Revision as of 23:06, 22 October 2006 editArmadilloFromHell (talk | contribs)12,402 edits Revert to revision 83018583 dated 2006-10-22 15:59:29 by Stevewk using popups← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:00, 20 December 2024 edit undoCitation bot (talk | contribs)Bots5,402,670 edits Altered url. URLs might have been anonymized. Add: authors 1-1. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Jay8g | #UCB_toolbar | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Form of government}} | |||
:''This article concentrates on the several ] of real states and countries that have been termed '''republic''', for all other uses see: ]'' | |||
{{About|the form of government|the political ideology|Republicanism|other uses}} | |||
{{ActiveDiscuss}} | |||
{{pp-pc}} | |||
{{Forms of government}} | |||
{{Basic Forms of government}} | |||
In a broad definition, a '''republic''' is a ] or ], the sovereignty of which is based on popular consent, and the governance of which is based on popular representation and control. Several definitions, including that of the '']'', stress the importance of ] and the rule of law as part of the requirements for a republic. Many general dictionaries indicate in their primary definitions, that a republic features "a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usu. a president."<ref>"Republic," ''Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition'', (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster Inc., 2004), 1058. A republic contrasts with a dictatorship or other autocracy, but not necessarily with a monarchy, if the latter be of the ''constitutional'' variety, i.e., based on a body of fundamental law. In such a government, as England/Great Britain following its Revolution of 1688-89, we find a "monarchy" in name only, since the government then came under popular consent and control, and with executive authority strictly circumscribed. Such a monarchy may be considered a ''de facto'' republic.</ref> | |||
Often ''republics'' and '']'' are described as mutually exclusive,<ref name=Machiavelli>In the opening chapter of '']'' ] describes ''republics'' and ''monarchies'' as mutually exclusive, with republics including both democracies and aristocracies. But even Machiavelli could not always adhere to this definition, not even in ''The Prince''. For example, when he tries to characterise the form of government of the ] in the 11th chapter of that book, he points out that usual methods and distinctions are not applicable for analysing such a state.</ref>but such a characterization is blurred by some borderline issues. For example while the distinction between ''monarchy'' and ''republic'' was not always made as it is in modern times, such a distinction depends very much on the concept of a ''monarch'', which itself has various definitions, thereby frustrating attempts to clarify the meaning of its apparent opposite, the ''republic''. | |||
A '''republic''', based on the ] phrase '']'' ('public affair'), is a ] in which ] rests with the ] through their <!-- Do not change this to say that a republic is a form of government where _elected_ representatives of the people hold power. "Republic" in the classical sense means a country that isn't a monarchy.--> ]—in contrast to a ].<ref name="OED">{{Cite web|title=Republic {{!}} Definition of Republic by the Oxford English Dictionary|url=https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/163158|access-date=2022-05-10|website=Oxford English Dictionary|language=en|quote=A state in which power rests with the people or their representatives; specifically a state without a monarchy. Also: a government, or system of government, of such a state; a period of government of this type. The term is often (especially in the 18th and 19th centuries) taken to imply a state with a democratic or representative constitution and without a hereditary nobility, but more recently it has also been used of autocratic or dictatorial states not ruled by a monarch. It is now chiefly used to denote any non-monarchical state headed by an elected or appointed president.}}</ref><ref name="M-W">{{Cite web|url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic|title=Definition of Republic|website=Merriam-Webster Dictionary|language=en-US|access-date=2017-02-18|quote=a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch}}</ref> Although a republic is most often a single ], ] entities that have governments that are republican in nature may be referred to as republics. | |||
In his 1787 book, "]," the American founder and second President of the United States, ] used the definition of "republic" in ]'s 1755 "]" ("A government of more than one person"), but in the same book, and in several other writings, Adams made it clear that he thought of the British state as a republic because the executive, though single and called "king," had to obey laws made with the concurrence of the legislature: | |||
Representation in a republic may or may not be freely elected by the general citizenry. In many historical republics, representation has been based on personal status and the role of elections has been limited. This remains true today; among the ] states that use ''republic'' in their official names {{as of|2017|lc=y}}, and other states formally constituted as republics, are states that narrowly constrain both the right of representation and the process of election. | |||
<blockquote> | |||
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.<ref>John Adams, "Novanglus," ''Boston Gazette'', 6 March 1775; ''The Papers of John Adams'', vol. 7, p. 314.</ref> | |||
</blockquote> | |||
The term developed its modern meaning in reference to the constitution of the ancient ], lasting from the ] in 509 ] to the establishment of the ] in 27 BC. This ] was characterized by a ] composed of wealthy ] wielding significant influence; several popular ] of all free citizens, possessing the power to elect magistrates from the populace and pass laws; and a ] with varying types of civil and political authority. | |||
The detailed organization of republics' governments can vary widely. The first section of this article gives an overview of the distinctions that characterise different ''types'' of non-fictional republics. The second section of the article gives short profiles of some of the most influential republics, by way of illustration. A more comprehensive ] appears in a separate article. The third section is about how republics are approached as state organisations in ]: in political theory and political science, the term "republic" is generally applied to a ] where the government's ] depends solely on the consent, however nominal, of the people governed. | |||
== Etymology == | |||
==Characteristics of republics== | |||
{{See also|Res publica|Civitas}} | |||
===Heads of state=== | |||
]]] | |||
In most modern republics the ] is termed ]. Other titles that have been used are ], ], ] and many others. In republics that are also ] the head of state is appointed as the result of an election. This election can be indirect, such as if a council of some sort is elected by the people, and this council then elects the head of state. In these kinds of republics the usual term for a president is in the range of four to six years. In some countries the ] limits the number of terms the same person can be elected as president. | |||
The term originates from the Latin translation of ] word '']''. ], among other Latin writers, translated ''politeia'' into Latin as '']'', and it was in turn translated by Renaissance scholars as ''republic'' (or similar terms in various European languages).<ref>{{cite web |title=Republic |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic |website=Merriam Webster |publisher=Merrium-Webster Inc. |access-date=5 June 2019}}</ref> The term can literally be translated as 'public matter'.<ref name=Ideas2099>"Republic"j, ''New Dictionary of the History of Ideas''. Ed. ]. Vol. 5. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2005. p. 2099</ref> It was used by Roman writers to refer to the state and government, even during the period of the ].<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|last1=Lewis|first1=Charlton T.|first2=Charles |last2=Short |title=res, II.K|encyclopedia=]|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|year=1879|url=https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dres|access-date=August 14, 2010}}</ref> | |||
