Republicanism may also refer to the non-ideological scientific approach to politics and governance. As the republican thinker and second president of the United StatesJohn Adams stated in the introduction to his famousA Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America,[7] 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 asNiccolò Machiavelli (as evident in hisDiscourses on Livy), John Adams, andJames Madison.
This form of government in theRoman 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 orearly modern Britain. The concept of a republic became a powerful force in Britain'sNorth American colonies, where it contributed to theAmerican Revolution. In Europe, it gained enormous influence through theFrench Revolution and through theFirst French Republic of 1792–1804.
InAncient Greece, several philosophers and historians analysed and described elements we now recognize asclassical 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 ofPlato,Aristotle andPolybius. These include theories ofmixed government and ofcivic virtue. For example, inThe 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.[10]
A number of Ancient Greekcity-states such asAthens andSparta have been classified as "classical republics", because they featured extensive participation by the citizens in legislation and political decision-making. Aristotle consideredCarthage 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.
BothLivy, a Roman historian, andPlutarch, who is noted for his biographies and moral essays, described how Rome had developed its legislation, notably the transition from akingdom to arepublic, 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 historianPolybius, writing in the mid-2nd century BCE, emphasized (in Book 6) the role played by theRoman 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,[11] 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 onCicero 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 ofres publica to the Greekpoliteia.
The modern term "republic", despite its derivation, is not synonymous with the Romanres publica.[12] Among the several meanings of the termres 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 systematicseparation 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, inDe re Publica, does not equate to a modern-day "republic"; it is more likeenlightened absolutism. His philosophical works were influential when Enlightenment philosophers such asVoltaire developed their political concepts.
In its classical meaning, a republic was any stable well-governed political community. BothPlato andAristotle identified three forms of government:democracy,aristocracy, andmonarchy. First Plato and Aristotle, and then Polybius and Cicero, held that the ideal republic is amixture 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 histheoretical works he defended monarchy, or at least a mixed monarchy/oligarchy, in his own political life, he generally opposed men, likeJulius Caesar,Mark Antony, andOctavian, 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 analysed as a "republic" or a "monarchy".[13] He analysed how the powers accumulated by the earlyJulio-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 inAugustus' case, because of his many services to the state, freeing it fromcivil wars and disorder.
Tacitus was one of the first to ask whether such powers were given to thehead of state because the citizens wanted to give them, or whether they were given for other reasons (for example, because one had adeified ancestor). The latter case led more easily to abuses of power. In Tacitus' opinion, the trend away from a true republic wasirreversible only whenTiberius 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.[14]
In Europe, republicanism was revived in the lateMiddle Ages when a number of states, which arose frommedieval communes, embraced a republican system of government.[15] 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 ofFlorence,Genoa, andVenice and members of theHanseatic League. One notable exception wasDithmarschen, a group of largely autonomous villages, which confederated in a peasants' republic. Building upon concepts of medievalfeudalism,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,[16] but some modern scholars, such as Brugger, consider it confuses the "classical republic" with the system of government used in the ancient world.[17] 'Early modern republicanism' has been proposed as an alternative term. It is also sometimes calledcivic humanism. Beyond simply a non-monarchy, early modern thinkers conceived of anideal republic, in whichmixed government was an important element, and the notion thatvirtue and thecommon good were central to good government. Republicanism also developed its own distinct view ofliberty.Renaissance authors who spoke highly of republics were rarely critical of monarchies. WhileNiccolò Machiavelli'sDiscourses on Livy is the period's key work on republics, he also wrote the treatiseThe 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 inSix Books of the Commonwealth (1576) identified monarchy with republic.[18]
Classical writers likeTacitus, 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, John Fisher[19] andSir Thomas Smith saw a monarchy, firmly constrained by law, as compatible with republicanism.
