사용자:Philobiblic/작업장/공화주의

공화주의 (共和主意)는 국가 원수가 세습이 아닌 다른 수단(일반적으로 선거)을 통해 선임되는, 공화국으로서의 국가 통치 이념을 의미한다. 공화주의의 정확한 의미는 문화적·역사적 맥락에 따라 다양하게 정의된다. 따라서 공화주의의 정의는 때로 이 문서에서 설명하는 모든 정의와 정반대일 수도 있다.

급진주의

 이 부분의 본문은 급진주의입니다.

급진주의는 유럽권에서 19세기 경 등장하였다. 당시 대다수의 급진주의 정당들은 경제적 자유주의 (자본주의)를 선호하였으며, 기존의 자유주의의 전통 안에 급진주의를 포함시켜 이해하였다. 그러나 19세기의 모든 급진주의자들은 입헌공화정체와 보통선거를 주장하였던 반면, 당시 유럽의 자유주의자들은 입헌군주정체와 차등선거를 주장하였다. 이로 미뤄 볼때, 당시의 급진주의자들은 자유주의자만큼이나 공화주의자에 가까웠던 것으로 보인다. 세월이 흐르면서, 많은 급진주의자들이 자유주의 정당에 가입하거나 심지어 자유주의자들과 자신을 동일시하였음에도 이러한 급진주의와 자유주의 간의 차이는 20세기에 들어서도 완전히 사라지지 않았다. 예를 들어, 프랑스의 좌익급진당와 이탈리아의 초국적 급진당은 기초적인 자유주의보다 공화주의적인 색깔을 더욱 많이 띠고 있다.

영국의 인민 헌장 운동과 프랑스의 초기 공화주의자, 급진주의자 그리고 급진사회주의자당 조차 자유주의보다는 공화주의에 (그리고 좌익에) 더 가까웠다. (초기 '공화주의자, 급진주의자 그리고 급진사회주의자당'은 1883년의 샹보르 백작의 죽음과 1891년 교황 레오 13세에 의해 선포된 칙령인 "레룸 노바룸" 이후 공화국 정부와 연합을 맺은 오를레앙주의자들을 대표하는 정당이었다.) 급진주의는 20세기에도 공화주의와 매우 긴밀한 관계를 유지하였으며, 프랑스에서는 급진주의자들이 레옹 블룸 등이 이끈 인민 전선과 좌파 연합 (Cartel des gauches) 등에 참여하여 연립정부를 구성하여 수차례 집권하기도 하였다.

좌파와 급진주의자들 간의 관계는 세계 제2차 대전 이후 깨져, 프랑스 급진주의자들은 사회당과 연합을 구성한, 좌익급진당을 비롯한 좌파 급진주의자들과 보수주의 정당인 대중운동연합 (UMP)과 드 골주의 정당과 손을 잡은 "발루아지엥" 급진당을 구성한 우파 급진주의자들로 나뉘게 되었다. 반면 이탈리아의 급진주의자들은 초국적 급진당의 전신인 급진당(Partito radicale)의 사례에서 보듯 여전히 공화주의는 물론 사회주의와도 가까운 관계를 유지하였다.

현대의 공화주의

반 군주제 공화주의자들은 많은 국가들에서 여전히 중요한 정치적 세력으로 남아있다. 영국, 네덜란드, 스웨덴 등 여전히 군주제를 유지하는 유럽 각국에서는 공화주의가 대중적 지지를 받고 있지는 못한 상황이다. 이들 국가에서, 공화주의자들은 왕가가 스캔들이나 갈등을 조장한다는 이유로 그들의 대중성을 약화시키는데 중점을 두지만, 여전히 신분적 평등을 둘러싼 군주제와 공화정체 간의 고전적 논쟁 역시 중요한 축을 형성하고 있다. 또한 영국 연방을 구성하는 오스트레일리아나 캐나다, 뉴질랜드, 자메이카, 바베이도스 등의 공화주의자들은 영국 연방의 크기나 본국이 이들에게 미치는 영향력 등을 조절해야 한다는 운동을 펼치기도 한다. 이들 나라에서, 공화주의는 후기 식민지 시대의 영국과 이들 간의 관계를 재구성해야 한다는 주장의 사상적 배경이 되고 있다.

