctrination. All a republic really is, is a government whose 'head' (however conceived) is not, as such, a prince(ss). This is why dictators (fascist, communist, or other) can call their governments republics. Actually, maybe it's a problem of non-global POV: Americans believe a 'proper republic' is a "representative democracy," that's why they don't accept fascist or communist states' claims at being republics. (Nor theoretical "direct democracies," traditionally.) But to most of the world, all a republic is, is as I've defined it above. The article should be thrown out, or recast in terms as I've discussed.

I disagree, I think that throughout most of history republic and representative democracy were pretty much the same thing. Certainly this was the definition through the 1700s and early 1800s when most of this was going on. I think that you are mistaking (non-elective systems) tendency to try to co-opt the... (general good things) associated with the republican system as an actual muddying of the definition's waters. In short, every definition I found said something along the lines of 'the people have a say in the government'. That being said, there's nothing that says that a communist state couldn't also be a republic. Granite26 (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Républicanisme here

The latter is a stub, and I'm not sure one can really distinguish that much French Republicanism from the tradition of Republicanism in general. In any cases, even if Republicanism in France may have some discrete features (close to the Radicalism tradition, insistance on secularism) "Republicanism" is not so long yet as to justify a spin-out. Tazmaniacs 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge. Even if it could be expanded, it would be fine as a section of this article. Scolaire 11:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I included the entire text from Republicanisme into this article. Please, make sure it works!--Getoar 04:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It works. Somebody should please nominate Républicanisme for deletion! 206.45.152.130 04:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed every keystroke of Républicanisme is now in this article. Good job, Getoar. What was then needed was not a deletion, but simply a redirect, which I have now done. That is, Républicanisme now redirects to Republicanism. Hult041956 (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberty versus dangers of democracy

The first sentence in the section "Liberty versus dangers of democracy" has a sentence that is obviously wrong, but I don't know what is intended, so I have no idea how to fix it: "Original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they of democracy." CosineKitty (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I read that as "what they (thought of as the dangers) of democracy" which is coherent with the thoughts of the framers and the form of the section. Also, I'm changing the tag to the section name Granite26 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Made this change Granite26 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this whole section meanders around quite a bit. I think that the point needs to be made that the founding fathers were scared witless at the thought of mob rule, but the second paragraph meanders of into talking about universal sufferage (as if letting women and minorities vote was the danger, as opposed to 51% of the populace voting themselves rights to the property of the 49%). I don't have the domain knowledge to fix this though. Granite26 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Added a little bit about the Tyranny of the masses Granite26 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally, the last line "In the late 1860s suffrage was extended to African Americans." should probably have a quibble in it. I think it should have an 'at least in theory' tacked onto the end of it. Any objections? Granite26 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Added this. I think it's important to note that de jeur sufferage didn't become de facto until much later Granite26 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I am tired of a singular authority

Learn from history.

The Roman Republic was founded under the leadership of 2 consuls, during times of crisis one of the consuls would become a dictator until the crisis was settled. But this system failed, so we need a better republican & democratic system.

I prefer we go back to basics with 100 senators instead of 1 leader.

President has too much characteristics of an autocracy & monarchy, this system is not at all good for society. But republicanism is Representation of the Gerenal Public, the Senatus Populus Que Romana is the foundation of the Roman Republic. So a presidency which ignores the senate & population is not a republican, actually republican presidency is devolution of modern politics.

We need a republican system which represents the general public.

Sincerely, Phalanx Pursos 14:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Give constitutional monarchy a try. --G2bambino (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You know how many states to a country there are, if one person messes it up then a whole country blunders due to 1 person.
Start learning about prudence & responsibility. Phalanx Pursos 12:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This entire article

It's worthless. The initial assertions are false, the classical antecedents section is unreferenced. Republicanism does not refer to a movement 'committed to liberty' at all. Apparently the only source is the 'Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy'. Hardly academic. I vote it be removed, or replaced with 'Republicanism refers to movements opposed to an hereditary head of state.' Which is what the term means. Molotov2 (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ok, I Agree

Through this load of non-referenced gab out !

This entire article is worthless. The reference to "an emphasis on liberty" has nothing to do with the topic "Republicanism" which is a form of goverment werein Liberty is your rights to select it over the will of Eminent Domain.13:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)