The Republic were most successful and achieved the greatest standardisation with the production of the 20 and 10 cash coins from 1920 onwards, marked with their value and THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA. The design bore the crossed flags of the Republic and the striped flag of the army. These were also minted in the provinces under the control of the various warlords.
伍廷芳語言嚴謹。據資料記載，辛亥年，伍廷芳為中華民國駐滬全權代錶。當時各領事來往公函，皆稱中華民國為“Chinese Republic”。伍廷芳說：“此意甚狹，謂‘中國之共和’，即共和為中國局部也。宜用共和之中國Republic of China，其義甚廣，謂共和屬於全中國也。”於是，以公函照會各領事，以此英文定名，此後也一直沿用這一英文定名。
"中華民國"名詞之確立，乃是經過長時期的演進。早在一九0三年孫中山在東京青山成立軍事學校時，學生入學誓詞有"恢復中華、創立民國"詞句，一九0五年的同盟會會員入會誓詞因之。這是"中華"和"民國"的出現，連在一起，便是"中華民國"了。惟的多年來流行的"中華民國"英文名詞（Republic of China, ROC）則先于中文名詞的出現。一九0四年秋孫中山在紐約發表的<中國問題的真解決>(The True Solution of the Chinese Qudstion)英文本中，即提到"把這個不合時宜的韃靼帝國，要改造?中華民國"，其英文原文為：The transformation of this out-of date Tartar Monarchy into a Republic of China 。早期的譯本，譯為"改良滿州往日專制政體，變為支那共和之政體"則較失真。在同盟會正式成立的一周之前，即一九0五年八月十三日孫中山對東京留學生演講詞中，尚用"大共和國"名詞也。
無論其在國共關係上扮演了何種角色，於近代中國而言，王寵惠算得上一位趨近“偉人”的人物。“書念得極好”的王寵惠，曾在留學期間，以27歲的年齡英譯《德國民法》一書。這本由“外國人”翻譯的著作，後成為英美各大學法律學院的教材。據傳，尼克松以美國總統的身份訪問中國時，特地向王寵惠表示了他的敬意，因其上大學時所用的正是王寵惠的譯本，而那時王寵惠已過世多年（王寵惠1958年3月逝世於台灣）。他還在20多歲時，便幫孫中山起草《中國問題的真解決》的英文宣言（這也是孫中山首次面對世界的英文文告），並首創“中華民國”的英文國號（Republic of China）。以此來看，王寵惠30歲擔任南京臨時政府外交總長，也可謂“名副其才”。年輕的外交總長王寵惠上任伊始，便開始頻頻對外發表宣言，以期各國承認新生的中華民國。他同時還注重維護海外華人的權益，並對華僑被打死打傷事件向外國政府提出嚴正交涉，讓華僑第一次感受到了祖國的力量。王寵惠還在民國二年寫作《憲法芻議》，在少有憲法觀念的中國，他的作為對中國民主憲政有了實實在在的啟發，影響可謂深遠。他赴華盛頓出席過太平洋會議，提出取消與日本訂立的“二十一條”，迫使日本宣布放棄在東三省的特權，這也是弱國外交的初步勝利。抗戰前夕，王寵惠重掌外交，在日本全面侵華時運用系列外交手腕，為中國的獨立抗戰轉為聯合作戰做了有效的鋪墊。他還隨蔣介石參加開羅會議，在擬定《開羅宣言》時為維護中國及鄰國利益積極爭取，並取得相當可觀的成績。在外交、在司法，在中國近代以來法典的製定等方面，王寵惠至少是一顆無可爭辯的耀眼明星。
2. 臨時政府成立於南京前後, 支持聯邦制的人 (多為江浙人士, 如章太炎等) 希望把國體導向聯邦制, 故約法採用聯邦精神, 連譯名也想用 United Provinces of China, 反正清末民初時的 "民國" 只是指元首非世襲而已, 至於要用 Republic 還是 United Provinces 來對譯都是一樣的, 當時就是這樣把 United Provinces of Netherlands 翻成荷蘭民國的. 陳其美的上海都督府公債票就是明確採用 UPC 的 (參見下圖)
雖然筆者尚不能百分之百肯定國父「民國」之「民」到底是指「民主」或「人民」之意，但如果考量到顧全兩岸雙方顏面之和平大局，將來統一後之國名，中文雖仍應為「中華民國」，但英文則絕對應為 PRC（People's Republic of China）。因為多數外國人看不懂中文，且英文在全世界應用較廣，這就顧及到人多地大中共之國際面子；而「民國」早即有「人民共和國」簡稱之說法，且更有脫離外國祖師爺蘇聯共產國際掛羊頭賣狗肉「人民共和國」國號之表徵，以顧及中華民族數千年來主權獨立之家國民族尊嚴。
Hunan and Jiangxi (Kiangsi) both issued 10 cash coins dated 1912 with a design of a nine-pointed star, with the name of the province and the value in English.
中華民國與中華人民共和國在國際上都簡稱China的混亂狀態，根本與中華民國憲法裡面所規定的國號沒有關係，造成混淆的其實是國號的英文翻譯。中華人民共和國英文譯成People's Republic of China，中華民國現在譯成Republic of China，兩者十分相似，自然會讓人誤以為是同一個國家。國際上大家都知道China是一個共產國家，首都在北京，要跟人解釋Republic of China不是China，怎麼說都讓人覺得怪怪的。
中華電信：Chunghwa Telecom 中華郵政：Chunghwa Post 中華映像管公司：Chunghwa Picture Tubes 中華經濟研究院：Chung Hua Institution for Economic Research 中華大學：Chung Hua University 中華民國：？Republic
中華民國現在的英譯Republic of China，其實並不準確符合孫文命名的本意。以台灣目前的國際處境，我們應該思考幾個問題。一、是否承認中華人民共和國。二、是否認知到中華人民共和國在國際間被承認為中國的地位。三、是否要與中華人民共和國爭奪中國正統。四、是否堅持中華民國是主權獨立的國家，與中華人民共和國互不隸屬。問題一、二我認為答案是「是」，沒有什麼好不承認的，這只是回到客觀上的事實。三、我認為中華民國不應該再繼續爭正統，既然世界上多數國家認為中國就是中華人民共和國，中華民國要逆向操作只會吃力不討好。因此「訪華」就不必再說了，和對岸爭華，哪裡符合「外交休兵」理念呢？中華民國可簡稱為民國，「訪民國」即可。四、當然要堅持，但往往不是件容易事。
中華民國憲法通篇都是中華民國，若更改國號，必定要修憲，但馬總統已說過不修憲了。我們的憲法雖然寫明了國號，但是並沒有規定國號的英譯是什麼。Republic of China這個英譯，很可能只是約定成俗而已。若修改英譯，不涉及憲法層次，只要由行政院發佈法規命令即可。中華民國英譯更改為Chinese Minguo的優點如下：一、沒有相同的單字，較不易與People's Republic of China混淆。二、民國既是孫文的獨創，而非西方原本就有，音譯未嘗不可。民國的拼音Minguo，漢語拼音與通用拼音拼法皆相同，不會有拼音爭議。三、Minguo本身就是國家名稱，就算中華人民共和國耍小手段，翻譯成「中國民國」，亦不像城市名一樣會被矮化。
中華民國是當前台灣人民最有共識的國號，但是它目前的英譯Republic of China在國際間卻舉步維艱。馬英九總統與國民黨吳伯雄主席曾經提到過，他們兩人都是孫中山信徒，筆者自高中時亦常以三民主義信徒自居。孫文認為二十世紀之國民，不當以舊世紀成法為滿足，而自創「民國」一詞。僕竊仿效中山先生，身為二十一世紀之人，不當以二十世紀舊譯為滿足，故自創"Minguo"一譯。適宜否？留待公議。望馬總統能體念該黨總理創造「民國」一詞之苦心，將民國理念發揚光大。
Posted by fauzty at 樂多Roodo! │11:46 │回應(3) │引用(0) │政治社會
工具：加入樂多書籤│編輯本文
Ads by Roodo!
引用URL
http://cgi.blog.roodo.com/trackback/6155693
回應文章
很不錯的想法，儘管這樣寫出來很難看
Posted by 11 at August 5,2008 13:50
用政治體制的共和國與民國之分來藉以區分台灣與中國
我覺得這樣的想法很好~比中華台北更不容易被矮化!
這點我非常認同~
但是這樣的拼音方式好像有一點太以防堵中國矮化為出發點!
畢竟"民國"一詞都還需要經過你剛剛詳細的說明後才能清楚的表示其中意義的差別!本國人都未必了解~更不用說外國人了!
雖然可以從你的分析了解"Republic"與"民國"中間接與直接的差別~但是英譯有很大部分還是要給外國人看的!
它們能了解其中的意義~並認知道我們與中國的不同嗎?