정치학에서의 공화주의

공화주의에 대해서는 정치학자들마다 다른 해석을 내놓고 있다. 일반적으로 정치학자들에게 공화국이란 '다수와 법의 지배'인 반면, 군주제는 '일인(一人)에 의한 임의적 지배'를 의미한다. 이 정의에 의하면, 폭정이 난무하는 국가는 공화국이 아니나 (칸트 등 일부 정치학자들에 의하면) 입헌군주국은 될 수 있다. 칸트는 또한 순수한 민주주의는 '다수의 제한없는 지배'이지 공화정체가 아니라고 주장하였다. 한편, 일부 정치학자들에게 공화주의는 군주제와 비교되는 대상이 아니라, 단순히 군주제의 부족함을 의미하기도 한다.

고대 학자들의 견해

 이 부분의 본문은 고전적 공화주의입니다.

고대 그리스

고대 그리스의 철학자들과 역사학자들 중 일부는 고전적 공화주의에 해당하는 국가체제를 분석하고 설명하기 위해 노력했다. 물론 이들 시대에 행해진 공화주의에 대한 연구들은 "공화국"이란 용어를 현대적으로 이해하는데 정확한 해답을 주고 있지는 못하다. 그러나 공화주의에 대한 현대적 정의 중 상당수의 필수적 개념들은 플라톤, 아리스토텔레스, 폴뤼비오스 등 다수 고대 그리스 학자들이 진행한 연구들에도 등장한다. 그 사례로 혼합 정체와 시민적 미덕을 들 수 있다.

그러나 '이상 국가'에 대한 플라톤의 대화를 엮은 책, 『공화국』 (The Republic) 의 이름은 현대 정치학의 눈으로 보았을때 옳지 않은 책 제목이란 사실을 알 필요가 있다. 이는 일부 학자들이 그리스어 원제인 "폴리테이아"를 "공화국"으로 번역하였기 때문으로 최근에는 이 번역이 점차 지양되는 추세다.

아테네와 스파르타와 같은 고대 그리스 도시국가 중 일부는 고전적 공화국으로 분류된다.

고대 인도

고대 인도에서 민주정체가 있었다고 주장하는 사람들은 기원전 6세기부터 4세기까지 존속한 "공화적" 정치결사체인 '상가'와 '가나'를 예로 들고 있다. 그러나 이를 뒷받침하는 증거들은 유실되거나 망실되어 현재 없는 상태다. 다만 디오도로스의 저작 중에서 인도에 독립적이고 민주적인 소국들이 존재했다는 언급이 있을 뿐이다.

고대 로마

티투스 리비우스와 플루타르코스 모두 로마가 의회제도의 발전을 통해 어떻게 "왕정"에서 "공화정"으로 전환에 성공하였는지를 저술한 바 있다. 물론 이 저술 중 상당수가 공화정 전환 이후 거의 반 백년 이상 흘러서 기록된 것이기 때문에, 그 신빙성에 의문을 제기하는 사람들도 있지만 적어도 고대 그리스의 공화정이 로마 공화정을 어떻게 구성하는지를 잘 반영한 저작들이라 할 수 있다.

로마 제국의 등장을 가장 먼저 서술한 역사가 중 한 사람인 폴뤼비오스는 키케로와 그의 저술에 심대한 영향을 미친 것으로 알려져 있다. 키케로의 정치철학 저술 중 하나인 《국가론 (De re publica)》 역시 폴리뷔오스의 영향을 받아 그리스의 "폴리테이아" 개념을 로마의 "레스 푸블리카" 개념과 연결하여 설명하고 있다. 그러나 현대적 관점의 "공화국"과 "레스 푸블리카"는 부분적으로 서로 비슷할 뿐, 완전히 동일하지는 않다.