If the head of state of a republic is at the same time the ], this is called a ] (example: ]). In ]s, where the head of state is not the same person as the ], the latter is usually termed ], ] or ]. 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 ], when the members of the ruling ] and the president come from opposing political factions, this situation is called ]. In countries such as ] and ], however, the president needs to be strictly non-partisan. | |||
The term ''politeia'' can be translated as ], ], or ], and it does not necessarily imply any specific type of regime as the modern word ''republic'' sometimes does. One of ]'s major works on political philosophy, usually known in English as '']'', was titled ''Politeia''. However, apart from the title, modern translations are generally used.<ref>]. ''The Republic''. Basic Books, 1991. pp. 439–40</ref> ] was apparently the first classical writer to state that the term ''politeia'' can be used to refer more specifically to one type of ''politeia'', asserting in Book III of his '']'': "When the citizens at large govern for the public good, it is called by the name common to all governments (''to koinon onoma pasōn tōn politeiōn''), government (''politeia'')". In later Latin works the term ''republic'' can also be used in a general way to refer to any regime, or to refer specifically to governments which work for the public good.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/political-science-and-government/political-science-terms-and-concepts/republic|title=Republic {{!}} Encyclopedia.com|website=www.encyclopedia.com|language=en|access-date=2018-10-20}}</ref> | |||
In some countries, like ] and ], the head of state is not a single person but a committee (council) of several persons holding that office. The ] had two ]s, appointed for a year by the ]. 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 ] (the consul in power) and of ] (the subordinate consul who retained some independence, and held certain veto powers over the consul maior) for their joint term. | |||
In medieval ], a number of city states had ] or ] based governments. In the late Middle Ages, writers such as ] described these states using terms such as ''libertas populi'', a free people. The terminology changed in the 15th century as the renewed interest in the writings of ] caused writers to prefer classical terminology. To describe non-monarchical states, writers (most importantly, ]) adopted the Latin phrase '']''.<ref>Rubinstein, Nicolai. "Machiavelli and Florentine Republican Experience" in ''Machiavelli and Republicanism'' Cambridge University Press, 1993.</ref> | |||
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 ], examples such as the post-1970 ] show that such a presidency can apparently be made hereditary. Historians disagree when the Roman Republic turned into ]: the reason is that the first ]s were given their head of state powers gradually in a government system that in appearance did not originally much differ from the Roman Republic<ref>], '']'' I,1-15.</ref>. | |||
While Bruni and ] used the term to describe the states of Northern Italy, which were not monarchies, the term ''res publica'' has a set of interrelated meanings in the original Latin. In subsequent centuries, the English word '']'' came to be used as a translation of ''res publica'', and its use in English was comparable to how the Romans used the term ''res publica''.<ref name=Haakonssen>Haakonssen, Knud. "Republicanism." ''A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy''. Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit. eds. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1995.</ref> Notably, during ] of ] the word ''commonwealth'' was the most common term to call the new monarchless state, but the word ''republic'' was also in common use.<ref name=Kingsxxiii>{{Harvcoltxt|Everdell|2000}} p. xxiii.</ref> | |||
Similarly, if taking the broad definition of republic above (see first paragraph), 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 "control of the people" can be exerted to the extent that they appear to have the power to have their monarch replaced by another one<ref>Example: ] replaced by ] in ] under popular pressure.</ref>. | |||
== History == | |||
The often assumed "mutual exclusiveness" of monarchies and republics as forms of government<ref name=Machiavelli/> is thus not to be taken too literally, and largely depends on circumstances: | |||
While the philosophical terminology developed in ] and ], as already noted by ] there was already a long history of city states with a wide variety of constitutions, not only in Greece but also in the ]. After the classical period, during the ], many free cities developed again, such as ]. | |||
* ] might try to give themselves a democratic tenure by calling themselves president (or ] or ] in the case of ]), and the form of government of their country "republic", instead of using a monarchic based terminology<ref>For instance ] 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.</ref>. | |||
* For full-fledged ] 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. | |||
Since the ] the term ''republic'' has described a system of government in which the source of authority for the government is a constitution<ref name="Munro"/> and the legitimacy of its officials derives from the consent of the people rather than ] or ].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Paine |first1=Thomas |title=Common Sense |chapter=On the Origin and Design of Government in General, With Concise Remarks on the English Constitution |date=1776 |url=https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s4.html}}</ref> | |||
For this reason, in ] the several definitions of "republic", which in such a context invariably indicate an "ideal" form of government, do not always exclude monarchy: the evolution of such definitions of "republic" in a context of ] is treated in ]. However, such theoretical approaches appear to have had no real influence on the everyday use (that is: apart from a scholar or "insider" context) of the terminology regarding republics and monarchies<ref>References where in everyday language countries with a king or emperor as head of state are termed ''republic'' have not been encountered.</ref>. | |||
=== Classical republics === | |||
{{Main|Classical republic}} | |||
] in 45 BC]] | |||
The modern type of republic itself is different from any type of state found in the classical world.<ref>Nippel, Wilfried. "Ancient and Modern Republicanism". ''The Invention of the Modern Republic'' ed. Biancamaria Fontana. Cambridge University Press, 1994 p. 6</ref><ref>Reno, Jeffrey. "republic". ''International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences'' p. 184</ref> Nevertheless, there are a number of states of the ] that are today still called republics. This includes ancient ] and the ]. While the structure and governance of these states was different from that of any modern republic, there is debate about the extent to which classical, medieval, and modern republics form a historical continuum. ] has argued that a distinct republican tradition stretches from the classical world to the present.<ref name="Ideas2099"/><ref name=Pocock>Pocock, J.G.A. ''The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition'' (1975; new ed. 2003)</ref> Other scholars disagree.<ref name="Ideas2099"/> Paul Rahe, for instance, argues that the classical republics had a form of government with few links to those in any modern country.<ref name=Rahe>Paul A. Rahe, ''Republics, Ancient and Modern'', three volumes, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1994.</ref> | |||
The least that can be said is that ], 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 monarchial candidate readily available<ref>For instance the ]: after the ] (]) the ] and later the ] were asked to rule the Netherlands. After these candidates had declined the office, the ] was only established in ].</ref>. However, for the states created during or shortly after ] the choice was always deliberate: ''republics'' created in that period inevitably had anti-monarchial characteristics. For the ] the opposition of some to the ] played a role, as did the overthrow of the French Monarchy in the creation of the ]. By the time of the creation of the ] 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. | |||