而且"民國"一詞在國際上也並非首見
韓國的正式韓文國名即為大韓民國(當然意義並不相同)
但是英譯仍是Republic of Korea
因此要將中華民國的"民國"拉高至英譯的層次
我想國內變更的難度雖不高~
但國際上是否能認同的難度我認為是比較高的!
但是我非常認同你說明過程!
雖然中華民國是目前島內的最大公約數
但是那是很矛盾的~照你所說中華應該要讓給中國~那我們的中華民國的中華就不會等於"台灣"雖然使用了民國與中華人民共和國做區隔但只要有中華在仍會造成混淆!
就算拼音有所改變~我想問題還是會很複雜!
胡言亂語打了一大堆~不知道到底是不是正確理解你的意思!
我的感覺是在雙方對於彼此政治地位沒有明確承認前
就算使用民國的拼音可能也無法解決目前的問題
而且我們自己認為變更英譯不涉及國號變更!
可是國際上其它國家是否也這樣認為就不一定了
美國和中國一定會馬上跳出來反對!
反而無法完整的將你設想使用"民國"的區別表現出來!
Posted by 艾摩 at November 2,2008 12:42
中華民國與中華人民共和國在國際上都簡稱中國的混亂狀態，根本與中華民國憲法裡面所規定的國號沒有關係，造成混淆的其實是國號的英文翻譯。中華人民共和國英文譯成People’s Republic of China，中華民國現在譯成Republic of China，兩者十分相似，自然會讓人誤以為是同一個國家。
1.United States of American，翻譯叫做「美利堅合眾國」，Republic of South Africa叫做「南非共和國」，Republic of Maldives是「馬爾地夫共和國」，Union of Myanmar叫做「緬甸聯邦」，Republic of The Philippines是「菲律賓共和國」，Kingdom of Thailand是「泰王國」，Lao People's Democratic Republic翻譯是「寮人民民主共和國」，Republic of Singapore的翻譯是「新加坡共和國」，Commonwealth of Australia稱做「澳大利亞聯邦」，Socialist Republic of Vietnam則是「越南社會主義共和國」。寫了這麼多，要推論什麼？The People’s Republic of CHINA叫做「中華人民共和國」，可是Republic of China卻叫做「中華民國」，感覺是很奇怪的翻譯，不是嗎？不是應該要叫做「中華共和國」嗎？這個「民」字是從哪裡來的？這是我的第一個疑問。
2.相同的案例，發生在南北韓，北韓叫做朝鮮民主主義人民共和国The Democratic People's Republic of KOREA，南韓叫做大韓民國，Republic Of KOREA，不過這兩個國家都承認互不隸屬，國際上也承認這兩個國家，歷史淵源我不清楚，但是至少我相信他們的國民並沒有國家認同上的困擾，南韓的人不會認為自己是北韓人，北韓也應該不會認為自己是南韓人，這是確實的兩個國家。
Republic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Republic (disambiguation).
This article is part of the
Politics series
Forms of
government
List of forms of
government
Anarchy
Aristocracy
Authoritarianism
Autocracy
Communist state
Confederation
Corporatocracy
Consociational state
Demarchy
Democracy
Direct
Representative
Consensus
Despotism
Dictatorship
Military
Epistemocracy
Ethnocracy
Exilarchy
Federation
Feudalism
Gerontocracy
Military junta
Kleptocracy
Kratocracy
Kritocracy
Kritarchy
Logocracy
Meritocracy
Geniocracy
Minarchism/Night Watchman
Monarchy
Absolute
Constitutional
Diarchy/Co-Kingship
Noocracy
Ochlocracy/Mobocracy
Oligarchy
Panarchism
Plutocracy
Puppet state
Republic
Crowned
Capitalist
Constitutional
Federal
Parliamentary
Federal
Socialist state
Sociocracy
Technocracy
Cyberocracy
Netocracy
Theocracy
Theodemocracy
Timocracy
Totalitarianism
Tribal
Chiefdom
Politics portal
v ‧ d ‧ e
A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch[1][2] but in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have an impact on its government.[4][5] The word originates from the Latin term res publica.
The organization of republics can vary widely. The first section of this article gives an overview of the characteristics that distinguish different types of republics. The second section of the article gives some short profiles of the most influential republics by way of illustration. A more comprehensive list of republics appears in a separate article. The third section is about how republics are approached as state organizations in political science: in political theory and people governed.
Contents [hide]
1 Characteristics of republics
1.1 Head of state
1.2 Role of religion
1.2.1 Republics may diminish the influence of religion
1.2.2 Other republics may promote a particular religion
1.3 Concepts of democracy
1.4 Influence of republicanism
1.4.1 In antiquity
1.4.2 In the renaissance
1.4.3 Enlightenment republicanism
1.4.3.1 In the United Kingdom and the United States
1.4.4 Proletarian republicanism
1.4.5 Islamic republicanism
1.5 Economic factors
1.6 Aggregations of states
1.6.1 Sub-national republics
1.6.2 Supra-national republics[citation needed]
2 Examples of republics
3 Republics in political theory
4 Notes and references
5 Further reading
6 See also
[edit]Characteristics of republics
[edit]Head of state
In most modern republics, the head of state is termed president. Other titles that have been used are consul, doge, archon and many others. In republics that are also democracies, the head of state is selected as the result of an election. This election can be indirect, such as if a council of some sort, or a parliament is elected by the people, and this council or parliament then elects the head of state. In these kinds of republics, the usual term for a president is in the range of four to seven years. In some countries the constitution limits the number of terms the same person can be elected as president.
If the head of state of a republic is at the same time the head of government, this is called a presidential system (example: United States). In semi-presidential systems and parliamentary republics, where the head of state is not the same person as the head of government, the latter is usually termed prime minister, premier (from the French term for "first"), president of the ministers' council, or chancellor. Depending on what the president's specific duties are (for example, advisory role in the formation of a government after an election), and varying by convention, the president's role may range from the ceremonial and apolitical to influential and highly political. The Prime Minister is responsible for managing the policies and the central government. The rules for appointing the president and the leader of the government, in some republics permit the appointment of a president and a prime minister who have opposing political convictions: in France, when the members of the ruling cabinet and the president come from opposing political factions, this situation is called cohabitation. In countries such as Germany and India, however, the president needs to be strictly non-partisan.
In some countries, like Switzerland and San Marino, the head of state is not a single person but a committee (council) of several persons holding that office. The Roman Republic had two consuls, appointed for a year. During the year of their consulship each consul would in turn be head of state for a month at a time, thus alternating the office of consul maior (the consul in power) and of consul suffectus (the subordinate consul who retained some independence, and held certain veto powers over the consul maior) for their joint term.
Republics can be led by a head of state that has many of the characteristics of a monarch: not only do some republics install a president for life, and invest such president with powers beyond what is usual in a representative democracy, examples such as the post-1970 Syrian Arab Republic show that such a presidency can apparently be made hereditary. Historians disagree when the Roman Republic turned into Imperial Rome: the reason is that the first Emperors were given their head of state powers gradually in a government system that in appearance did not originally much differ from the Roman Republic[6].
Countries usually qualified as monarchies can have many traits of a republic in terms of form of government. The political power of monarchs can be non-existent, limited to a purely ceremonial function or the impact by the people on the country's government can be exerted to the extent that they appear to have the power to have their monarch replaced by another one[7].
The often assumed "mutual exclusiveness" of monarchies and republics as forms of government[2] is thus not to be taken too literally, and largely depends on circumstances:
Autocrats might try to give themselves a democratic tenure by calling themselves president (or princeps or princeps senatus in the case of Ancient Rome), and the form of government of their country "republic", instead of using a monarchic based terminology[8].
For full-fledged representative democracies ultimately it generally does not make all that much difference whether the head of state is a monarch or a president, nor, in fact, whether these countries call themselves a monarchy or a republic. Other factors, for instance, religious matters (see next section) can often make a greater distinguishing mark when comparing the forms of government of actual countries.
For this reason, in political science the several definitions of "republic", which in such a context invariably indicate an "ideal" form of government, do not always exclude monarchy:[9] the evolution of such definitions of "republic" in a context of political philosophy is treated in republicanism. Nations such as the United Kingdom and Australia have thus sometimes been referred to as crowned republics. [10]
The least that can be said is that anti-monarchism, the opposition to monarchy as such, did not always play a critical role in the creation and/or management of republics. For some republics, not choosing a monarch as head of state could as well be a practical rather than an ideological consideration. Such "practical" considerations could be, for example, a situation where there was no monarchical candidate readily available[11]. However, for the states created during or shortly after the Enlightenment the choice was always deliberate: republics created in that period inevitably had anti-monarchical characteristics. For the United States the opposition of some to the British Monarchy played a role, as did the overthrow of the French Monarchy in the creation of the first French Republic. By the time of the creation of the Fifth Republic in that country "anti-monarchist" tendencies were barely felt. The relations of that country to other countries made no distinctions whether these other countries were "monarchies" or not.