"레스 푸블리카"에 대한 많은 정의가 있으나, 그 중 가장 많은 사람들에게 인용되는 정의는 당시의 로마와 그 정치체제를 일컫는 말인 "공화국"이다. 비록 공화정의 요건을 충족하는 요소들이 점진적으로 등장하였으나, 로마 공화정은 현대 정치학에서 진정한 공화정의 표본으로 이해되고 있다. 특히 계몽주의 철학자들은 로마 공화정에서 상당히 체계화된 권력 분립의 요소가 보였다는 점을 들어 로마 공화정을 이상적인 정치체제라 말하기도 했다.

로마인들은 제정 초기에도 여전히 자신들의 정치체제를 "레스 푸블리카"라 불렀다. 첫 황제의 임기가 다 할 때까지 기존의 공화정적 정치체제에 극심한 변화가 없이 표면적으로 유지되었기 때문이다. 그러나 공화정 당시에 독립적인 위상을 갖던 다수 부서들이 합쳐져, 제정 이후에는 단 한 사람의 지배 하에 놓이게 되었다. 이러한 형태는 "영구"적인 상태여야 했으며, 황제 개인의 통치권 아래로 점차 흡수되어갔다. 따라서 제정 초기를 다루는 저술들은 제정을 가리켜 "공화정"이라 일컫지 않았다.

As for Cicero, his description of the ideal state in De re publica is more difficult to qualify as a "republic" in modern terms. It is rather something like enlightened absolutism--not to say benevolent dictatorship--and indeed Cicero's philosophical works, as available at that time, were very influential when Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire developed these concepts. Cicero expressed however reservations concerning the republican form of government: in his theoretical works he defended monarchy (or a monarchy/oligarchy mixed government at best); in his own political life he generally opposed men trying to realise such ideals, like Julius Caesar, Mark Antony and Octavian. Eventually, that opposition led to his death. So, depending on how one reads history, Cicero could be seen as a victim of his own deep-rooted republican ideals, too. 키케로의 "공화정" 상태에 있는 이상국가에 대한 설명은 현대적 의미에서의

Tacitus, a contemporary of Plutarch, was not concerned with whether on an abstract level a form of government could be analysed as a "republic" or a "monarchy" (see for example Ann. IV, 32-33). He analyzes how the powers accumulated by the early Julio-Claudian dynasty were all given to the representants of this dynasty by a State that was and remained in an ever more "abstract" way a republic; nor was the Roman Republic "forced" to give away these powers to single persons in a consecutive dynasty: it did so out of free will, and reasonably in Augustus' case, because of his many services to the state, freeing it from civil wars and the like.

But at least Tacitus is one of the first to follow this line of thought: asking in what measure such powers were given to the head of state because the citizens wanted to give them, and in which measure they were given because of other principles (for example, because one had a deified ancestor) — such other principles leading more easily to abuse by the one in power. In this sense, that is in Tacitus' analysis, the trend away from the Republic was irreversible only when Tiberius established power shortly after Augustus' death (AD 14, 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 to keep Tiberius from exercising certain powers, and the age of "sockpuppetry in the external form of a republic", as Tacitus more or less describes this Emperor's reign, began (Ann. I-VI).

In classical meaning, republic was any established political community with government above it. Both Plato and Aristotle saw three basic types of government, democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. However an ideal type was considered mixed government. First Plato and Aristotle, and especially Polybius and Cicero developed the notion that the ideal republic is a mixture of these three forms of government and the writers of the Renaissance embraced this notion.

Renaissance republicanism

In Europe, republicanism was revived in the late Middle Ages when a number of small states embraced a republican system of government. These were generally small, but wealthy, trading states in which the merchant class had risen to prominence. Haakonssen notes that by the Renaissance Europe was divided with those states controlled by a landed elite being monarchies and those controlled by a commercial elite being republics. These included Italian city states like Florence and Venice and the members of the Hanseatic League.