Anti-monarchism became more strident in theDutch Republic during and after theEighty 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 distributedpamphlets. This evolved into a systematic critique of monarchy, written by men such as the brothersJohan andPeter de la Court. They saw all monarchies as illegitimate tyrannies that were inherently corrupt. These authors were more concerned with preventing the position ofStadholder from evolving into a monarchy, than with attacking their former rulers.Dutch republicanism also influenced FrenchHuguenots during theWars of Religion. In the other states of early modern Europe republicanism was more moderate.[20]
In thePolish–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 asŁukasz Górnicki,Andrzej Wolan, andStanisław 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 theRzeczpospolita. 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.[21]
The first of the Enlightenment republics established in Europe during the 18th century occurred in the small Mediterranean island ofCorsica. 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 andKingdom of France which left it open to the ideas of the ItalianRenaissance, Spanishhumanism andFrench 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 ofGenoa. During the initial period (1729–36) these merely sought to restore the control of the Spanish Empire; when this proved impossible, an independentKingdom of Corsica (1736–40) was proclaimed, following the Enlightenment ideal of a writtenconstitutional monarchy. But the perception grew that the monarchy had colluded with the invading power, a more radical group of reformers led by thePasquale 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 introduceduniversal male suffrage, and it is thought to be the first constitution in the world to grant women the right to vote,female suffrage did exist for heads of the family.[22][23] It also extended Enlightened principles to other spheres, including administrative reform, the foundation of a nationaluniversity at Corte, and the establishment of apopular 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.[24] Similarly, Voltaire affirmed in hisPrécis 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 ofGreat Britain andNorth America,[25] where it was popularised viaAn Account of Corsica, by the Scottish essayistJames Boswell. The Corsican Republic went on to influence the American revolutionaries ten years later: theSons of Liberty, initiators of theAmerican Revolution, would declare Pascal Paoli to be a direct inspiration for their own struggle against the British; the son ofEbenezer Mackintosh was named Pascal Paoli Mackintosh in his honour, and no fewer than five American counties are named Paoli for the same reason.
Oliver Cromwell set up aChristian republic called theCommonwealth of England (1649–1660) which he ruled after the overthrow of KingCharles I.James Harrington was then a leading philosopher of republicanism.John Milton was another important Republican thinker at this time, expressing his views inpolitical tracts as well as through poetry and prose. In his epic poemParadise 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.[26] 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."[27] This form of international Miltonic republicanism has been influential on later thinkers including 19th-century radicalsKarl Marx andFriedrich Engels, according to Warren and other historians.[28][29]
The collapse of theCommonwealth of England in 1660 and therestoration of the monarchy underCharles II discredited republicanism among England's ruling circles. Nevertheless, they welcomed theliberalism, and emphasis on rights, ofJohn Locke, which played a major role in theGlorious 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 onJohn Wilkes, and especially on theAmerican Revolution and theFrench Revolution.[30]
French and Swiss Enlightenment thinkers, such asVoltaire,Baron Charles de Montesquieu and laterJean-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, weresocial contract,positive law, andmixed government. They also borrowed from, and distinguished republicanism from, the ideas ofliberalism 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 ofcivic virtue and thecommon good, liberalism was based on economics andindividualism. It is clearest in the matter of private property, which, according to some, can be maintained only under the protection of establishedpositive law.
Jules Ferry, Prime Minister of France from 1880 to 1885, followed both these schools of thought. He eventually enacted theFerry Laws, which he intended to overturn theFalloux Laws by embracing the anti-clerical thinking of thePhilosophes. These laws ended the Catholic Church's involvement in many government institutions in late 19th-century France, including schools.
In recent years a debate has developed over the role of republicanism in theAmerican Revolution and in the British radicalism of the 18th century. For many decades the consensus was thatliberalism, especially that ofJohn Locke, was paramount and that republicanism had a distinctly secondary role.[31]
The new interpretations were pioneered byJ.G.A. Pocock, who argued inThe 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.[32]Bernard Bailyn andGordon Wood pioneered the argument that the American founding fathers were more influenced by republicanism than they were by liberalism. Cornell University professorIsaac Kramnick, on the other hand, argues that Americans have always been highly individualistic and therefore Lockean.[33]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.[34] Pocock explained the intellectual sources in America:[35]
The Whig canon and the neo-Harringtonians,John Milton,James Harrington andSidney,Trenchard,Gordon andBolingbroke, together with the Greek, Roman, and Renaissance masters of the tradition as far asMontesquieu, 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 – 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 commitment of most Americans to these republican values made theAmerican Revolution inevitable. Britain was increasingly seen as corrupt and hostile to republicanism, and as a threat to the established liberties the Americans enjoyed.[36]
Leopold von Ranke in 1848 claimed that American republicanism played a crucial role in the development of European liberalism:[37]
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.