[edit]Role of religion
Before several Reformation movements established themselves in Europe, changes in the religious landscape rarely had any relation to the form of government adopted by a country. As an example, Ancient Rome's transition from polytheism to Christianity did not mark the end of the Roman emperor's role in government. Similarly, late Middle Age republics, like Venice, emerged without questioning the religious standards set by the Roman Catholic church.[12][13]
This would change, for instance, by the cuius regio, eius religio from the Treaty of Augsburg (1555): this treaty, applicable in the Holy Roman Empire and affecting the numerous (city-)states of Germany, ordained citizens to follow the religion of their ruler, whatever Christian religion that ruler chose — apart from Calvinism (which remained forbidden by the same treaty). In France the king abolished the relative tolerance towards non-Catholic religions resulting from the Edict of Nantes (1598), by the Edict of Fontainebleau (1685). In the United Kingdom and in Spain the respective monarchs had each established their favoured brand of Christianity, so that by the time of the Enlightenment in Europe (including the depending colonies) there was not a single absolute monarchy that tolerated another religion than the official one of the state.
[edit]Republics may diminish the influence of religion
An important reason why people could choose their society to be organized as a republic is the prospect of staying free of state religion: in this approach living under a monarch is seen as more easily inducing a uniform religion. All great monarchies had their state religion, in the case of pharaohs and some emperors this could even lead to a religion where the monarchs (or their dynasty) were endowed with a god-like status (see for example imperial cult). On a different scale, kingdoms can be entangled in a specific flavour of religion: Catholicism in Belgium, Church of England in the United Kingdom, Orthodoxy in Tsaristic Russia and many more examples.
In absence of a monarchy, there can be no monarch pushing towards a single religion. As this had been the general perception by the time of the Enlightenment, it is not so surprising that republics were seen by some Enlightenment thinkers as the preferable form of state organisation, if one wanted to avoid the downsides of living under a too influential state religion. Rousseau, an exception, envisioned a republic with a demanding state "civil religion":
United States: the Founding Fathers, seeing that no single religion would do for all Americans, adopted the principle that the federal government would neither support nor prohibit any established religion (as had Connecticut and Rhode Island, although Rhode Island and Connecticut are part of the U.S.).[14]
Besides being anti-monarchial, the French Revolution, leading to the first French Republic, was at least as much anti-religious, and led to the confiscation, pillage and/or destruction of many abbeys, beguinages, churches and other religious buildings and/or communities[15]. Although the French revolutionaries tried to institute civil religions to replace "uncivic" Catholicism, nevertheless, up to the Fifth Republic, laicite can be seen to have a much more profound meaning in republican France than in neighbouring countries ruled as monarchies[16].
Several states that called themselves republics have been fiercely anti-religious. This is particularly true for communist republics like the (former) Soviet Republics, North Vietnam, and North Korea.
[edit]Other republics may promote a particular religion
Some countries or states preferred to organise themselves as a republic, precisely because it allows them to establish a more or less obligatory state religion in their constitution. Islamic republics generally take this approach, but the same is also true, to varying degrees, in the Protestant republic that originated in the Netherlands during the Renaissance,[17], among others. In this case the advantage that is sought is that no broad-thinking monarch could push his citizens towards a less strict application of religious prescriptions (like for instance the Millet system had done in the Ottoman Empire[18]) or change to another religion altogether (like the repetitive changes of state religions under the Henry VIII / Edward VI / Mary I / Elizabeth I succession of monarchs in England). An approach such as this, of an ideal republic based on a consolidated religious foundation, was an important factor in the overthrow of the regime of the Shah in Iran, to be replaced by a republic with influential ayatollahs (which is the term for religious leaders in that country), the most influential, as well as the highest ranking political authority of the republic, is known as the "supreme leader".
[edit]Concepts of democracy
Republics are often associated with democracy, which seems natural if one acknowledges the meaning of the expression from which the word "republic" derives (see: res publica, public matters). This association between "republic" and "democracy" is however far from a general understanding, even if acknowledging that there are several forms of democracy[19]. This section tries to give an outline of which concepts of democracy are associated with which types of republics.
As a preliminary remark, the concept of "one equal vote per adult" did not become a generically-accepted principle in democracies until around the middle of the 20th century: before that in all democracies the right to vote depended on one's financial situation, sex, race, age, or a combination of these and other factors. Many forms of government in previous times termed "democracy", including for instance the Athenian democracy, would, when transplanted to the early 21st century be classified as plutocracy or a broad oligarchy, because of the rules on how votes were counted.
In the West, there was a convergence towards representative democracy, for republics as well as monarchies, from the Enlightenment on. In particular, the fear of mob rule concerned many, like Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, who supported representative democracies. A direct democracy instrument like a referendum is still basically mistrusted in many of the countries that adopted representative democracy.[citation needed] Nonetheless, some republics like Switzerland have a great deal of direct democracy in their state organisation, with several issues put before the people by referendum every year.
Marxism inspired state organisations that, at the height of the Cold War, had barely more than a few external appearances in common with Western types of democracies[citation needed], notwithstanding that on an ideological level Marxism and communism sought to empower proletarians. A Communist republic like Fidel Castro's Cuba has many "popular committees" to allow participation from citizens on a very basic level, without much of a far-reaching political power resulting from that.[citation needed] This approach to democracy is sometimes termed "basic democracy,"[citation needed] but the term is contentious: the intended result is often something in between direct democracy and grassroots democracy, but connotations may vary.[citation needed]
Some of the hardline totalitarianism lived on in the East, even after the Iron Curtain fell.[citation needed] Sometimes the full name of such republics can be deceptive: having "people's" or "democratic" in the name of a country can, in some cases bear no relation with the concepts of democracy (neither "representative" nor "direct") that grew in the West. In fact, the phrases "People's Republic" and/or "Democratic Republic" were part of the official titles of many Marxist states during the Cold War, including East Germany, North Korea, Mongolia, and today's People's Republic of China. It also should be clear that many of these "Eastern" type of republics fall outside a definition of a republic that supposes control over who is in power by the people at large – unless it is accepted that the preference the people displays for their leader is in all cases authentic.[citation needed]
[edit]Influence of republicanism
Main article: Republicanism
Like Anti-monarchism and religious differences, republicanism played no equal role in the emergence of the many actual republics. Up to the republics that originated in the late Middle Ages, even if, from what we know about them, they also can be qualified "republics" in a modern understanding of the word, establishing the kind and amount of "republicanism" that led to their emergence is often limited to educated guesswork, based on sources that are generally recognised to be partly fictitious reconstruction[20].
There is however, for instance, no doubt that republicanism was a founding ideology of the United States of America and remains at the core of American political values. See Republicanism in the United States.
[edit]In antiquity
In ancient India, a number of Maha Janapadas were established as republics by the 6th century BC.[21] In the ancient Near East, a number of cities of the Levant achieved collective rule. Arwad has been cited as one of the earliest known examples of a republic, in which the people, rather than a monarch, are described as sovereign.[22]
The important politico-philosophical writings of antiquity that survived the Middle Ages rarely had any influence on the emergence or strengthening of republics in the time they were written. When Plato wrote the dialogue that later, in English speaking countries, became known as The Republic (a faulty translation from several points of view), Athenian democracy had already been established, and was not influenced by the treatise (if it had, it would have become less republican in a modern understanding).[23] Plato's own experiments with his political principles in Syracuse were a failure.[23] Cicero's De re publica, far from being able to redirect the Roman state to reinforce its republican form of government, rather reads as a prelude to the Imperial form of government that indeed emerged soon after Cicero's death.
[edit]In the renaissance
The emergence of the Renaissance, on the other hand, was marked by the adoption of many of these writings from Antiquity, which led to a more or less coherent view, retroactively termed "classical republicanism". Differences however remained regarding which kind of "mix" in a mixed government type of ideal state would be the most inherently republican.[24] For those republics that emerged after the publication of the Renaissance philosophies regarding republics, like the Dutch Republic, it is not always all that clear what role exactly was played by republicanism — among a host of other reasons — that led to the choice for "republic" as form of state ("other reasons" indicated elsewhere in this article: e.g., not finding a suitable candidate as monarch; anti-Catholicism; a middle class striving for political influence).
[edit]Enlightenment republicanism
An allegory of the Republic in Paris
The Enlightenment had brought a new generation of political thinkers, showing that, among other things, political philosophy was in the process of refocusing to political science.[24] This time the influence of the political thinkers, like John Locke, on the emergence of republics in America and France soon thereafter was unmistakable: separation of powers, separation of church and state, etc. were introduced with a certain degree of success in the new republics, along the lines of the major political thinkers of the day.
In fact, the Enlightenment had set the standard for republics, as well as in many cases for monarchies, in the next century. The most important principles established by the close of the Enlightenment were the rule of law, the requirement that governments reflect the self-interest of the people that were subject to that law, that governments act in the national interest, in ways which are understandable to the public at large, and that there be some means of self-determination.