Building upon political arrangements of medieval feudalism, the Renaissance scholars built upon their conception of the ancient world to advance their view of the ideal government. The usage of the term res publica in classical texts should not be confused with current notions of republicanism. Despite its name Plato's The Republic (Πολιτεία) also has little to no connection to the Latin res publica from which derives the more recent historical phenomenon of republicanism.

The republicanism developed in the Renaissance is known as classical republicanism because of its reliance on classical models. This terminology was developed by Zera Fink in the 1960s but some modern scholars such as Brugger consider the term confusing as it might lead some to believe that "classical republic" refers to the system of government used in the ancient world. "Early modern republicanism" has been advanced as an alternative term.

Also sometimes called civic humanism, this ideology grew out of the Renaissance writers who developed the idea of the republic. More than being simply a non-monarchy the early modern thinkers developed a vision of the ideal republic. It is these notions that form the basis of the ideology of republicanism. One important notion was that of a mixed government. Also central the notion of virtue and the pursuit of the common good being central to good government. Republicanism also developed its own distinct view of liberty, though what exactly that view is much disputed.

Those Renaissance authors that 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 Prince on how to best run a monarchy. One cause of this was that the early modern writers did not see the republican model as one that could be applied universally, most felt that it could be successful only in very small and highly urbanized city-states. Jean Bodin in Six Books of the Commonwealth identified monarchy with republic.

In antiquity writers like Tacitus, and in the Renaissance writers like Machiavelli tried to avoid formulating an outspoken preference for one government system or another. Enlightenment philosophers, on the other hand, always had an outspoken opinion.

However, Thomas More, still before the Age of Enlightenment, must have been a bit too outspoken to the reigning king's taste, even when coding his political preferences in a Utopian tale.

In England a republicanism evolved that was not wholly opposed to monarchy, but rather thinkers such as Thomas More and Sir Thomas Smith saw a monarchy firmly constrained by law as compatible with republicanism.

Dutch Republic

Anti-monarchism became far more strident in the Dutch Republic during and after the Eighty Years' War, which began in 1568. This anti-monarchism was less political philosophy and more propagandizing with most of the anti-monarchist works appearing in the form of widely distributed pamphlets. Over time this evolved into a systematic critique of monarchies written by men such as Johan Uytenhage de Mist, Radboud Herman Scheel, Lieven de Beaufort and the brothers Johan and Peter de la Court. These writers saw all monarchies as illegitimate tyrannies that were inherently corrupt. Less an attack on their former overlords these works were more concerned with preventing the position of Stadholder from evolving into a monarchy. This Dutch republicanism also had an important influence on French Huguenots during the Wars of Religion. In the other states of early modern Europe republicanism was more moderate.

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth republicanism became an important ideology. After establishment of the Commonwealth of Two Nations republicans were those who supported the status quo of having a very weak monarch and opposed those who felt a stronger monarchy was needed. These 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. Unlike in the other countries, Polish-Lithuanian republicanism was not the ideology of the commercial class, but rather of the landed aristocracy, who would be the ones to lose power if the monarchy was expanded - what led to oligarchisation by great magnates.

Enlightenment republicanism

 이 부분의 본문은 Classical republicanism입니다.

From the Enlightenment on it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between the descriptions and definitions of the "republic" concept on the one side, and the ideologies based on such descriptions on the other.

England

Oliver Cromwell set up a republic called the Commonwealth of England (1649-1660) and ruled as a near dictator after the overthrow of King Charles I. A leading philosopher of republicanism was James Harrington. The collapse of the Commonwealth of England in 1660 and the restoration of the monarchy under Charles II discredited republicanism among England's ruling circles. However they welcomed the liberalism and emphasis on rights of John Locke, which played a major role in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Nevertheless republicanism flourished in the "country" party of the early 18th century. That party denounced the corruption of the "court" party, producing a political theory that heavily influenced the American colonists. In general the ruling classes of the 18th century vehemently opposed republicanism, as typified by the attacks on John Wilkes, and especially by the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