The political philosophy of the classical republics has influenced republican thought throughout the subsequent centuries. Philosophers and politicians advocating republics, such as ], ], ], and ], relied heavily on classical Greek and Roman sources which described various types of regimes. | |||
===Role of religion=== | |||
<ref>This section draws from, among others, ''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).</ref>Before several ] movements established themselves in Europe, changes in the religious landscape rarely had any relation to the form of government adopted by a country. For instance the transition from ] to ] in ] maybe had brought new rulers, but no change in the idea that monarchy was the obvious way to rule a country. Similarly, late ] republics, like ], emerged without questioning the religious standards set by the ] church.<ref>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.)</ref> | |||
]'s '']'' discusses various forms of government. One form Aristotle named ''politeia'', which consisted of a mixture of the other forms, ] and ]. He argued that this was one of the ideal forms of government. ] expanded on many of these ideas, again focusing on the idea of ] and differentiated basic forms of government between "benign" ], ], and democracy, and the "malignant" ], oligarchy, and ]. The most important Roman work in this tradition is Cicero's '']''. | |||
This would change, for instance, by the ] from the ] (]): this treaty, applicable in the ] and affecting the numerous (city-)states of ], ordained citizens to follow the religion of their ruler, whatever Christian religion that ruler chose - apart from ] (which remained forbidden by the same treaty). In France the king abolished the relative tolerance towards non-Catholic religions resulting from the ] (]), by the ] (]). In the ] and in ] the respective monarchs had each established their favourite brand of Christianity, so that by the time of ] in Europe (including the depending ]) there was not a single ]y that tolerated another religion than the official one of the state. | |||
Over time, the classical republics became empires or were conquered by empires. Most of the Greek republics were annexed to the ] of ]. The Roman Republic expanded dramatically, conquering the other states of the Mediterranean that could be considered republics, such as ]. The Roman Republic itself then became the Roman Empire. | |||
====Republics reducing state religion impact==== | |||
An important reason why people could choose their society to be organized as a ''republic'' is the prospect of staying free of ]: 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 ]s 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 ]). On a different scale, kingdoms can be entangled in a specific flavour of religion: ] in ], ] in the ], ] in ]istic ] and many more examples. | |||
=== Other ancient republics === | |||
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 ], 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. ], an exception, envisioned a republic with a demanding state "civil religion": | |||
The term ''republic'' is not commonly used to refer to pre-classical city-states, especially if outside Europe and the area which was under Graeco-Roman influence.<ref name="Ideas2099"/> However some early states outside Europe had governments that are sometimes today considered similar to republics. | |||
* ]: the ], seeing that no single religion would do for all Americans, adopted the principle that the federal government would not support any established religion, as Massachusetts and Connecticut did.<ref>At first the states remained free to establish religions, but they had all disestablished their churches by 1836, and any residual option was eliminated in the 20th century by federal courts applying the First Amendment.</ref> | |||
* Besides being anti-monarchial, the ], leading to the ], was at least as much anti-religious, and led to the confiscation, pillage and/or destruction of many ]s, ]s, ]es and other religious buildings and/or communities<ref>see also ]</ref>. Although the French revolutionaries tried to institute civil religions to replace "uncivic" Catholicism, nevertheless, up to the ], '']'' can be seen to have a much more profound meaning in republican ] than in neighbouring countries ruled as monarchies<ref>Example: ] - a similar law was tentatively debated in Belgium, but deemed incompatible with the less profoundly ''secularized'' Belgian state.</ref>. | |||
In the ], a number of cities of the ] achieved collective rule. Republic city-states flourished in ] along the ]ine coast starting from the 11th century BC. In ancient Phoenicia, the concept of ] was very similar to a ]. Under ] (539–332 BC), Phoenician city-states such as ] abolished the king system and adopted "a system of the ] (judges), who remained in power for short mandates of 6 years".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Jidejian |first1=Nina |title=TYRE Through The Ages (3rd ed.) |date=2018 |publisher=Beirut: Librairie Orientale |isbn=9789953171050 |pages=57–99}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Medlej |first1=Youmna Jazzar |last2=Medlej |first2=Joumana |title=Tyre and its history |date=2010 |publisher=Beirut: Anis Commercial Printing Press s.a.l. |isbn=978-9953-0-1849-2 |pages=1–30}}</ref> ] 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.<ref>{{cite book | last1=Bernal | first1=M. | last2=Moore | first2=D.C. | title=Black Athena Writes Back: Martin Bernal Responds to His Critics | publisher=Duke University Press | series=History / Classics | year=2001 | isbn=978-0-8223-2717-2 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BcZuf-piTMwC | pages=-}}</ref>{{Unreliable source?|date= February 2018}} The ] confederation of the era of the ]<ref> | |||
Several states that called themselves republics have been fiercely anti-religious. This is particularly true for ] republics like the (former) ]s, ], ], and ]. | |||
{{cite book | |||
| last1 = Clarke | |||
| first1 = Adam | |||
| author-link1 = Adam Clarke | |||
| chapter = PREFACE To The BOOK OF JUDGES | |||
| title = The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments: The Text Printed from the Most Correct Copies of the Present Authorized Translation Including the Marginal Readings and Parallel Texts with a Commentary and Critical Notes Designed as a Help to a Better Understanding of the Sacred Writings | |||
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=a-Q8AAAAYAAJ | |||
| volume = 2 | |||
| location = New-York | |||
| publisher = N. Bangs and J. Emory | |||
| date = 1825 | |||
| page = 3 | |||
| access-date = 10 June 2019 | |||
| quote = The persons called Judges were the heads or chiefs of the Israelites who governed the Hebrew Republic from the days of Moses and Joshua, till the time of Saul. | |||
}} | |||
</ref> | |||
before the ] has also been considered a type of republic.<ref name="Ideas2099"/><ref> | |||
{{cite book | |||
| last1 = Everdell | |||
| first1 = William Romeyn | |||
| author-link1 = William Everdell | |||
| year = 1983 | |||
| chapter = Samuel and Solon: The Origins of the Republic in Tribalism | |||
| title = The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans | |||
| url = https://archive.org/details/endofkingshistor00ever | |||
| url-access = registration | |||
| edition = 2 | |||
| location = Chicago | |||
| publisher = University of Chicago Press | |||
| publication-date = 2000 | |||
| page = | |||
| isbn = 9780226224824 | |||
| access-date = 10 June 2019 | |||
| quote = Samuel has the distinction of being the first self-conscious republican in his society of whom we have nearly contemporary written record and of whose actual existence we can be reasonably sure. | |||
}} | |||
</ref><ref name="William R. Everdell 2000">{{Harvcoltxt|Everdell|2000}}</ref> The system of government of the ] in what is now ] has been described as "direct and participatory democracy".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Nwauwa |first1=Apollos O. |title=Concepts of Democracy and Democratization in Africa Revisited |url=http://upress.kent.edu/Nieman/Concepts_of_Democracy.htm |access-date=8 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120814023812/http://upress.kent.edu/Nieman/Concepts_of_Democracy.htm |archive-date=14 August 2012}}</ref> | |||
===Indian subcontinent=== | |||
====Republics highlighting state religion impact==== | |||
{{main|Gaṇasaṅgha}} | |||