[edit]In the United Kingdom and the United States
In his book, A Defence of the Constitutions (1787), John Adams used the definition of "republic" in Dr. Johnson's 1755 Dictionary: "a government of more than one person." But elsewhere in the same tract, and in several other writings, Adams made it clear that he thought of the British state as a republic because the executive, though a unitary "king", was obliged to obey laws enacted with the concurrence of the legislature.[9]
[edit]Proletarian republicanism
The next major branch in political thinking was pushed forward by Karl Marx, who argued that classes, rather than nationalities, had interests. He argued that governments represented the interests of the dominant class, and that, eventually, the states of his era would be overthrown by those dominated by the rising class of the proletariat[25].
Here again the formation of republics along the line of the new political philosophies followed quickly after the emergence of the philosophies: from the early 20th century on communist type of republics were set up (communist monarchies were at least by name excluded), many of them standing for about a century — but in increasing tension with the states that were more direct heirs of the ideas of the Enlightenment.
[edit]Islamic republicanism
Following decolonialization in the second half of 20th century, the political dimension of Islam[26] knew a new impulse, leading to several Islamic republics. As far as "Enlightenment" and "communist" principles were sometimes up to a limited level incorporated in these republics, such principles were always subject to principles laid down in the Qur'an. In Iran, for example, the state is called a republic because it has an independent plural legislature (the majlis) and two independently chosen executives, a secular president and a religious leader (who is qualified as "supreme"). So, although there is no apparent reason why sharia and related concepts of Islamic political thought should emerge in a republican form of government, the movement for Islamic republics is generally not qualified as a form of "republicanism".
[edit]Economic factors
The ancient concept of res publica, when applied to politics, had always implied that citizens on one level or another took part in governing the state: at least citizens were not indifferent to decisions taken by those in charge, and could engage in political debate. A line of thought followed often by historians[27] is that citizens, under normal circumstances, would only become politically active if they had spare time above and beyond the daily effort for mere survival. In other words, enough of a wealthy middle class (that did not get its political influence from a monarch as nobility did) is often seen as one of the preconditions to establish a republican form of government. By this reasoning, the republican emergence of the cities of the Hanseatic League, late 19th century Catalonia, and the Netherlands during their Golden Age comes as no surprise, their societies wealthy through commerce, with an influential and rich middle class.
Here also the different nature of republics inspired by Marxism becomes apparent: Karl Marx theorised that the government of a state should be based on the proletarians, that is on those whose political opinions never had been asked before, even less had been considered to really matter when designing a state organisation. There was a problem Marxist/Communist types of republics had to solve: most proletarians were lacking interest and/or experience in designing a state organisation, even if acquainted with Das Kapital or Engels' writings. While the practical political involvement of proletarians on the level of an entire country hardly ever materialised, these communist republics were more often than not organised in a very top-down structure.
[edit]Aggregations of states
When a country or state is organised on several levels (that is: several states that are "associated" in a "superstructure", or a country is split in sub-states with a relative form of independence) several models exist:
Both over-arching structure and sub-states take the form of a republic (Example: United States)
The over-arching structure is a republic, while the sub-states are not necessarily (Example: European Union);
The over-arching structure is not a republic, while the sub-states can be (Example: Holy Roman Empire, after the emergence of republics, like those of the Hanseatic League, within its realm).
[edit]Sub-national republics
In general being a republic also implies sovereignty as for the state to be ruled by the people it cannot be controlled by a foreign power. There are important exceptions to this, for example, Republics in the Soviet Union were member states which had to meet three criteria to be named republics:
be on the periphery of the Soviet Union so as to be able to take advantage of their theoretical right to secede;
be economically strong enough to be self-sufficient upon secession; and
be named after at least one million people of the ethnic group which should make up the majority population of said republic.
Republics were originally created by Stalin and continue to be created even today in Russia. Russia itself is not a republic but a federation. It is sometimes argued that the former Soviet Union was also a supra-national republic, based on the claim that the member states were different nations.
States of the United States are required, like the federal government, to be republican in form, with final authority resting with the people. This was required because the states were intended to create and enforce most domestic laws, with the exception of areas delegated to the federal government and prohibited to the states. The founding fathers of the country intended most domestic laws to be handled by the states, although, over time, the federal government has gained more and more influence over domestic law. Requiring the states to be a republic in form was seen as protecting the citizens' rights and preventing a state from becoming a dictatorship or monarchy, and reflected unwillingness on the part of the original 13 states (all independent republics) to unite with other states that were not republics. Additionally, this requirement ensured that only other republics could join the union.
In the example of the United States, the original 13 British colonies became independent states after the American Revolution, each having a republican form of government. These independent states initially formed a loose confederation called the United States and then later formed the current United States by ratifying the current U.S. Constitution, creating a union of sovereign states with the union or federal government also being a republic. Any state joining the union later was also required to be a republic.
[edit]Supra-national republics[citation needed]
Sovereign countries can decide to hand in a limited part of their sovereignty to a supra-national organisation. At present the only significant example of this is the European Union (EU), which developed in the second half of the 20th century as the European Communities. Although it is not common to classify the EU as a "country" (though it does operate as a federation in some fields), the organisation of the European Union is based on a republican system in that there is no hereditary element, rather power is held in a directly elected European Parliament and a Council of national governments. These bodies operate a joint legislative system headed by an independent executive (the European Commission) which is appointed by those two bodies.
However, the members of the EU are not all republics. It is the most common system but being a republic is not a condition for membership — only that there is a working democracy (hence, constitutional monarchies are allowed, but absolute monarchies are not). Hence, while the EU operates as a supra-national republic, some of its members operate a hereditary system for its head of state[28] There is a similar situation in regards to religion in the state, a minority of members have an established state church (though there is freedom of religion) but the EU itself has no such institutional element which is biased to a particular faith.
[edit]Examples of republics
Main article: List of republics
In the early 21st century, most states that are not monarchies label themselves as republics either in their official names or their constitutions. There are a few exceptions: the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Israel and the Russian Federation. Israel, Russia, and Libya would meet many definitions of the term republic, however.
Since the term republic is so vague by itself, many states felt it necessary to add additional qualifiers in order to clarify what kind of republics they claim to be. Here is a list of such qualifiers and variations on the term "republic":
Without other qualifier than the term Republic — for example France and Turkey.
Constitutional republic — A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. There are a number of distinct forms of constitutional republics. In a mixed constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches so that no individual or group has absolute power and the power of the majority of the population is checked by only allowing them to elect representatives. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power, makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.-United States
Parliamentary republic — a republic with an elected Head of state, but where the Head of state and Head of government are kept separate with the Head of government retaining most executive powers, or a Head of state akin to a Head of government, elected by a Parliament.
Federal republic, confederation or federation — a federal union of states or provinces with a republican form of government. Examples include Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Germany, India, Russia and Switzerland.
Islamic Republic — Countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran are republics governed in accordance with Islamic law. (Note: Turkey is a distinct exception and is not included in this list; while the population is predominantly Muslim, the state is a staunchly secular republic.)
Arab Republic — for example, Syria its name reflecting its theoretically pan-Arab Ba'athist government.
People's Republic — Countries like China, North Korea are meant to be governed for and by the people, but generally without direct elections. Thus, they use the term People's Republic, which was shared by many past Communist states.
Democratic Republic — Tends to be used by countries who have a particular desire to emphasize their claim to be democratic; these are typically Communist states and/or ex-colonies. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (no longer in existence) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Commonwealth (Rzeczpospolita) — Both words (English and Polish) are derived from the Latin word res publica (literally "common affairs"). Used for both the current Republic of Poland, and the old Nobility Commonwealth.
Free state — Sometimes used as a label to indicate implementation of, or transition from a monarchical to, a republican form of government. Used for the Irish Free State (1922–1937) under an Irish Republican government, while still remaining associated with the British Empire.
Venezuela has been using, since the adoption of the 1999 constitution, the title of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
Other modifiers are rooted in tradition and history and usually have no real political meaning. San Marino, for instance, is the "Most Serene Republic" while Uruguay is "Republica Oriental", which implies it lies on the eastern bank of the Uruguay River.
[edit]Republics in political theory
In political theory and political science, the term "republic" is generally applied to a state where the government's political power depends solely on the consent, however nominal, of the people governed. This usage leads to two sets of problematic classification. The first are states which are oligarchical in nature, but are not nominally hereditary, such as many dictatorships, the second are states where all, or almost all, real political power is held by democratic institutions, but which have a monarch as nominal head of state, generally known as constitutional monarchies (occasionally called "crowned republics"). The first case causes many outside the state to deny that the state should, in fact, be seen as a Republic. In many states of the second kind there are active "republican" movements that promote the ending of even the nominal monarchy, and the semantic problem is often resolved by calling the state a democracy.