Republicanism, especially that ofRousseau, played a central role in theFrench Revolution and foreshadowed modern republicanism.[38] 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, in theory, makes anti-discrimination laws unnecessary, though some critics may argue that in republics also,colour-blind laws serve to perpetuate discrimination.
Inspired by the American and French Revolutions, theSociety 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..."[39] 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 ofEdmund Burke'sReflections 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."[40] Paine himself was aware of this commenting on sales of Part I ofRights 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".[41] Paine may 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 theRights of Man was proposed for honorary membership of the Dublin Society of the United Irishmen.[42]
The fall of theBastille was to be celebrated in Belfast on 14 July 1791 by a Volunteer meeting. At the request ofThomas 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".[40] 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."[43]
The culmination was an uprising againstBritish rule in Ireland lasting from May to September 1798 – theIrish 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 hisThe History of the Late War in Ireland written in 1799, was most emphatic in its identification of the Irish, French and American causes.[44]
During the Enlightenment, anti-monarchism extended beyond the civic humanism of the Renaissance. Classical republicanism, still supported by philosophers such asRousseau andMontesquieu, was only one of several theories seeking to limit the power of monarchies rather than directly opposing them.Liberalism andsocialism departed fromclassical republicanism and fueled the development of the moremodern republicanism.
Brazilian historiography generally identifies republican thought with the movement that was formally organized in theEmpire of Brazil during the 1870s to 1880s, but republicanism was already present in the country since theFirst Reign (1822–1831) and theregency period (1831–1840). During Brazil's early years after itsindependence, the country saw the emergence of a republican discourse among the writings of figures such asCipriano Barata,Frei Caneca and João Soares Lisboa, but republican ideology better developed as a political current after the emergence of the so-called radical liberal faction in the crisis of the final years of the First Reign.[45]
During the First Reign, three groups emerged on the country's political scene: the moderate liberals, the radical liberals and thecaramurus. The moderates defended political-institutional reforms such as decentralization, without, however, giving up the monarchical system. Their main doctrinal references were Locke, Montesquieu,Guizot andBenjamin Constant. The radicals, in turn, formed a heterogeneous group with almost no representation within the imperial bureaucracy. They were on the left of the political spectrum, along Jacobin lines, and defended broad reforms such as the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic, federalism, the extinction of theModerating Power, the end of life tenure in theSenate, the separation between Church and State, relative social equality, the extension of political and civil rights to all free segments of society, including women, the staunch opposition toslavery, displaying anationalist, xenophobic andanti-Portuguese discourse.[45]
In 1870 a group of radical liberals, convinced of the impossibility of achieving their desired reforms within the Brazilian monarchical system, met and founded the Republican Party. From its founding until 1889, the party operated in an erratic and geographically diverse manner. The republican movement was strongest in theCourt and inSão Paulo, but other smaller foci also emerged inMinas Gerais,Pará,Pernambuco andRio Grande do Sul. Only in São Paulo, however, did the movement become a true organized and disciplined party capable of electoral competition.[46]
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.[47]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.[48]
In thehistory of Italy there are several so-called "republican" governments that have followed one another over time. Examples are the ancientRoman Republic and the medievalmaritime republics. FromCicero toNiccolò Machiavelli, Italian philosophers have imagined the foundations of political science and republicanism.[52] But it wasGiuseppe Mazzini who revived the republican idea in Italy in the 19th century.[53]