Some countries or states prefer or preferred to organise themselves as a republic, ''precisely'' because it allows them to inscribe a more or less obligatory state religion in their constitution: ]s generally take this approach, but the same is also true (in varying degrees) for example in the ] state of ], in the ] republic that originated in the ] during the ]<ref>After the Duke of Anjou and the Earl of Leicester had declined the offer to become ruler of the Seven Provinces (see note above), ] 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 ]) that William of Orange was perceived as too lenient towards Catholicism to be acceptable as king for the Protestants.</ref>, and in the ] ], 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 ] system had done in the ]<ref>Although in Turkey the ensuing ''republic'' would become relatively tolerant towards other religions, the straight ] approach of the Millet system, that had allowed Christians and Jews to form state-in-state like communities, would remain unparallelled.</ref>) or change to another religion altogether (like the swapping of religions under the ]/]/]/] succession of ''monarchs'' in England). Such approach of an ideal republic based on a consolidated religious foundation played an important role for example in the ] of the ] in ], to be replaced by a ''republic'' with influential ]s (which is the term for religious leaders in that country), the most influential of which is called "]". | |||
Early republican institutions come from the independent ]s{{Mdash}}] means 'tribe' and ] means 'assembly'{{Mdash}}which may have existed as early as the 6th century BC and persisted in some areas until the 4th century AD in India. The evidence for this is scattered, however, and no pure historical source exists for that period. ], a Greek historian who wrote two centuries after the time of ]'s invasion of India (now Pakistan and northwest India) mentions, without offering any detail, that independent and democratic states existed in India.<ref>Diodorus 2.39{{full citation|date=December 2024}}</ref> Modern scholars note the word ''democracy'' at the time of the 3rd century BC and later suffered from degradation and could mean any autonomous state, no matter how aristocratic in nature.<ref>Larsen, 1973, pp. 45–46{{full citation|date=December 2024}}</ref><ref>de Sainte, 2006, pp. 321–3{{full citation|date=December 2024}}</ref> | |||
] were the sixteen most powerful and vast kingdoms and republics of the era; there were also a number of smaller kingdoms stretching the length and breadth of ]. Among the mahajanapadas and smaller states, the ]s, ]s, ]s, and ]s followed republican government.]] | |||
===Concepts of democracy=== | |||
Key characteristics of the {{transliteration|sa|gaṇa}} seem to include a ''gaṇa mukhya'' (chief), and a deliberative assembly. The assembly met regularly. It discussed all major state decisions. At least in some states, attendance was open to all free men. This body also had full financial, administrative, and judicial authority. Other officers, who rarely receive any mention, obeyed the decisions of the assembly. Elected by the {{transliteration|sa|gaṇa}}, the chief apparently always belonged to a family of the noble class of ''] ]''. The chief coordinated his activities with the assembly; in some states, he did so with a council of other nobles.<ref>Robinson, 1997, p. 22{{full citation|date=December 2024}}</ref> The ] had a primary governing body of 7,077 ''gaṇa mukhyas'', the heads of the most important families. On the other hand, the ]s, ]s, ]s, and ]s,{{Clarify|reason=There seems to be an apparent nonsequitur with the previous sentence regarding the Licchavis.|date=August 2023}} during the period around ], had the assembly open to all men, rich and poor.<ref>Robinson, 1997, p. 23{{full citation|date=December 2024}}</ref> Early republics or ],<ref name=Thapar>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-5irrXX0apQC&pg=PA147 |title=Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300|last=Thapar|first=Romila|author-link=Romila Thapar|year=2002|publisher=University of California|pages=146–150|access-date=28 October 2013|isbn=9780520242258}}</ref> such as Mallakas, centered in the city of ], and the ] (or Vṛjika) League, centered in the city of ], existed as early as the 6th century BC and persisted in some areas until the 4th century AD.<ref>Raychaudhuri Hemchandra (1972), ''Political History of Ancient India'', Calcutta: University of Calcutta, p.107</ref> The most famous clan amongst the ruling confederate clans of the Vajji ] were the Licchavis.<ref>{{cite book|title=Republics in ancient India|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zcoUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA93|publisher=Brill Archive|pages=93–|id=GGKEY:HYY6LT5CFT0}}</ref> The ] included republican communities such as the community of Rajakumara. Villages had their own assemblies under their local chiefs called ''gramakas''. Their administrations were divided into executive, judicial, and military functions. | |||
Republics are often associated with ], which seems natural if one acknowledges the meaning of the expression from which the word "republic" derives (see: ]). This association between "republic" and "democracy" is however far from a general understanding, even if acknowledging that there are ]<ref>See for example '']'' by ] - An original framer of the U.S. Constitution advocates a ''republic'' over a "democracy," or rather, an aristocratic republic over a democratic one. See ] for the ]s of the terms "democracy" and "republic" in the ] context when this article was written. Further clarification of this "democracy" vs "republic" idea in the US can be found in ]</ref>. This section tries to give an outline of which concepts of democracy are associated with which types of republics. | |||
Scholars differ over how best to describe these governments, and the vague, sporadic quality of the evidence allows for wide disagreements. Some emphasize the central role of the assemblies and thus tout them as democracies; other scholars focus on the upper-class domination of the leadership and possible control of the assembly and see an ].<ref name="Bongard">Bongard-Levin, 1996, pp. 61–106</ref><ref name="Sharma">Sharma 1968, pp. 109–22</ref> Despite the assembly's obvious power, it has not yet been established whether the composition and participation were truly popular. This is reflected in the '']'', an ancient handbook for monarchs on how to rule efficiently. It contains a chapter on how to deal with the {{transliteration|sa|saṅgha}}''s'', which includes injunctions on manipulating the noble leaders, yet it does not mention how to influence the mass of the citizens, indicating that the {{transliteration|sa|gaṇasaṅgha}} are more of an aristocratic republic, than democracy.<ref>Trautmann T. R., ''Kautilya and the Arthashastra'', Leiden 1971</ref> | |||
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 ]: before that in all democracies the ] depended on one's financial situation, ], ], or a combination of these and other factors. Many forms of government in previous times termed "democracy", including for instance the ], would, when transplanted to the early ] be classified as ] or a broad ], because of the rules on how votes were counted. | |||
=== Icelandic Commonwealth === | |||
In a ''Western'' approach, warned by the possible dangers and impracticality of ] described since antiquity<ref>Some of the earliest warnings in this sense came from ]' pupils ] and ] around 400 BC: indeed their friend Socrates had been condemned to death in an entirely "democratic" system at ], hence they preferred the ''less democratic'' ]n system of government. See also ] - ].</ref>, there was a convergence towards ], for republics as well as monarchies, from ] on. A direct democracy instrument like ]s is still basically mistrusted in many of the countries that adopted representative democracy. Nonetheless, some republics like ] have a great deal of direct democracy in their state organisation, with usually several issues put before the people by referendum every year. | |||