French and Swiss thought

French and Swiss Enlightenment thinkers such as Montesquieu and later Rousseau expanded upon and altered the ideas of what an ideal republic would be: some of their new ideas were scarcely retraceable to antiquity or the Renaissance thinkers. Among other things they contributed and/or heavily elaborated notions like social contract, positive law, and mixed government. They also borrowed from and distinguished it from the ideas of liberalism that were developing at the same time. Since both liberalism and republicanism were united in their opposition to the absolute monarchies they were frequently conflated during this period. Modern scholars see them as two distinct streams that both contributed to the democratic ideals of the modern world. An important distinction is that while republicanism continued to stress the importance of civic virtue and the common good, liberalism was based on economics and individualism. It might be argued that while liberalism developed a view of liberty as pre-social and sees all institutions as limiting liberty, republicanism sees some institutions as necessary to create liberty. It is most vivid in the issue of private property which may be maintained only under protection of established positive law. On the other hand, liberalism is strongly committed to some institutions e.g. the Rule of Law. Jules Ferry, the prime minister of France from 1880 to 1885, also followed these schools of thought and eventually enacted the Ferry Laws which intended to overturn the Falloux Laws, by embracing the anti-clerical thinking of the philosophs. These laws ended the Catholic Church's involvement with many government institutions in late 19th-century France, including education.

Republican ideology in the United States

 이 부분의 본문은 Republicanism in the United States입니다.

In recent years a debate has developed over its role in the American Revolution and in the British radicalism of the eighteenth century. For many decades the consensus was that liberalism, especially that of John Locke, was paramount and that republicanism had a distinctly secondary role.

The new interpretations were pioneered by J.G.A. Pocock who argued in The Machiavellian Moment (1975) that, at least in the early eighteenth-century, republican ideas were just as important as liberal ones. Pocock's view is now widely accepted.. Bernard Bailyn and Gordon Wood pioneered the argument that the American Founding Fathers were more influenced by republicanism than they were by liberalism. Cornell University Professor Isaac Kramnick, on the other hand, argues that Americans have always been highly individualistic and therefore Lockean.

In the decades before the American Revolution (1776), the intellectual and political leaders of the colonies studied history intently, looking for guides or models for good (and bad) government. They especially followed the development of republican ideas in England. Pocock explained the intellectual sources in America:

"The Whig canon and the neo-Harringtonians, John Milton, James Harrington and Sidney, Trenchard, Gordon and Bolingbroke, together with the Greek, Roman, and Renaissance masters of the tradition as far as Montesquieu, formed the authoritative literature of this culture; and its values and concepts were those with which we have grown familiar: a civic and patriot ideal in which the personality was founded in property, perfected in citizenship but perpetually threatened by corruption; government figuring paradoxically as the 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 inevitable the American Revolution, for Britain was increasingly seen as corrupt and hostile to republicanism, and a threat to the established liberties the Americans enjoyed.

Leopold von Ranke 1848 claims that American republicanism played a crucial role in the development of European liberalism,:

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.

Républicanisme

루소를 포함한 많은 학자들은 프랑스 대혁명은 프랑스가 근대 공화주의로 전환하는 반환점이었다는 사실에 오랫동안 동의해왔다. 1790년대에 프랑스 왕정을 전복시킨 이 혁명으로 인해 프랑스는 공화정을 이룩할 수 있었으나, 통령으로 집권한 나폴레옹에 의해 다시 귀족정체의 제국으로 환원되었다. 1830년대에 벨기에 역시 계몽주의 사상의 진보적 정치철학을 수용해 많은 개혁을 이룬 바 있다.

Républicanisme is a French version of modern Republicanism. It is a social contract concept, deduced from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's idea of a general will. Ideally, each citizen is engaged in a direct relationship with the state, obviating the need for group identity politics based on local, religious, or racial identification. Républicanisme는 근대 공화주의의 프랑스판에 해당한다. 사회계약론

The ideal of républicanisme, in theory, renders anti-discrimination laws needless, but some critics argue that colour-blind laws serve to perpetuate ongoing discrimination.