AnItalian nationalist in thehistorical radical tradition and a proponent of a republicanism ofsocial-democratic inspiration, Mazzini helped define the modern European movement forpopular democracy in a republican state.[54] Mazzini's thoughts had a very considerable influence on the Italian and European republican movements, in theConstitution of Italy, aboutEuropeanism and more nuanced on many politicians of a later period, among them American presidentWoodrow Wilson, British prime ministerDavid Lloyd George,Mahatma Gandhi, Israeli prime ministerGolda Meir and Indian prime ministerJawaharlal Nehru.[49] Mazzini formulated a concept known as "thought and action" in which thought and action must be joined together and every thought must be followed by action, therefore rejectingintellectualism and the notion of divorcing theory from practice.[55]
In July 1831, in exile inMarseille, Giuseppe Mazzini founded theYoung Italy movement, which aimed to transform Italy into a unitary democratic republic, according to the principles of freedom, independence and unity, but also to oust the monarchic regimes pre-existing the unification, including theKingdom of Sardinia. The foundation of the Young Italy constitutes a key moment of the ItalianRisorgimento. The philosopherCarlo Cattaneo promoted a secular and republican Italy in the extension of Mazzini's ideas, but organized as afederal republic.[56]
The political projects of Mazzini and Cattaneo were thwarted by the action of the Piedmontese Prime MinisterCamillo Benso, Count of Cavour, andGiuseppe Garibaldi. The latter set aside his republican ideas to favor Italian unity.[57] After having obtained the conquest of the whole ofsouthern Italy during theExpedition of the Thousand, Garibaldi handed over the conquered territories to the king of SardiniaVictor Emmanuel II, which were annexed to the Kingdom of Sardinia after a plebiscite. This earned him heavy criticism from numerous republicans who accused him of treason.[58] While a laborious administrative unification began, afirst Italian parliament was elected and, on 17 March 1861, Victor Emmanuel II wasproclaimed king of Italy.[59]
In the political panorama of the time there was a republican political movement which had its martyrs, such as the soldierPietro Barsanti.[50] Barsanti was a supporter of republican ideas, and was a soldier in theRoyal Italian Army with the rank of corporal. He was sentenced to death and shot in 1870 for having favored an insurrectional attempt against theSavoy monarchy and is therefore considered the first martyr of the modernItalian Republic[50][51] and a symbol of republican ideals in Italy.[60]
The Republicans took part in the elections to the Italian Parliament, and in 1853 they formed theAction Party aroundGiuseppe Mazzini. Although in exile, Mazzini was elected in 1866, but refused to take his seat in parliament.Carlo Cattaneo was elected deputy in 1860 and 1867, but refused so as not to have to swear loyalty to theHouse of Savoy. The problem of the oath of loyalty to the monarchy, necessary to be elected, was the subject of controversy within the republican forces. In 1873Felice Cavallotti, one of the most committed Italian politicians against the monarchy, preceded his oath with a declaration in which he reaffirmed his republican beliefs.[61]
The aftermath of World War II left Italy also with an anger against the monarchy for its endorsement of theFascist regime for the previous twenty years. These frustrations contributed to a revival of the Italian republican movement.[62] Italy became a republic after the1946 Italian institutional referendum[63] held on 2 June, a day celebrated since asFesta della Repubblica. It was the first time that the wholeItalian Peninsula was under a form of republican governance since the end of the ancientRoman Republic.
Republicanism helped inspire movements for independence in former Spanish colonies ofLatin America in the early 19th century,[64] and republican ideals and political designs were influential in the new Latin American republics.[65] Diplomats and international jurists in Latin America, such asAndrés Bello, shaped a tradition of "republican internationalism" that connected domestic republican ideals and practices with the region's emerging place in international society.
Many key political figures in the region identified as republicans, includingSimón Bolívar,José María Samper,Francisco Bilbao, andJuan Egaña. Several of these figures produced essays, pamphlets, and collections of speeches that drew upon and adapted the broader tradition of republican political thought.