The Icelandic Commonwealth was established in 930 AD by refugees from ] who had fled the unification of that country under King ]. The Commonwealth consisted of a number of clans run by chieftains, and the ] was a combination of parliament and supreme court where disputes appealed from lower courts were settled, laws were decided, and decisions of national importance were taken. One such example was the ] in 1000, where the Althing decreed that all Icelanders must be baptized into Christianity, and forbade celebration of pagan rituals. Contrary to most states, the Icelandic Commonwealth had no official leader. | |||
In the early 13th century, the ], the Commonwealth began to suffer from long conflicts between warring clans. This, combined with pressure from the Norwegian king ] for the Icelanders to rejoin the Norwegian "family", led the Icelandic chieftains to accept Haakon IV as king by the signing of the ''Gamli sáttmáli'' ("]") in 1262. This effectively brought the Commonwealth to an end. The Althing, however, is still Iceland's parliament, almost 800 years later.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iceland-free-speech-20110403,0,5332545.story | work=Los Angeles Times | first=Henry | last=Chu | title=Iceland seeks to become sanctuary for free speech | date=April 2, 2011}}</ref> | |||
] inspired state organisations that, at the height of the ], had barely more than a few external appearances in common with Western types of democracies. That is, not withstanding that on an ideological level Marxism and ] sought to empower ]s. A Communist republic like ] ] 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. This approach to democracy is sometimes termed ], but the term is contentious: the intended result is often something in between direct democracy and ], but connotations may vary<ref>For instance in ] the expression "basic democracy" is tied to the epoch of the military dictature.</ref>. | |||
=== Mercantile republics === | |||
Some of the hardline ] lived on in the East, even after the ] fell. 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 phrase "People's Democratic Republic" was often synonymous with Marxist dictatorships during the Cold War. 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. | |||
], ''] offers the wealth of the sea to Venice'', 1748–1750. This painting is an allegory of the power of the ].]] | |||
In Europe new republics appeared in the late Middle Ages when a number of small states embraced republican systems of government. These were generally small, but wealthy, trading states, like the Mediterranean ] and the ], in which the merchant class had risen to prominence. Knud Haakonssen has noted that, by the ], Europe was divided with those states controlled by a landed elite being monarchies and those controlled by a commercial elite being republics.<ref name=Haakonssen /> | |||
===Influence of republicanism=== | |||
{{main|Republicanism}} | |||
Like ''Anti-monarchism'' and ''religious differences'', ] 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<ref>For example, what is known about the origins of the Roman Republic is based on works by ], ], ], 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.</ref>. | |||
Italy was the most densely populated area of Europe, and also one with the weakest central government. Many of the towns thus gained considerable independence and adopted commune forms of government. Completely free of feudal control, the Italian city-states expanded, gaining control of the rural hinterland.{{sfn|Finer|1999|pp=950-955}} The two most powerful were the ] and its rival the ]. Each were large trading ports, and further expanded by using naval power to control large parts of the Mediterranean. It was in Italy that an ideology advocating for republics first developed. Writers such as ], ], ], and Leonardo Bruni saw the medieval city-states as heirs to the legacy of Greece and Rome. | |||
Over time there were various mixtures of republicanism along with democratic theories of the rights of individuals, which (for instance in the ]) would find expression in the formation of liberal and socialist parties. What both ] and ] shared was the belief in the self-determination of peoples, and in individual human dignity. But they disagreed and continue to disagree on whether this required a republic, what is the ''exact'' use of the term "republic", and how economic life should be organized. This latter conflict is often described in terms of socialism (as an economic system) versus ] (the economic system promoted by liberals). The compromise between democracy and having an hereditary head of state is called ]. | |||
Across Europe a wealthy merchant class developed in the important trading cities. Despite their wealth they had little power in the ] dominated by the rural land owners, and across Europe began to advocate for their own privileges and powers. The more centralized states, such as France and England, granted limited city charters. | |||
There is however, for instance, no doubt that republicanism was a founding ideology of the ] and remains at the core of American political values. See ] | |||
]. Election of the first Head-Alderman'' in 1289, by Auguste Migette. ] was then a ] of the ].]] | |||
====In antiquity==== | |||
In ], a number of ] were established as republics by the ].<ref> by Steve Muhlberger, Associate Professor of History, Nipissing University.</ref> In the ], a number of cities of the ] achieved collective rule. ] 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.<ref>Martin Bernal, ''Black Athena Writes Back'' (Durham: Duke University Press, 2001), 359.</ref> | |||
In the more loosely governed ], 51 of the largest towns became ]. While still under the dominion of the ] most power was held locally and many adopted republican forms of government.{{sfn|Finer|1999|pp=950-955}} The same rights to imperial immediacy were secured by the major trading cities of Switzerland. The towns and villages of alpine ] had, courtesy of geography, also been largely excluded from central control. Unlike Italy and Germany, much of the rural area was thus not controlled by feudal barons, but by independent farmers who also used communal forms of government. When the ] tried to reassert control over the region both rural farmers and town merchants joined the rebellion. The ] were victorious, and the ] was proclaimed, and Switzerland has retained a republican form of government to the present.<ref name="William R. Everdell 2000"/> | |||
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 ] wrote the ] that later, in English speaking countries, became known as '']'' (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). Plato's own experiments with his political principles in ] were a failure. ]'s '']'', far from being able to redirect the Roman state to reinforce its republican form of government, rather reads as a prelude to the ] that indeed emerged soon after Cicero's death. | |||
Two Russian cities with a powerful merchant class—] and ]—also adopted republican forms of government in 12th and 13th centuries, respectively, which ended when the republics were conquered by ]/] at the end of 15th – beginning of 16th century.<ref>Ferdinand Joseph Maria Feldbrugge. ''Law in Medieval Russia'', IDC Publishers, 2009</ref> | |||
====In the renaissance==== | |||
The emergence of the ], 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 "]". Differences however remained regarding which kind of "mix" in a ] type of ideal state would be the most inherently ''republican''. For those republics that emerged after the publication of the Renaissance philosophies regarding republics, like the ''']''', 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). | |||
Following the collapse of the ] and establishment of the ] ], the ] merchant fraternities established a state centered on ] that is sometimes compared to the Italian mercantile republics. | |||
====Enlightenment republicanism==== | |||
] | |||
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''. This time the influence of the political ''thinkers'', like ], on the emergence of republics in America and France soon thereafter was unmistakable: ], ], etc were introduced with a certain degree of success in the new republics, along the lines of the major political thinkers of the day. | |||
The dominant form of government for these early republics was control by a limited council of elite ]. In those areas that held elections, property qualifications or guild membership limited both who could vote and who could run. In many states no direct elections were held and council members were hereditary or appointed by the existing council. This left the great majority of the population without political power, and riots and revolts by the lower classes were common. The late Middle Ages saw more than 200 such risings in the towns of the Holy Roman Empire.{{sfn|Finer|1999|pp=955-956}} Similar revolts occurred in Italy, notably the ] in Florence. | |||