Generally, political scientists try to analyse underlying realities, not the names by which they go: whether a political leader calls himself "king" or "president", and the state he governs a "monarchy" or a "republic" is not the essential characteristic, whether he exercises power as an autocrat is. In this sense political analysts may say that the First World War was, in many respects, the death knell for monarchy, and the establishment of republicanism, whether de facto and/or de jure, as being essential for a modern state. The Austro-Hungarian Empire and the German Empire were both abolished by the terms of the peace treaty after the war, the Russian Empire overthrown by the Russian Revolution of 1917. Even within the victorious states, monarchs were gradually being stripped of their powers and prerogatives, and more and more the government was in the hands of elected bodies whose majority party headed the executive. Nonetheless post-World War I Germany, a de jure republic, would develop into a de facto autocracy by the mid 1930s: the new peace treaty, after the Second World War, took more precaution in making the terms thus that also de facto (the Western part of) Germany would remain a republic.
Per se political theorists, and particularly historians of political thought, tend to use republic as a term-of-art, applying it exclusively to the particular form of government expounded in Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy. On this account, the essential characteristic of republican governance is the sharing of power between a unitary leader, an aristocratic institution, and a plebeian institution. Machiavelli argues that the counterbalancing of these three interests leads to a sounder and more stable government than monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy alone could. This understanding of the term has seen recent renaissance in the work of theorists such as Philip Pettit and Cass Sunstein.
[edit]Notes and references
^ Webster's Third New International Dictionary: "Republic: a state where the head of state is not a monarch (...)".
^ a b Niccolo Machiavelli, 1532, The Prince, Chapter 1.
^ Oligarchies or aristocracies are not always indicated as republics, but for instance Montesquieu in his 1748 The Spirit of the Laws (e.g. book II, 1: "a republican government is that in which the body, or only a part of the people, is possessed of the supreme power"), does
^ e.g. Republic article in Encyclopadia Britannica
^ Some states, although not being led by a monarch, and having a democratic constitution, choose not to term themselves "republic".
^ Tacitus, Ann. I,1-15.
^ Example: Leopold III of Belgium replaced by Baudouin in 1951 under popular pressure.
^ For instance Mobutu Sese Seko is generally considered such "autocrat" that tried to give an appearance of "republican democracy" to his style of government, for instance by allowing something that was generally regarded a sockpuppet opposition.
^ a b For instance, following quote taken from John Adams, "Novanglus" in Boston Gazette, 6 March 1775 (reprinted in The Papers of John Adams, vol. 7, p. 314): "If Aristotle, Livy, and Harrington knew what a republic was, the British constitution is much more like a republic than an empire. They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition is just, the British constitution is nothing more or less than a republic, in which the king is first magistrate. This office being hereditary, and being possessed of such ample and splendid prerogatives, is no objection to the government's being a republic, as long as it is bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend."
^ The novelist and essayist H.G.Wells regularly used the term crowned republic to describe the United Kingdom, for instance in his work A Short History of the World. Alfred, Lord Tennyson in his poem [ http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/tennyson/alfred/idylls/chapter13.html Idylls of the King].
^ For instance the United Provinces: after the Act of Abjuration (1581) the Duke of Anjou and later the Earl of Leicester were asked to rule the Netherlands. After these candidates had declined the office, the Republic was only established in 1588.
^ This section draws from, among other people, Geschiedenis der nieuwe tijden by J. Warichez and L. Brounts, 1946, Standaard Boekhandel (Antwerp/Brussels/Ghent/Louvain) and Cultuurgetijden (history books for secondary school in 6 volumes), Dr. J. A. Van Houtte et. al., several editions and reprints in 1960s through 1970s, Van In (Lier).
^ However, the Catholic Church itself briefly adopted a republican institution when it was offered by the Conciliarist movement as a solution to the Great Schism (rival papacies) during the late 14th century. The ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 deposed three of the rival popes, elected a fourth, and extracted a promise from him that future such councils would continue to be called by future popes at regular intervals. (The Pope's concession to conciliarism did not last very long, but the English Parliament would not extract anything like it from its kings until the Puritan Revolution of the 1640s.)
^ At first the states remained free to establish religions, but they had all disestablished their "state" churches by 1836, and any residual options they might otherwise have pursued were eliminated in the 20th century by federal courts according to their reading of the First Amendment.
^ see also Republicanism and religion
^ Example: French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools — a similar law was tentatively debated in Belgium, but deemed incompatible with the less profoundly secularized Belgian state.
^ After the Duke of Anjou and the Earl of Leicester had declined the offer to become ruler of the Seven Provinces (see note above), William I of Orange had been the obvious choice for king. The volume Nieuwe tijden, from the Cultuurgetijden series, as mentioned in a previous note, elaborates on p. 63-65 (supported by a quote of the contemporary Pontus Payen) that William of Orange was perceived as too lenient towards Catholicism to be acceptable as king for the Protestants.
^ Although in Turkey the ensuing republic would become relatively tolerant towards other religions, the straight multicultural approach of the Millet system, that had allowed Christians and Jews to form state-in-state like communities, would remain unparalleled.
^ See for example Federalist No. 10 by James Madison — An original framer of the U.S. Constitution advocates a republic over a democracy, or rather, an aristocratic republic over a democratic one. See Republicanism in the United States for the connotations of the terms "democracy" and "republic" in the 1787 context when this article was written. Further clarification of this "democracy" vs "republic" idea in the US can be found in Republicanism in the United States#A typical definition of democracy vs republic
^ For example, what is known about the origins of the Roman Republic is based on works by Polybius, Livy, Plutarch, and others, all of which wrote at least some centuries after the emergence of that Republic — without exception all these authors have historical exactitude issues, including relative uncertainty over the year when the Roman Republic would have emerged.
^ Democracy in Ancient India by Steve Muhlberger, Associate Professor of History, Nipissing University.
^ Martin Bernal, Black Athena Writes Back (Durham: Duke University Press, 2001), 359.
^ a b Popper, Carl The Open Society and its Enemies, 1945, Volume I ("The Spell of Plato")
^ a b Since antiquity the basic categorisation of forms of government was (1) a single person governs (includes monarchy, autarchy, states led by a single tyrant or dictator,...); (2) a limited number of people governs (includes oligarchy, aristocracy-governed states, etc); (3) the people governs, which is democracy. With this basic categorisation, for instance a representative democracy can only be defined in terms of mixed government (that is: mixing characteristics of two or three of the basic categories into a "composed" form of government). Compare Tacitus, Ann. IV, 33: "All nations and cities are ruled by the people, the nobility, or by one man. [...]". By the Enlightenment this division in three basic types of government (+ "mixed" solutions) had changed, for instance Montesquieu defines his basic categories thus: "There are three species of government: republican, monarchical, and despotic" (Spirit of Laws, II, 1), and then he defines two "types" of republic: "a republican government is that in which the body, or only a part of the people, is possessed of the supreme power; [...] When the body of the people is possessed of the supreme power, it is called a democracy. When the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a part of the people, it is then an aristocracy." (Op. cit. II, 1-2)
^ See for instance Marxism, Paris Commune.
^ That Islam would have a more intrinsic political dimension than most other religions is argued, among others, by Afshin Ellian ([1]) in his book Brieven van een Pers (Meulenhoff — ISBN 90-290-7522-8)
^ For instance, Historia series of history books, chief editor prof. dr. M. Dierickx sj, published by De Nederlandse Boekhandel (Antwerpen/Amsterdam) in several editions from 1955 to the late 1970s studies these links between the presence of a wealthy middle class and the republics that emerged throughout history.
^ No hereditary head of state participates in the institutions of the European Union, such as the European Council, as none hold the powers associated with representing their state at negotiations.
[edit]Further reading
De Republica Anglorum; the Manner of Government or Policie of the Realme of England, Sir Thomas Smyth, 1583. (England is described under Queen Elizabeth I as a republic, the term "mixed" does appear in it. Sir Thomas states that all commonwealths are of mixed character.)
Jean Bodin, Six Books of the Commonwealth ("Six Livres de la Republique," 1576), Abridged and translated by M. J. Tooley, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1955 (For Bodin, any state is a "republique" if it has sovereignty).
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Du Contrat Social, ou Principes de Droit Politique (1762)
Paul A. Rahe, Republics, Ancient and Modern, three volumes, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1994.
William R. Everdell (2000). "The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans". University of Chicago Press.
Martin van Gelderen & Quentin Skinner, eds., Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, v1, Republicanism and Constitutionalism in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2002
Martin van Gelderen & Quentin Skinner, eds., Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, v2, The Values of Republicanism in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2002
Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, NY: Oxford U.P., 1997, ISBN 0-19-829083-7; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
Frederic Monera, L'idee de Republique et la jurisprudence du Conseil constitutionnel — Paris: L.G.D.J., 2004 [2]-[3];
[edit]See also
Look up republic in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
List of republics
Republicanism
Categories: Forms of government | Republics
Republicanism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Republicanism is the ideology of governing a nation as a republic, where the head of state is appointed by other means than hereditary, often elections. An important element of Republicanism is constitutional law to limit the state's power over its citizens. Early proponents of Republicanism, such as John Milton, put emphasis on the dangers of corruption and the importance of civic virtues.