Modern republicanism

In the Enlightenment anti-monarchism stopped being coextensive with the civic humanism of the Renaissance. Classical republicanism, still supported by philosophers such as Rousseau and Montesquieu, was just one of a number of theories not opposed directly to monarchy, however putting some limitations to it. The new forms of anti-monarchism such as liberalism and later socialism quickly overtook classical republicanism as the leading republican ideologies. Republicanism also became far more widespread and monarchies began to be challenged throughout Europe.

Turkey

An important influence of republicanism was expressed when Turkey formed a new democratic state in 1923 after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. In the Ottoman Empire an inherited aristocracy and sultinate suppressed republican ideas until the successful republican revolution of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in the 1920s. Atatürk preched six basic principles. His Six Arrows were Republicanism, Populism, Secularism, Reformism, Nationalism, and Statism).

In the 21st century Turkey has sought admission to the European Union on the grounds that it shares common political values with the nations of Europe. This concept shares some of the same classical roots as European republicanism and in modern times this form of government is called "republican" in English, but in pre-modern times it is not generally called republicanism.

United States

 이 부분의 본문은 Republicanism in the United States입니다.

Republicanism became the dominant political value of Americans during and after the American Revolution. The "Founding Fathers" were strong advocates of republican values, especially Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.

British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations

In some countries forming parts of the British Empire, and later the Commonwealth of Nations, republicanism has had very different significance in various countries at various times, depending on the context.

In South Africa, republicanism in the 1960s was identified with the staunch supporters of apartheid, who resented what they considered British interference in the way they treated the country's black majority population, despite the fact that the country was by that point an independent state with its own legally distinct monarchy.

In Australia, the debate between republicans and monarchists is still a controversial issue of political life.

Neo-republicanism

This new school of historical revisionism has accompanied a general revival of republican thinking. In recent years a great number of thinkers have argued that republican ideas should be adopted. This new thinking is sometimes referred to as neo-republicanism. Engeman referred to republicanism as "an intellectual buzzword" that has been applied to a wide range of theories and postulates that have little in common in order to give them a certain cachet.

The most important theorists in this movement are Philip Pettit and Cass Sunstein who have each written a number of works defining republicanism and how it differs from liberalism. While a late convert to republicanism from communitarianism, Michael Sandel is perhaps the most prominent advocate in the United States for replacing or supplementing liberalism with republicanism as outlined in his Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. As of yet these theorists have had little impact on government. John W. Maynor, argues that Bill Clinton was interested in these notions and that he integrated some of them into his 1995 "new social compact" State of the Union Address.

This revival also has its critics. David Wootton, for instance, argues that throughout history the meanings of the term republicanism have been so diverse, and at times contradictory, that the term is all but meaningless and any attempt to build a cogent ideology based around it will fail.

Democracy

Thomas Paine

Republicanism is a system that replaces or accompanies inherited rule. The keys are a positive emphasis on liberty, and a negative rejection of corruption. In the late 20th century there has been so much convergence between democracy and republicanism that confusion results. As a distinct political theory, republicanism originated in classical history and became important in early modern Europe, as typfied by Machiavelli. It became especially important as a cause of the American Revolution and the French Revolution in the 1770s and 1790s, respectively. Republicans in these particular instances tended to reject inherited elites and aristocracies, but the question was open amongst them whether the republic, in order to restrain unchecked majority rule, should have an unelected upper chamber, the members perhaps appointed meritorious experts, or should have a constitutional monarch.

Although conceptually separate from democracy, republicanism included the key principles of rule by the consent of the governed and sovereignty of the people. In effect republicanism meant that the kings and aristocracies were not the real rulers, but rather the people as a whole were. Exactly how the people were to rule was an issue of democracy – republicanism itself did not specify how. In the United States, the solution was the creation of political parties that were popularly based on the votes of the people, and which 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. However, 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. There were similar debates in many other democratizing nations.