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 requirement that governments reflect the ] of the people that were subject to that law, that governments act in the ], in ways which are understandable to the public at large, and that there be some means of ]. | |||
=== Calvinist republics === | |||
====Proletarian republicanism==== | |||
{{see also|European wars of religion}} | |||
The next major branch in political thinking was pushed forward by ], 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 ]<ref>See for instance ], ].</ref>. | |||
While the classical writers had been the primary ideological source for the republics of Italy, in Northern Europe, the ] would be used as justification for establishing new republics.{{sfn|Finer|1999|p=1020}} Most important was ] theology, which developed in the Swiss Confederacy, one of the largest and most powerful of the medieval republics. ] did not call for the abolition of monarchy, but he advanced the doctrine that the faithful had the duty to overthrow irreligious monarchs.<ref>"Republicanism". ''Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment'' p. 435</ref> Advocacy for republics appeared in the writings of the ] during the ].<ref>"Introduction". ''Republicanism: a Shared European Heritage''. By Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner. Cambridge University Press, 2002 p. 1</ref> | |||
Calvinism played an important role in the republican revolts in England and the Netherlands. Like the city-states of Italy and the Hanseatic League, both were important trading centres, with a large merchant class prospering from the trade with the New World. Large parts of the population of both areas also embraced Calvinism. During the ] (beginning in 1566), the ] emerged from rejection of ] rule. However, the country did not adopt the republican form of government immediately: in the formal declaration of independence (], 1581), the throne of ] was only declared vacant, and the Dutch magistrates asked the ], queen ] and prince ], one after another, to replace Philip. It took until 1588 before the ] (the ''Staten'', the representative assembly at the time) decided to vest the sovereignty of the country in themselves. | |||
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. | |||
In 1641 the ] began. Spearheaded by the ] and funded by the merchants of London, the revolt was a success, and ] was executed. In England ], ], and ] became some of the first writers to argue for rejecting monarchy and embracing a republican form of government. The ] was short-lived, and the monarchy was soon restored. The Dutch Republic continued in name until 1795, but by the mid-18th century the ] had become a ''de facto'' monarch. Calvinists were also some of the earliest settlers of the British and Dutch colonies of North America. | |||
====Islamic Republicanism==== | |||
Following decolonialization in the second half of 20th century, the ''political'' dimension of the Islam<ref>That ] would have a more ''intrinsic'' political dimension than most other religions is argued, among others, by ] () in his book ''Brieven van een Pers'' (Meulenhoff - ISBN 90-290-7522-8)</ref> knew a new impulse, leading to several ]s. 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 ]. While, however, there is no apparent reason why ] and related concepts of Islamic political thought should emerge in a ''republican'' form of government, the strife for Islamic republics is generally not qualified as a form of "republicanism". | |||
=== Liberal republics === | |||
===Economical factors=== | |||
{{multiple image | |||
The ancient concept of ], 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<ref>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.</ref> 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. In this reasoning neither the cities of the ], nor late 19th century ], nor the Netherlands during their ] emerging in the form of a republic comes as a surprise, all of them at the top of their wealth through commerce and societies with an influential and rich middle class. | |||
| align = right | |||
| direction = vertical | |||
| width = 200 | |||
| header = Liberal republics in early modern Europe | |||
| image1 = Place de la République - Marianne.jpg | |||
| caption1 = An allegory of the French Republic in Paris | |||
| image2 = Flag of the Septinsular Republic.svg | |||
| caption2 = ] flag from the early 1800s | |||
| image3 = Upprop för republik 1848.jpg | |||
| caption3 = A revolutionary Republican hand-written bill from the Stockholm riots during the ], reading: "Dethrone ] he is not fit to be a king: Long live the Republic! The Reform! down with the Royal house, long live {{lang|sv|]|italic=no}}! death to the king / Republic Republic the People. Brunkeberg this evening". The writer's identity is unknown. | |||
}} | |||
Along with these initial republican revolts, ] also saw a great increase in monarchical power. The era of ] replaced the limited and decentralized monarchies that had existed in most of the Middle Ages. It also saw a reaction against the total control of the monarch as a series of writers created the ideology known as ]. | |||
Most of these ] thinkers were far more interested in ideas of ] than in republics. The ] had discredited republicanism, and most thinkers felt that republics ended in either ] or ].<ref>"Republicanism". ''Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment'' p. 431</ref> Thus philosophers like ] opposed absolutism while at the same time being strongly pro-monarchy. | |||
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 '']'' or ]' 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. | |||
] and ] praised republics, and looked on the city-states of Greece as a model. However, both also felt that a state like France, with 20 million people, would be impossible to govern as a republic. Rousseau admired the ] (1755–1769) and described his ideal political structure of small, self-governing communes. Montesquieu felt that a city-state should ideally be a republic, but maintained that a limited monarchy was better suited to a state with a larger territory. | |||
===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 independency) several models exist: | |||
* Both over-arching structure and sub-states take the form of a republic (Example: ]) | |||
* The over-arching structure is a republic, while the sub-states are not necessarily (Example: ]); | |||
* The over-arching structure is not a republic, while the sub-states can be (Example: ], after the emergence of republics, like those of the ], within its realm). | |||
The ] began as a rejection only of the authority of the ] over the colonies, not of the monarchy. The failure of the British monarch to protect the colonies from what they considered the infringement of ], the monarch's branding of those requesting redress as traitors, and his support for sending combat troops to demonstrate authority resulted in widespread perception of the British monarchy as ]. | |||
====Sub-national republics==== | |||
In general being a republic also implies ] 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 ] were member states which had to meet three criteria to be named republics, | |||
:1) Be on the periphery of the Soviet Union so as to be able to take advantage of their theoretical right to secede, | |||
:2) Be economically strong enough to be self sufficient upon secession, And | |||
:3) 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 ] was also a supra-national republic, based on the claim that the member states were different ]. | |||
With the ] the leaders of the revolt firmly rejected the monarchy and embraced republicanism. The leaders of the revolution were well-versed in the writings of the French liberal thinkers, and also in the history of the classical republics. ] had notably written a book on republics throughout history. In addition, the widely distributed and popularly read-aloud tract '']'', by ], succinctly and eloquently laid out the case for republican ideals and independence to the larger public. The ], which went into effect in 1789, created a relatively strong ] to replace the relatively weak ] under the first attempt at a national government with the ] ratified in 1781. The first ten amendments to the Constitution called the ], guaranteed certain ] fundamental to republican ideals that justified the Revolution. | |||