Contents [hide]
1 Radicalism
2 Contemporary republicanism
3 Republicanism in political science
3.1 Antique antecedents
3.1.1 Ancient Greece
3.1.2 Ancient Rome
3.2 Renaissance republicanism
3.2.1 Dutch Republic
3.2.2 Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
3.3 Enlightenment republicanism
3.3.1 England
3.3.2 French and Swiss thought
3.4 Republican ideology in the United States
3.5 Republicanisme
3.6 Modern republicanism
3.6.1 Turkey
3.7 United States
3.8 British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations
3.9 Neo-republicanism
3.10 Democracy
3.10.1 Democracy and republic
3.10.2 Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers
4 See also
4.1 Specific countries
5 References
5.1 European versions
5.2 American versions
6 External links
[edit]Radicalism
Main article: Radicalism (historical)
Radicalism emerged in European states in the 19th century. Although most radical parties later came to be in favor of economic liberalism, thus justifying the absorption of radicalism into the liberal tradition, all 19th century radicals were in favor of a constitutional republic and universal suffrage, while European liberals were at the time in favor of constitutional monarchy and census suffrage. Thus, radicals were as much Republicans as liberals, if not more. This distinction between Radicalism and Liberalism hasn't totally disappeared in the 20th century, although many radicals simply joined liberal parties or became virtually identical to them. For example, the Left Radical Party in France or the (originally Italian) Transnational Radical Party which exist today have a lot more to do with Republicanism than with simple liberalism.
Thus, Chartism in the UK or even the early Republican, Radical and Radical-Socialist Party in France were closer to Republicanism (and the left-wing) than to liberalism, represented in France by the Orleanists who rallied to the Republic only in the late 19th century, after the comte de Chambord's 1883 death and the 1891 papal encyclicalDe Rerum Novarum. Radicalism remained close to Republicanism (which is a term used more commonly to identify the conservative-liberal tradition in France, represented by a series of parties: Democratic Republican Alliance, Republican Federation, National Center of Independents and Peasants, Independent Republicans, Republican Party, Liberal Democracy) in the 20th century, at least in France where they governed several times with the other left-wing parties (participating in both the Cartel des gauches coalitions as well as the Popular Front).
Discredited after the Second World War, French Radicals split into a left-wing party – the Left Radical Party, a part of the Socialist Party – and the Radical Party "valoisien", an associate party of the conservative Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) and its Gaullist predecessors. Italian Radicals also maintained close links with Republicanism as well as Socialism, with the Partito radicale founded in 1955 which became the Transnational Radical Party in 1989.
[edit]Contemporary republicanism
Anti-monarchial republicanism remains a political force of varying importance in many states. In the European monarchies, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Sweden there has not been much contemporary popular support for republicanism. In such states republicanism is usually motivated by decreasing popularity of the Royal Family, who may be increasingly embroiled in scandal or conflict. However the classical argument against monarchy versus the egalitarian aspects of republicanism will often remain prominent as well. There are also republican movements of varying size and effect in the Commonwealth nations Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica and Barbados. In these countries, republicanism is largely about the post-colonial evolution of their relationships with the United Kingdom.
Further information: Abolished monarchy, Republicanism in Australia, British republicanism, Republicanism in Canada, and Republicanism in New Zealand
[edit]Republicanism in political science
A different interpretation of republicanism is used among political scientists. To them a republic is the rule by many and by laws while a princedom is the arbitrary rule by one. By this definition despotic states are not republics while, according to some such as Kant, constitutional monarchies can be. Kant also argues that a pure democracy is not a republic, as it is the unrestricted rule of the majority. For some republicanism meant simply lack of monarchy, for other monarchy was a form of republic.
[edit]Antique antecedents
Main article: Classical republicanism
[edit]Ancient Greece
In Ancient Greece several philosophers and historians set themselves to analysing and describing forms of government of classical republicanism. There is no single written expression or definition from this era that exactly corresponds with a modern understanding of the term "republic". However, most of the essential features of the modern definition are present in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, and other ancient Greeks. These elements include the ideas of mixed government and of civic virtue. It should be noted that the modern title of Plato's dialogue on the ideal state (The Republic) is a misnomer when seen through the eyes of modern political science (see Republic (Plato)). Some scholars have translated the Greek concept of "politeia" as "republic", but most modern scholars reject this idea.
A number of Ancient Greek states such as Athens and Sparta have been classified as classical republics, though this uses a definition of republic that was developed much later.
[edit]Ancient Rome
Both Livy (in Latin, living in Augustus' time) and Plutarch (in Greek, a century later) described how Rome had developed its legislation, notably the transition from kingdom to republic, based on Greek examples. Probably some of this history, composed more than half a millennium after the events, with scant written sources to rely on, is fictitious reconstruction - nonetheless the influence of the Greek way of dealing with government is clear in the state organisation of the Roman Republic.
The Greek historian Polybius, writing more than a century before Livy, was one of the first historians describing the emergence of the Roman Empire, and he had a great influence on Cicero when this orator was writing his politico-philosophical works in the 1st century BC. One of these works was De re publica, where Cicero links the Latin res publica concept to the Greek politeia." As explained in the res publica article, this concept only partly correlates with the modern term "republic," although the word "republic" is derived from res publica.
Among the many meanings of the term res publica, it is most often translated "Republic" where the Latin expression refers to the Roman state and its form of government between the era of the Kings and the era of the Emperors. This Roman Republic would by a modern understanding of the word still be defined as a true republic, even if not coinciding in all the features. Enlightenment philosophers saw it as an ideal system; for example there was no systematic separation of powers in the Roman Republic.
Romans still called their state "Res Publica" in the era of the early emperors. The reason for this is that on the surface the state organisation of the Republic had been preserved by the first emperors without great alteration. Several offices from the era of the Republic held by individuals were combined under the control of a single person. These forms were accorded permanent" status and thus gradually placed sovereignty in the person of the Emperor. Traditionally, such references to the early empire are not translated as "republic".
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.
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.
[edit]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 Niccolo 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.
[edit]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.
[edit]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 Gornicki, 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.
[edit]Enlightenment republicanism
Main article: Classical republicanism
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.
[edit]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 wars to overthrow the American Revolution and the French Revolution.[1]
[edit]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.
[edit]Republican ideology in the United States
Main article: Republicanism in the United States
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.[2]
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.[3]. 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 argues that Americans have always been highly individualistic and therefore Lockean.[4]
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.[5] Pocock explained the intellectual sources in America:[6]
"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.[7]
Leopold von Ranke 1848 claims that American republicanism played a crucial role in the development of European liberalism, [quoted in Becker 2002, p. 128]:
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.
[edit]Republicanisme
It has long been agreed that republicanism, especially that of Rousseau, played a central role in the French Revolution as turning point to modern republicanism. The French Revolution, which was to throw over the French monarchy in the 1790s, installed, at first, a republic; Napoleon turned 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 too.
Republicanisme 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.
The ideal of republicanisme, in theory, renders anti-discrimination laws needless, but some critics argue that colour-blind laws serve to perpetuate ongoing discrimination.[8]
[edit]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.
[edit]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 Ataturk in the 1920s. Ataturk 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.
[edit]United States
Main article: Republicanism in the United States
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.[9]
[edit]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.
[edit]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.
[edit]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.[10] 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.[11] 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.[12]
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.[13] 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.[14]
[edit]Democracy and republic
In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[15] 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.[16]
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,[17] 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[18]
[edit]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).[19]
[edit]See also
This entry is related to, but not included in the Political ideologies series or one of its sub-series. Other related articles can be found at the Politics Portal.
Republican Party
Republican democracy
Democratic republic
Republicanism and religion
Kemalist ideology
Radicalism
Tacitean studies - differing interpretations whether Tacitus defended republicanism ("red Tacitists") or the contrary ("black Tacitists").
[edit]Specific countries
Republicanism in Australia
Republicanism in Canada
Republicanisme (Republicanism in France)
Irish republicanism
Republicanism in New Zealand
Republicanism in the United Kingdom
Republicanism in the United States
[edit]References
[edit]European versions
Bock, Gisela; Skinner, Quentin; and Viroli, Maurizio, ed. Machiavelli and Republicanism. Cambridge U. Press, 1990. 316 pp.
Peter Becker, Jurgen 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.
Najemy, John M. "Baron's Machiavelli and Renaissance Republicanism." American Historical Review 1996 101(1): 119-129. ISSN 0002-8762 Fulltext in Jstor and Ebsco. Examines Hans Baron's ambivalent portrayal of Machiavelli. He argues that Baron tended to see Machiavelli simultaneously as the cynical debunker and the faithful heir of civic humanism. By the mid-1950s, Baron had come to consider civic humanism and Florentine republicanism as early chapters of a much longer history of European political liberty, a story in which Machiavelli and his generation played a crucial role. This conclusion led Baron to modify his earlier negative view of Machiavelli. He tried to bring the Florentine theorist under the umbrella of civic humanism by underscoring the radical differences between The Prince and the Discourses and thus revealing the fundamentally republican character of the Discourses. However, Baron's inability to come to terms with Machiavelli's harsh criticism of early 15th century commentators such as Leonardo Bruni ultimately prevented him from fully reconciling Machiavelli with civic humanism.