2018 demonstration in Madrid calling for the Third Spanish Republic
There has existed in Spain a persistent trend of republican thought, especially throughout the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, that has manifested itself in diverse political parties and movements over the entire course of thehistory of Spain. While these movements have shared the objective of establishing a republic, during these three centuries there have surged distinct schools of thought on the form republicans would want to give to the SpanishState:unitary orfederal. The roots of Spanish republicanism arose out of liberal thought in the wake of theFrench Revolution. The first manifestations of republicanism occurred during thePeninsular War, in which Spain and nearby regions fought for independence fromNapoleon, 1808–1814. During the reign ofFerdinand VII (1813–1833) there were several liberalist militarypronunciamientos, but it was not until the reign ofIsabella II (1833–1868) that the first clearly republican and anti-monarchist movements appeared.
There is a renewed interest in republicanism inSpain after two earlier attempts: theFirst Spanish Republic (1873–1874) and theSecond Spanish Republic (1931–1939). Movements such asCiudadanos Por la República [es], Citizens for the Republic inSpanish, have emerged, and parties likeUnited Left and theRepublican 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.[66] In a 2008 survey, 58% of Spanish citizens were indifferent, 16% favored a republic, 16% were monarchists, and 7% claimed they wereJuancarlistas (supporters of continued monarchy under KingJuan Carlos I, without a common position for the fate of the monarchy after his death).[67] In recent years, there has been a tie between Monarchists and Republicans.[68][69]
In 1923 after thefall of theOttoman Empire an inherited aristocracy and sultanate suppressed republican ideas until the successful republican revolution ofMustafa Kemal Atatürk in the 1920s. Republicanism remainsone of the six principles ofKemalism. Kemalism, as it was implemented byMustafa Kemal Atatürk after thedeclaration of Republic in 1923, was defined by sweeping political, social, cultural and religious reforms designed to separate the new Turkish state from itsOttoman predecessor and embrace a Western-style modernized lifestyle,[70] including the establishment ofsecularism/laicism, state support of the sciences, free education,gender equality,economic statism and many more. Most of those policies were first introduced to and implemented in Turkey during Atatürk's presidency throughhis reforms.
Many of the root ideas of Kemalism began during the lateOttoman Empire under various reforms to avoid the imminentcollapse of the Empire, beginning chiefly in the early 19th-centuryTanzimat reforms.[71] The mid-centuryYoung Ottomans attempted to create the ideology of Ottoman nationalism, orOttomanism, to quell therising ethnic nationalism in the Empire and introduce limited democracy for the first time while maintaining Islamist influences. In the early 20th century, theYoung Turks abandoned Ottoman nationalism in favor of earlyTurkish nationalism, while adopting a secular political outlook. After the demise of the Ottoman Empire, Atatürk, influenced by both the Young Ottomans and the Young Turks,[72] as well as by their successes and failures, led the declaration of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, borrowing from the earlier movements' ideas of secularism and Turkish nationalism, while implementing free education[73] and other reforms that have been enshrined by later leaders into guidelines for governing Turkey.
Dissatisfaction with British rule led to a longer period of agitation in the early 19th century and failed republican revolutions inCanada in the late 1830s andIreland in 1848. This led to theTreason Felony Act in 1848 which made it illegal to advocate for republicanism. Another "significant incarnation" of republicanism broke out in the late 19th century whenQueen Victoria went into mourning and largely disappeared from public view after the death of her husband,Prince Albert. This led to questions about whether or not the institution should continue, with politicians speaking in support of abolition. This ended when Victoria returned to public duties later in the century and regained significant public support. More recently, in the early 21st century,increasing dissatisfaction with theHouse of Windsor, especially after thedeath of Elizabeth II in 2022, has led to public support for the monarchy reaching historical lows. As time goes on monarchy has improved its positions, against expectations of many republicans.
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.[85] Neorepublicanism emerges as an alternative postsocialist critique of market society from the left.[86]
Prominent theorists in this movement arePhilip Pettit andCass Sunstein, who have each written several works defining republicanism and how it differs from liberalism.Michael Sandel, a late convert to republicanism fromcommunitarianism, advocates replacing or supplementing liberalism with republicanism, as outlined in hisDemocracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy.