States of the ] 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. | |||
The ] was also not republican at its outset. Only after the ] removed most of the remaining sympathy for the king was a republic declared and ] sent to the guillotine. The stunning success of France in the ] saw republics spread by force of arms across much of Europe as a series of ] were set up across the continent. The rise of ] saw the end of the ] and her ]s, each replaced by "]". Throughout the Napoleonic period, the victors extinguished many of the oldest republics on the continent, including the ], the ], and the ]. They were eventually transformed into monarchies or absorbed into neighboring monarchies. | |||
In the example of the ], the original 13 British ] became ] ]s after the ], each having a republican form of ]. These independent states initially formed a loose ] called the United States and then later formed the current United States by ratifying the current ], creating a ] of ] with the union or ] government also being a republic. States joining the union later were also required to be a republic. The United States could be argued to be a supra-national republic on the grounds that the original states were independent countries and was formed of several nations, most notably the original 13 colonies/states, the Republic of ], and the Kingdom of ], all of which would be considered "]" under a strict definition of the word. | |||
Outside Europe, another group of republics was created as the ] allowed the states of Latin America to gain their independence. Liberal ideology had only a limited impact on these new republics. The main impetus was the local European-descended ] population in conflict with the ]—governors sent from overseas. The majority of the population in most of Latin America was of either African or ] descent, and the Creole elite had little interest in giving these groups power and broad-based ]. ], both the main instigator of the revolts and one of its most important theorists, was sympathetic to liberal ideals but felt that Latin America lacked the social cohesion for such a system to function and advocated ] as necessary. | |||
====Supra-national republics==== | |||
Sovereign countries can decide to hand in a limited part of their sovereignty to a supra-national organisation. The most famous example of this, since the second half of the 20th century, is the emergence of the ], which models its organisation as a republic. That it would be a republic in a strict sense can be debated while the European Union is not a "country" in a strict sense. Being a republic is not part of the admission criteria for the member states<ref>see for example and in the text for </ref>. Although the largest political family of EU parlementaries has a Christian denomination, the ] would establish its form of government as ]<ref>After some fierce debate it was decided that the ] version of the Constitution proposal would not make any reference to the "Christian" roots (among other communal values) of Europe, see .</ref>. | |||
In Mexico, this autocracy briefly took the form of a monarchy in the ]. Due to the ], the Portuguese court was relocated to Brazil in 1808. Brazil gained ] as a monarchy on September 7, 1822, and the ] lasted until 1889. In many other Latin American states various forms of autocratic republic existed until most were liberalized at the end of the 20th century.<ref>"Latin American Republicanism" New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Ed. Maryanne Cline Horowitz. Vol. 5. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2005.</ref> | |||
The ], like the United States, is also formed by independent states creating a union, except that the member states of the European Union are not required to be a republic. The European Union currently is not classified as a country, however it is starting to exhibit behaviors similar to a ]. Regardless, the European Union could still be classified as a supra-national republic even if it were to exhibit powers similar to a state because it is made of many ]. | |||
{|style="float:center; clear:left; margin: 10px; border: 1px #CCCCCC solid; background:#F9F9F9" | |||
|- | |||
| align="center" |] | |||
| align="center" |] | |||
| align="center" |] | |||
| align="center" |] | |||
| align="center" |] | |||
|- | |||
|align=left|<small>]<ref>The ] and ] are counted amongst ]. Counted as republics are the ], the ], ], ] and ], the ], the ], the ] and the ]; however, member states of the German Confederation are also separately counted (35 monarchies).</ref><br /> | |||
{{Legend|#FF0000|Monarchies (55)}} | |||
{{Legend|#0000FF|Republics (9)}}</small> | |||
|align=left|<small>]<ref>The ] and ] are counted amongst Europe.</ref><br /> | |||
{{Legend|#FF0000|Monarchies (22)}} | |||
{{Legend|#0000FF|Republics (4)}}</small> | |||
|align=left|<small>]<ref>The Republic of Turkey is counted amongst Europe, the ] as a single republic, the ] as an independent monarchy (see also ]), Vatican City as an ], the ] as a nominal monarchy.</ref><br /> | |||
{{Legend|#FF0000|Monarchies (20)}} | |||
{{Legend|#0000FF|Republics (15)}}</small> | |||
|align=left|<small>]<ref>The ] is counted amongst ], the ] as a single republic, the ] as an independent republic, ] as an ], the ] as a nominal monarchy.</ref><br /> | |||
{{Legend|#FF0000|Monarchies (13)}} | |||
{{Legend|#0000FF|Republics (21)}}</small> | |||
|align=left|<small>]<ref>The ] is counted amongst ], the ] as a single republic, the ] (recognised by most other European states) as an independent republic, ] as an ]. ] is not shown on this map and is excluded from the count. The ] (recognised only by Turkey) and all other unrecognised states are excluded from the count.</ref><br /> | |||
{{Legend|#FF0000|Monarchies (12)}} | |||
{{Legend|#0000FF|Republics (35)}}</small> | |||
|} | |||
]'']'' (1848), a symbolic representation of the ]. Oil on canvas, 73 x 60 cm., The Louvre, Paris]] | |||
The ] was created in 1848 but abolished by ] who proclaimed himself Emperor in 1852. The ] was established in 1870 when a civil revolutionary committee refused to accept Napoleon III's surrender during the ]. Spain briefly became the ] in 1873–74, but the monarchy was soon restored. By the start of the 20th century France, Switzerland and San Marino remained the only republics in Europe. This changed when, after the 1908 ], the ] established the ]. | |||
] ] and the provisional President of the Republic ]]] | |||
==Examples of republics== | |||
In East Asia, China had seen considerable ] during the 19th century, and a number of protest movements developed calling for constitutional monarchy. The most important leader of these efforts was ], whose ] combined American, European, and Chinese ideas. Under his leadership, the ] was proclaimed on January 1, 1912. | |||
{{main|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 ]n Arab ], the State of ], the ] and the ]n ]. Israel and Russia, and even Myanmar and Libya, would meet many definitions of the term ''republic'', however. | |||
Republican ideas were spreading, especially in Asia. The United States began to have considerable influence in East Asia in the later part of the 19th century, with ] missionaries playing a central role. The liberal and republican writers of the West also exerted influence. These combined with native ] inspired political philosophy that had long argued that the populace had the right to reject unjust governments that had lost the ]. | |||
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 ]. | |||
* ], ] or ] - a federal union of states with a republican form of government. Examples include ], ], ], ], the ], ] and ]. | |||
* ] - Countries like ], ], ] are republics governed in accordance with Islamic law. (Note: ] is a distinct exception and is ''not'' included in this list; while the population is predominantly Muslim, the state is a staunchly secular republic.) | |||
* ] - for example, ] its name reflecting its theoretically pan-Arab ] government. | |||
* ] - Countries like ], ] 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 ]s. | |||
* ] - 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-]. Examples include the ] (no longer in existence) and the ]. | |||