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. Abstract: 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. 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. Consequently, in the last two times and places mentioned above, 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
[edit]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, Jurgen 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)
[edit]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
^ Pocock (1975)
^ See for example, Vernon L. Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought (1927) online at [1]
^ Shalhope (1982)
^ Isaac Kramnick, Ideological Background," in Jack. P. Greene and J. R. Pole, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the American Revolution (1994) ch 9; Robert E. Shallhope, "Republianism," ibid ch 70.
^ Trevor Colbourn, The Lamp of Experience: Whig History and the Intellectual Origins of the American Revolution (1965) online version
^ Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment p 507
^ Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967)
^ "France shows its true colors". International Herald Tribune. June 5, 2006. Retrieved on 2006-06-05.
^ Robert E. Shalhope, "Toward a Republican Synthesis," William and Mary Quarterly, 29 (Jan. 1972), pp 49-80
^ Republicanism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
^ Pocock (1975)
^ 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)
^ Robert E. Shalhope, "Republicanism and Early American Historiography," William and Mary Quarterly, 39 (Apr. 1982), 334-356
^ democracy - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
^ republic - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
^ Novanglus, no. 7, 6 Mar. 1775
^ Republican Government: Introduction
^ Mark McKenna, The Traditions of Australian Republicanism (1996) online version; John W. Maynor, Republicanism in the Modern World. (2003).
Categories: Republicanism | Political ideologies | Republicanism in the United Kingdom
List of republics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of republics is a list of countries or states governed as a republic.
For Antiquity (or later in the case of societies that did not refer to a Western terminology to qualify their form of government) the assessment of whether a state organisation is a republic is an analysis by retrospect, left to the discretion of historians and political theorists.
For more recent systems of government worldwide organisations with a broad political acceptance, like the United Nations, can provide information on whether or not a sovereign state is referred to as a republic.
Contents [hide]
1 List of Republics by Period
1.1 Antiquity
1.2 Middle Ages and Renaissance
1.3 Early Modern
1.4 19th Century
1.5 20th Century and Later
2 List of Republics by Type
2.1 Unitary republics
2.2 Federal republics
2.3 Confederal republics
2.4 Arab Republics
2.5 Islamic Republics
2.6 Democratic Republics
2.7 Socialist Republics
2.8 People's Republics
3 References
[edit]List of Republics by Period
[edit]Antiquity
Doric Greek city-states of Crete[citation needed]
Carthage (c. 8th century BC- 146 BC)[citation needed]
Athens under the separate reforms of Solon and Cleisthenes.[citation needed]
Various Greek City-States under Athenian Influence: These loyalties and governments changed frequently, and in some instances were even under the influence of Sparta without succumbing to the adoption of the Oligarchy system
Licchavi Republic (c. 600 BC - 400 AD)[citation needed]
Roman Republic (c. 509 – 27 BC) and many other Italian cities.[citation needed]
Vaishali Republic (c. 600 BC - 400 AD)[citation needed]
Hastinapur - and some states of Ancient India
[edit]Middle Ages and Renaissance
San Marino (301 – present)[citation needed]
Amalfi (839 – 1131)[citation needed]
Venice (c. 9th century - 1797)[citation needed]
Iceland (930 – 1262)[citation needed]
Pisa (11th century – 1406, 1494 – 1509)[citation needed]
Genoa (c. 1100 - 1797)[citation needed]
Florence (1115 - 1537)[citation needed]
Novgorod Republic (1136 – 1478)[1]
Lucca (1160 – 1805)
Siena (1167 – 1557)[citation needed]
Old Swiss Confederacy (1291 - 1798)
Ragusa (14th century – 1808)[citation needed]
Pskov Republic (1348 - 1510)
Cospaia (1440 - 1826)
Ambrosian Republic (1447 - 1450)
Netherlands (1581 – 1795)
[edit]Early Modern
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569 - 1795)
Goust (1648 - )
Commonwealth of England (1649 - 1660)[citation needed]
Corsican Republic (1755 - 1769)[2]
United States of America (1776 - Present)
Vermont Republic (1777 - 1791)[3]
First French Republic (1792 - 1804)
Helvetic Republic (1798 - 1802)
State of Muskogee (1799 - 1803)
[edit]19th Century
Swiss Confederation (1803 - 1815)
Confederation of the Rhine (1806 - 1813)
Haiti (1806 - 1849; restored 1859)[citation needed]
Duchy of Warsaw (1807 - 1813)
Free City of Danzig (1807 - 1814)
West Florida (1810)
Paraguay (1811 - present)
Free City of Krakow (1815 - 1846)
Argentina (1816 - present)
Chile (1818 - present)
Colombia (1819 - present)
Federal Republic of Central America (1823 - 1840)
Mexico (1824 - present)
Peru (1824 - present)
Bolivia (1825 - present)
Uruguay (1828 - present)
Venezuela (1830 - present)
Ecuador (1830 - present)
Republic of Texas (1836 - 1845)
Second French Republic (1848 - 1852)
California Republic (1846)
Menton and Roquebrune (1848 - 1861)
Republic of Ezo (1868-1869)
Third French Republic (1871-1940)
[Independent Republic of Motril (1873)[4]
Tavolara (1886 - 1899)[5][6][7]
Franceville (1889)[8]
Republic of Hawaii (1894 - 1898)
Republic of Formosa (1895)
First Philippine Republic (1898-1901/1907)- not considered as pure ,sovereign republic at that time, historians believed that Philippines was the "First Malayan Republic" even though it was not recognized, semi-sovereigned state.
Greater Republic of Central America (1896 - 1898)
Republic of Acre (1st: 1899 - 1900; 2nd: 1900; 3rd: 1903)
Republic of Yucatan (1840 - 1843; 1848 )
First Spanish Republic (1873–1874)
[edit]20th Century and Later
Panama (est. 1903)
Second Spanish Republic (De Iure: 1931–1939) (De Facto: 1931-1975)
Albania (est. 1946)[citation needed]
Ireland (est. 1949)[citation needed]
Algeria (est. 1962)[citation needed]
Singapore (since 1965)
Afghanistan (est. 1973)[citation needed]
Nepal (est. 2008)
Zimbabwe (date to be openly edited)
[edit]List of Republics by Type
In modern usage, a republican form of government is applied loosely to any state which claims this designation. [9] So for example the Dominican Republic under Rafael Trujillo is considered a republic, as is the Republic of Iraq under Saddam Hussein and the The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under Joseph Stalin. The Kingdom of Sweden (which in 2006 ranked highest in the Economist's index of democracy) [10] is not a republic, but the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea (which ranks lowest in the same survey) is.
[edit]Unitary republics
Unitary republics are unitary states which are governed constitutionally as one single unit, with a single constitutionally created legislature.