Contemporary work from a neorepublican include juristK. Sabeel Rahman's bookDemocracy Against Domination, which seeks to create a neorepublican framework foreconomic regulation grounded in the thought ofLouis Brandeis andJohn Dewey andpopular control, in contrast to bothNew Deal-stylemanagerialism andneoliberalderegulation.[87][88] Philosopher Elizabeth Anderson'sPrivate Government traces the history of republican critiques of private power, arguing that the classicalfree market policies of the 18th and 19th centuries intended to help workers only lead to their domination by employers.[89][90] InFrom Slavery to the Cooperative Commonwealth, political scientist Alex Gourevitch examines a strain of late 19th century American republicanism known as labour republicanism that was theproduceristlabour unionThe Knights of Labor, and how republican concepts were used in service ofworkers rights, but also with a strong critique of the role of that union in supporting theChinese Exclusion Act.[91][92]
Portrait ofThomas PaineA revolutionary republican hand-written bill from the Stockholm riots during theRevolutions of 1848, reading: "DethroneOscar he is not fit to be a king – rather the Republic! Reform! Down with the Royal house – long liveAftonbladet! 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.[93] It strongly influenced theAmerican Revolution and theFrench Revolution in the 1770s and 1790s, respectively.[30] 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 unelectedupper chamber—perhaps with members appointed as meritorious experts—and whether it should have aconstitutional monarch.[94]
Though conceptually separate from democracy, republicanism included the key principles of rule byconsent 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. Exactlyhow the people were to rule was an issue of democracy: republicanism itself did not specify a means.[95] In the United States, the solution was the creation ofpolitical parties that reflected the votes of the people and controlled the government (seeRepublicanism in the United States). InFederalist No. 10,James Madison rejected "pure democracy" in favour of representative democracy, which he called "a republic".[96] There were similar debates in many otherdemocratizing nations.[97]
In contemporary usage, the termdemocracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it isdirect orrepresentative.[98] Today the termrepublic usually refers to representative democracy with an electedhead of state, such as apresident, who serves for a limited term; in contrast to states with a hereditarymonarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies, with an elected or appointedhead of government such as aprime minister.[99]
TheFounding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized (direct) democracy, which they equated withmob rule;James Madison argued that what distinguished ademocracy from arepublic 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.[100] 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."[101]Thomas Jefferson warned that "an elective despotism is not the government we fought for."[102] Professors Richard Ellis ofWillamette University and Michael Nelson ofRhodes College argue that much constitutional thought, from Madison to Lincoln and beyond, has focused on "the problem of majority tyranny." They conclude, "The 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."[103]
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 UKHouse of Lords), or else became elective and remained powerful.[104][105]
^Lovett, Frank (2022),"Republicanism", in Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.),The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved2024-01-21
^Dagger, Richard (2011). Klosko, George (ed.). "Republicanism".The Oxford Handbook of the History of Political Philosophy:701–711.doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199238804.003.0043.
^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): 179–196.
^Jerzy Lukowski,Disorderly Liberty: The political culture of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the eighteenth century (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010).[ISBN missing]
^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."
^Philippe-Jean Catinchi et Josyane Savigneau, "Les femmes : du droit de vote à la parité", Le Monde.fr, 31 janvier 2013ISSN1950-6244, consuled on 14 August 2017)
^"Projet de constitution pour la Corse ", published in Œuvres et correspondance inédites de J.J. Rousseau, (M.G. Streckeinsen-Moultou, ed.). Paris, 1861
^Michel Vergé-Franceschi, "Pascal Paoli, un Corse des Lumières", Cahiers de la Méditerranée, 72 | 2006, 97–112.
^Taylor, Antony (2002). "Shakespeare and Radicalism: The Uses and Abuses of Shakespeare in Nineteenth-Century Popular Politics."Historical Journal 45, no. 2. pp. 357–379.