Democracy and republic

In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving 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.

The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, 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 combats faction by its very structure. What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted, was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." Also, as Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him Sir, what have you given us?. He replied A republic ma'am, if you can keep it

Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers

Initially, after the American and French revolutions, the question was open whether a democracy, in order to restrain unchecked majority rule, should have an upper chamber – the members perhaps appointed meritorious experts or having lifetime tenures – or should have a constitutional monarch with limited but real powers. 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, often gradually, merely symbolic roles. Often the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system, whether or not they were replaced with democratic institutions (such as in the US, France, China, Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt). In Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Papua New Guinea, and some other countries, the monarch 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 power (as in Britain's House of Lords), or else became elective and remained powerful (as in the United States Senate).

See also

• Republican Party
• Republican democracy
• Democratic republic
• Kemalist ideology
• Radicalism
• Tacitean studies - differing interpretations whether Tacitus defended republicanism ("red Tacitists") or the contrary ("black Tacitists").

Specific countries

• Republicanism in Australia
• Republicanism in Canada
• Républicanisme (Republicanism in France)
• Irish republicanism
• Republicanism in New Zealand
• Republicanism in the United Kingdom
• Republicanism in the United States

References

European versions

• Bock, Gisela; Skinner, Quentin; and Viroli, Maurizio, ed. Machiavelli and Republicanism. Cambridge U. Press, 1990. 316 pp.
• Peter Becker, Jürgen Heideking and James A. Henretta, eds. Republicanism and Liberalism in America and the German States, 1750-1850. Cambridge University Press. 2002.
• 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 453–65.online version
• Trevor Colbourn, The Lamp of Experience: Whig History and the Intellectual Origins of the American Revolution (1965) online version
• 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) online version
• Maynor, John W. Republicanism in the Modern World. Cambridge: Polity, 2003.
• Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government Oxford U.P., 1997, ISBN 0-19-829083-7
• Pocock, J.G.A. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (1975; new ed. 2003)
• 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. Pocok 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
• 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 online

American versions

• Joyce Appleby, Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination (1992)
• Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Harvard University Press, 1967.
• Lance Banning. The Jeffersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology (1980)
• Peter Becker, Jürgen Heideking and James A. Henretta, eds. Republicanism and Liberalism in America and the German States, 1750-1850. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
• Linda K Kerber. Intellectual History of Women: Essays by Linda K. Kerber (1997)
• Linda K Kerber. Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America (1997)
• Milton Klein, et al., eds., The Republican Synthesis Revisited Essays in Honor of George A. Billias (1992).
• James T Kloopenberg. The Virtues of Liberalism (1998)
• Mary Beth Norton. Liberty's Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women, 1750-1800 (1996)
• Jack Greene and J. R. Pole, eds. Companion to the American Revolution (2004); many articles look at republicanism, esp. Shalhope, Robert E. Republicanism" pp 668–673
• Robert E. Shalhope, "Toward a Republican Synthesis: The Emergence of an Understanding of Republicanism in American Historiography," William and Mary Quarterly, 29 (Jan. 1972), 49-80 in JSTOR
• Robert E. Shalhope, "Republicanism and Early American Historiography", William and Mary Quarterly, 39 (Apr. 1982), 334-356 in JSTOR
• Wood, Gordon S. The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787 (1969)
• Wood, Gordon S. The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1993)

External links

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry
• Res Publica: an international anti-monarchy Web directory
• Emergence of the Roman Republic:
  • Parallel Lives by Plutarch, particularly:
    • (From the translation in 4 volumes, available at Project Gutenberg:) Plutarch's Lives, Volume I (of 4)
    • More particularly following Lives and Comparisons (D is Dryden translation; G is Gutenberg; P is Perseus Project; L is LacusCurtius):

Greeks		Romans		Comparisons
Lycurgus G L		Numa Pompilius D G L		D G L
Solon D G L P		Poplicola D G L		D G L