Acre (1st: 1899-1900; 2nd: 1900; 3rd: 1903)
Afghanistan (republic since 1973)[citation needed]
Albania (since 1946)[citation needed]
Algeria[citation needed]
Republic of Armenia (1st: May 28, 1918; 2nd: December 25, 1991)
Bangladesh[citation needed]
Benin[citation needed]
Bolivia[citation needed]
Botswana[citation needed]
Bulgaria (since 1946)[citation needed]
Burkina Faso[citation needed]
Burundi (since 1966)[citation needed]
Cameroon (unitary republic 1960-1961 and 1972-present; federal republic 1961-1972)[citation needed]
Cape Verde[citation needed]
Central African Republic (1958-1976; restored 1979)[citation needed]
Chad[citation needed]
Chile[citation needed]
People's Republic of China[citation needed]
Colombia (unitary republic since 1886)[citation needed]
Congo (Brazzaville)[citation needed]
Congo (Kinshasa)[citation needed]
Corsica (1755-1769)[11]
Cospaia (1440-1826)
Costa Rica[citation needed]
Cote d'Ivoire[citation needed]
Croatia[citation needed]
Cuba[citation needed]
Cyprus[citation needed]
Czech Republic[citation needed]
Djibouti[citation needed]
Dominica[citation needed]
Dominican Republic (1801-1861, 1844-present)[citation needed]
East Timor[citation needed]
Ecuador[citation needed]
Egypt (since 1953)[citation needed]
El Salvador (1821-present)[citation needed]
Equatorial Guinea[citation needed]
Eritrea[citation needed]
Estonia (1918-present)[citation needed]
Ezo (1868-1869)
Fiji Islands (since 1987)[citation needed]
Finland[citation needed]
Formosa (1895)
Franceville (1889)[12]
French Republic (1st: 1792-1804; 2nd: 1848-1852; 3rd: 1870-1940; 4th: 1945-1958 and 5th, since 1958)[citation needed]
Gabon[citation needed]
Gambia (since 1970)[citation needed]
Georgia[citation needed]
Ghana (since 1960)[citation needed]
Goust (since 1648)
Greece (1st: 1822–1832; 2nd: 1924-1935; 3rd: since 1974)[citation needed]
Guatemala[citation needed]
Guinea[citation needed]
Guinea-Bissau[citation needed]
Guyana (since 1970) is a "Co-operative Republic"[citation needed]
Haiti (1806-1849; restored 1859)[citation needed]
Republic of Hawaii (1894-1898)
Honduras[citation needed]
Hungary (since 1946)[citation needed]
Iceland (republic since 1944)[citation needed]
Indonesia (Unitary republic since August 1950)[citation needed]
Iran (since 1979)[citation needed]
Iraq (since 1958)[citation needed]
Ireland (republic since 1949)[citation needed]
Israel (since 1948) [13]
Italian Social Republic (1943 - 1945)[citation needed]
Italy (since 1946)[citation needed]
Kazakhstan[citation needed]
Kenya (since 1964)[citation needed]
Kiribati[citation needed]
Kyrgyzstan[citation needed]
Laos (since 1975)[citation needed]
Latvia[citation needed]
Lebanon(22 November 1943)[citation needed]
Liberia[citation needed]
Libya (since 1969)[citation needed]
Lithuania[citation needed]
Lokot Republic (1941-1943)[citation needed]
Republic of Macedonia (1991-)[citation needed]
Madagascar[citation needed]
Malawi (since 1966)[citation needed]
Maldives (since 1968)[citation needed]
Mali (since 1960)[citation needed]
Malta (since 1974)[citation needed]
Marshall Islands[citation needed]
Mauritania[citation needed]
Mauritius (since 1992)[citation needed]
Menton and Roquebrune (1848-1861)
Moldova[citation needed]
Mongolia (since 1924)[citation needed]
Montenegro (since 1944)[citation needed]
Mozambique[citation needed]
Muskogee (1799-1803)
Namibia[citation needed]
Nauru[citation needed]
Nicaragua[citation needed]
Niger[citation needed]
North Korea (since 1948)[citation needed]
Pakistan (since 1956)[citation needed]
Palau[citation needed]
Panama[citation needed]
Paraguay[citation needed]
Peru[citation needed]
Philippines (Thrice, two overlapping: First Philippine Republic (1898-1901), Philippine Commonwealth to the Fifth Republic of the Philippines (1934-present), Second Philippine Republic (1943-1945))[14][15][16]
Poland[citation needed]
Portugal (since 1910)[citation needed]
Rhodesia (1970-1979)[citation needed]
Romania (since 1947)[citation needed]
Rwanda (since 1961)[citation needed]
Samoa (since 2007)[citation needed]
San Marino (since 301) qualifies itself as the "Most Serene Republic"[citation needed]
Sao Tome and Principe[citation needed]
Senegal[citation needed]
Serbia (since 1944)[citation needed]
Seychelles[citation needed]
Sierra Leone (since 1971)[citation needed]
Singapore (since 1965)[citation needed]
Slovak Republic (1939–1945)[citation needed]
Slovakia[citation needed]
Slovenia[citation needed]
Somalia[citation needed]
South Africa (since 1961)[citation needed]
South Korea (since 1948)[citation needed]
Spain (Twice: First Spanish Republic (1873–1874), Second Spanish Republic (1931-1939))[citation needed]
Sri Lanka (since 1972)[citation needed]
Sudan[citation needed]
Suriname[citation needed]
Syria[citation needed]
Republic of China (Taiwan)[citation needed]
Tajikistan[citation needed]
Tanzania[citation needed]
Tavolara (1886-1899)[17][18][19]
Texas (1836-1845) [20]
Togo[citation needed]
Trinidad and Tobago (since 1976)[citation needed]
Tunisia (since 1957)[citation needed]
Turkey (republic since 1923)[citation needed] (Is found in Article 1 of their Constitution)
Turkmenistan[citation needed]
Uganda (since 1963)[citation needed]
Ukraine[citation needed]
Uruguay is the "Eastern Republic".[citation needed]
Uzbekistan[citation needed]
Vanuatu[citation needed]
Vermont Republic (1777 - 1791)[21]
Vietnam[citation needed]
West Florida (1810)
Yemen[citation needed]
Zambia[citation needed]
Zimbabwe[citation needed]
[edit]Federal republics
Federal republics are federal states in which the administrative divisions (states or provinces) theoretically retain a degree of autonomy which is constitutionally protected, and cannot be revoked unilaterally by the national government.
Argentina (since 1852)[citation needed]
Austria[citation needed]
Brazil (since November 15th, 1889)[22]
Bosnia and Herzegovina (since 1995)[citation needed]
Federal Republic of Cameroon (1961-1972)[citation needed]
Commonwealth of England (1649-1653)[citation needed]
Czechoslovakia (1969-1992)[citation needed]
Ethiopia (unitary republic 1974-1994; federal republic since 1994)[citation needed]
Germany (since 1918)[citation needed]
Republic of Colombia (1819-1886), known as Great Colombia from 1819 to 1831, when it included present-day Ecuador, Venezuela, and Panama.[citation needed]
India (since January 26, 1950)[citation needed]
United States of Indonesia (1949-1950)[citation needed]
Mexico[23] (since 1917)[citation needed]
Nepal (since December 28, 2007)[24]
Nigeria (1963-66:1st Republic, 1979-83: 2nd Republic, 1993: 3rd Republic, 1999-present: 4th Republic)[citation needed]
Pakistan (since March 23, 1956); Declaration of the Islamic Republic[citation needed]
Russian Federation (1917, as RSFSR-present)[citation needed]
Soviet Union (1922-1991))[citation needed]
Swiss Confederation (since 1848)[citation needed]
Union of Myanmar[citation needed]
United Provinces of Central America (1823-1840)[citation needed]
United States of America[25] (since 1789)
Venezuela<
Yugoslavia (1945-2003)[citation needed]
[edit]Confederal republics
Confederal republics are associations of sovereign states, usually having power over critical common issues such as defence and foreign affairs:
Confederate States of America (1861 - 1865)[citation needed]
Serbia and Montenegro (2003 – 2006)[citation needed]
Switzerland (circa 1291 - 1848, except for the Helvetic Republic phase, 1798 - 1803)[citation needed]
United States (under the Articles of Confederation, 1776 – 1789)[citation needed]
United Pakistan (Old Pakistan) (Unofficial) (1962 - 1970)[citation needed]
[edit]Arab Republics
Egypt[citation needed]
Syria is the "Arab Republic" reflecting its theoretically pan-Arab Ba'athist government.[citation needed]
Yemen[citation needed]
[edit]Islamic Republics
Republics governed in accordance with Islamic law:
Afghanistan[citation needed]
Islamic Republic of Pakistan (since 1970)[citation needed]
Islamic Republic of Iran (since Iranian Revolution)[citation needed]
Islamic Republic of Mauritania[citation needed]
[edit]Democratic Republics
These are republics that use the word "democratic" in their official name. Their actual political systems can vary considerably.
People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (1962 - present)
Democratic Republic of Congo (1966 - 1971, 1997 - present)
Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste (1975 - present)
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (1991 - present)
German Democratic Republic (1949-1990)
Lao People's Democratic Republic (1975 - present)
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (1948 - present)
Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe (1975 - present)
Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (1978 - present)
[edit]Socialist Republics
These are republics that use the word "socialist" in their official name.
Albania (1976-1990)
Libya[citation needed]
Sri Lanka[citation needed]
Vietnam[citation needed]
Romania (1965-1989)[citation needed]
India[citation needed]
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1945–1992)[citation needed]
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)[citation needed]
[edit]People's Republics
Meant to be governed by the people, this name is most often (but not always) used by communist states.
People's Democratic Republic of Algeria[26]
Bangladesh[27]
People's Republic of China[28]
Laos[29]
North Korea[30]
Libya[citation needed]
Former People's Republics:
Hungary (1949–1989)[citation needed]
Mongolia (1924–1992)[citation needed]
Albania (1946–1976)[citation needed]
Bulgaria (1946–1990)[citation needed]
Romania (1947–1965)[citation needed]
Poland (1952–1989)[citation needed]
South Yemen (1967–1970)[citation needed]
Benin (1975–1990)[citation needed]
Congo (1970–1992)[citation needed]
Mozambique (1975–1990)[citation needed]
Angola (1975–1992)[citation needed]
Ethiopia (1987–1991)[citation needed]
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
}" onload="function onload(event)
}" onload="function onload(event)
}" onload="function onload(event)
}" onload="function onload(event)
}" onload="function onload(event)
}" onload="function onload(event)
}" onload="function onload(event)
}" onload="function onload(event)