^abPocock, J.G.A.The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (1975; new ed. 2003)
^Isaac Kramnick,Ideological Background, in Jack. P. Greene andJ. R. Pole,The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the American Revolution (1994) ch. 9; Robert E. Shallhope, "Republicanism" ibid ch 70.
^Trevor Colbourn,The Lamp of Experience: Whig History and the Intellectual Origins of the American Revolution (1965)online versionArchived 2020-04-13 at theWayback Machine
^abcRidolfi, Maurizio (2003).Almanacco della Repubblica. Storia d'Italia attraverso le tradizioni, le istituzioni e le simbologie repubblicane (in Italian). Mondadori Bruno. p. 172.ISBN978-8842494997.
^Baquiast, Paul; Dupuy, Emmanuel; Ridolfi, Maurizio (2007).L'idée républicaine en Europe (xviiie – xxie siècle): histoire et pensée universelle, Europe - La République universelle (in French). Vol. 1. L'Harmattan. p. 85.ISBN978-2296027954.
^Schumaker, Paul (2010).The Political Theory Reader (illustrated ed.). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. p. 58.ISBN9781405189972.
^Baquiast, Paul; Dupuy, Emmanuel; Ridolfi, Maurizio (2007).L'idée républicaine en Europe (xviiie – xxie siècle): histoire et pensée universelle, Europe - La République universelle (in French). Vol. 1. L'Harmattan. p. 91.ISBN978-2296027954.
^Robert E. Shalhope, "Toward a Republican Synthesis: The Emergence of an Understanding of Republicanism in American Historiography",William and Mary Quarterly, 29 (January 1972), pp. 49–80.
^Frank Lovett and Philip Pettit. "Neorepublicanism: a normative and institutional research program."Political Science 12.1 (2009): 11ff. (online).
^Gerald F. Gaus, "Backwards into the future: Neorepublicanism as a postsocialist critique of market society."Social Philosophy and Policy 20/1 (2003): 59–91.
^Rothman, Joshua (12 September 2017)."Are Bosses Dictators?".The New Yorker. Retrieved6 August 2018.
^Gourevitch, Alex (2014).From Slavery to the Cooperative Commonwealth: Labor and Republican Liberty in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge University Press.ISBN978-1139519434.
^Gordon S. Wood,The Creation of the American Republic 1776–1787 (1969)
^R. R. Palmer,The Age of the Democratic Revolution: Political History of Europe and America, 1760–1800 (1959)
^"The Federalist Papers : No. 10".Avalon Project. 29 December 1998. RetrievedApril 22, 2022.a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person … A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place
^Robert E. Shalhope, "Republicanism and Early American Historiography",William and Mary Quarterly, 39 (Apr. 1982), pp. 334–356
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
Hammersley, Rachel,Republicanism an introduction (2020) Cambridge: Polity
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.ISSN0022-2801 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,ISBN0198290837.
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)
Snyder, R. Claire.Citizen-Soldiers and Manly Warriors: Military Service and Gender in the Civic Republican Tradition (1999)ISBN978-0847694440online review.
Viroli, Maurizio.Republicanism (2002), New York, Hill and Wang.[ISBN missing]
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.
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 byDouglas 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).table of contents onlineArchived 2007-02-09 at theWayback Machine.
Appleby, JoyceLiberalism 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 (1978)online
Colbourn, Trevor.The Lamp of Experience: Whig History and the Intellectual Origins of the American Revolution. 1965.online versionArchived 2020-04-13 at theWayback Machine
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.
Gish, Dustin, and Daniel Klinghard.Thomas Jefferson and the Science of Republican Government: A Political Biography of Notes on the State of Virginia (Cambridge University Press, 2017)excerpt.
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. 668–673).
Rodgers, Daniel T. "Republicanism: the Career of a Concept",Journal of American History. 1992.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), 49–80in JSTOR, (an influential article).
Shalhope, Robert E. "Republicanism and Early American Historiography",William and Mary Quarterly, 39 (Apr. 1982), 334–356 in JSTOR.
_-_Palazzo_Nuovo_-_Musei_Capitolini_-_Rome_2016.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