* ] ('']'') - Both words (English and Polish) are derived from the Latin word ''res publica'' (literally "common affairs"). Used in Poland for the current ], and historical Nobles' Rzeczpospolita. | |||
* ] - Sometimes used as a label to indicate implementation of, or transition from a ] to, a republican form of government. Used for the ] under an ] government, while still remaining part of the ]. | |||
* ] has adopted since the adoption of the ] constitution the title of ] Republic of Venezuela. | |||
* Other modifiers are rooted in tradition and history and usually have no real political meaning. ], for instance, is the "Most Serene Republic" while ] is the "Eastern Republic". | |||
During this period, two short-lived republics were proclaimed in East Asia; the ] and the ]. | |||
==Republics in political theory== | |||
{{main|Republics in political theory}} | |||
In ] and political science, the term "republic" is generally applied to a ] where the government's ] 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 ]s, 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 ]. 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 ]. | |||
Republicanism expanded significantly in the aftermath of ] when several of the largest European empires collapsed: the ] (1917), ] (1918), ] (1918), and ] (1922) were all replaced by republics. New states gained independence during this turmoil, and many of these, such as ], ], ] and ], chose republican forms of government. Following Greece's defeat in the ], the monarchy was briefly replaced by the ] (1924–35). In 1931, the proclamation of the ] (1931–39) resulted in the ] leading to the establishment of a ]. | |||
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 exerces power as an autocrat is. In this sense political analysts may say that the ] 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 ] and the ] were both abolished by the terms of the peace treaty after the war, the Russian Empire overthrown by the ]. 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-WWI Germany, a ''de jure'' republic, would develop into a ''de facto'' autocracy by the mid ]: the new peace treaty, after the ], took more precaution in making the terms thus that also ''de facto'' (the Western part of) Germany would remain a republic. | |||
]]] | |||
The aftermath of ] left ] with a destroyed economy, a divided society, and anger against the monarchy for its endorsement of the ]. These frustrations contributed to a revival of the Italian republican movement.<ref>{{Citation|year=1970|title=Italia|encyclopedia=Dizionario enciclopedico italiano|volume=VI|page=456|publisher=]|language=it}}</ref> King ] was pressured to call the ] to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic.<ref>{{cite book|language=fr|first=Paul|last=Guichonnet|title=Histoire de l'Italie|publisher=Presses universitaires de France|year=1975|page=121}} {{No ISBN}}</ref> The supporters of the republic chose the effigy of the '']'', the ] of Italy, as their unitary symbol to be used in the electoral campaign and on the referendum ballot on the institutional form of the State, in contrast to the ], which represented the monarchy.<ref>{{cite book|last=Bazzano|first=Nicoletta |title=Donna Italia. L'allegoria della Penisola dall'antichità ai giorni nostri|url = https://www.academia.edu/15080772 |year=2011 |publisher=Angelo Colla Editore|language=it|isbn=978-88-96817-06-3|page=72}}</ref> On June 2, 1946 the republican side won 54.3% of the vote and Italy officially became a republic,<ref>{{cite book|language=it|first=Giorgio|last=Bocca|author-link=Giorgio Bocca|title=Storia della Repubblica italiana|publisher=Rizzoli|year=1981|pages=14–16}} {{No ISBN}}</ref> a day celebrated since as '']''. Italy has a written democratic ], resulting from the work of a ] formed by the representatives of all the ] forces that contributed to the defeat of Nazi and Fascist forces during the ].<ref>Smyth, Howard McGaw Italy: From Fascism to the Republic (1943–1946) ''The Western Political Quarterly'' vol. 1 no. 3 (pp. 205–222), September 1948.{{JSTOR|442274}}</ref> | |||
==Notes and references== | |||
<references/> | |||
=== Decolonization === | |||
] | |||
In the years following ], most of the remaining European colonies gained their independence, and most became republics. The two largest colonial powers were France and the United Kingdom. Republican France encouraged the establishment of republics in its former colonies. The United Kingdom attempted to follow the model it had for its earlier settler colonies of creating independent ]s still linked under the same monarch. While most of the settler colonies and the smaller states in the ] and the ] retained this system, it was rejected by the newly independent countries in ] and ], which revised their constitutions and became ]s instead. | |||
Britain followed a different model in the Middle East; it installed local monarchies in several colonies and mandates including ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. In subsequent decades revolutions and ]s overthrew a number of monarchs and installed republics. Several monarchies remain, and the Middle East is the only part of the world where several large states are ruled by monarchs with almost complete political control.<ref>Anderson, Lisa. "Absolutism and the Resilience of Monarchy in the Middle East." ''Political Science Quarterly'', Vol. 106, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 1–15</ref> | |||
=== Socialist republics === | |||
{{See also|People's Republic|Socialist state}} | |||
In the wake of the First World War, the Russian monarchy fell during the ]. The ] was established in its place on the lines of a liberal republic, but this was overthrown by the ] who went on to establish the ] (USSR). This was the first republic established under ] ideology. Communism was wholly opposed to monarchy and became an important element of many republican movements during the 20th century. The Russian Revolution spread into ] and overthrew its theocratic monarchy in 1924. In the aftermath of the Second World War, the communists gradually gained control of ], ], ], ] and ], ensuring that the states were reestablished as socialist republics rather than monarchies. | |||
Communism also intermingled with other ideologies. It was embraced by many national liberation movements during ]. In Vietnam, communist republicans pushed aside the ], and monarchies in neighbouring ] and ] were overthrown by communist movements in the 1970s. ] contributed to a series of revolts and coups that saw the monarchies of ], Iraq, Libya, and Yemen ousted. In Africa, Marxism–Leninism and ] led to the end of monarchy and the proclamation of republics in states such as ] and ]. | |||
==Constitution== | |||
A republic does not necessarily have a ] but is often constitutional in the sense of ], meaning that it is constituted by a set of institutions which provide a ]. The term '''constitutional republic''' is a way to highlight an emphasis on the separation of powers in a given republic, as with ] or ] highlighting the absolute ] character of a ]. | |||
== Head of state == | |||
=== Structure === | |||
{{Systems of government}} | |||
With no monarch, most modern republics use the title ] for the ]. Originally used to refer to the presiding officer of a committee or governing body in Great Britain the usage was also applied to political leaders, including the leaders of some of the ] (originally Virginia in 1608); in full, the "President of the Council".<ref>], ''s. v.''</ref> The first republic to adopt the title was the ]. Keeping its usage as the head of a committee the ] was the leader of the original congress. When the new constitution was written the title of ] was conferred on the head of the new ]. | |||
If the head of state of a republic is also the ], this is called a ]. There are a number of forms of presidential government. A full-presidential system has a president with substantial authority and a central political role. | |||
In other states the legislature is dominant and the presidential role is almost purely ceremonial and apolitical, such as in ], ], ], and ]. These states are ]s and operate similarly to constitutional monarchies with ]s where the power of the monarch is also greatly circumscribed. In parliamentary systems the head of government, most often titled ], exercises the most real political power. ]s have a president as an active head of state with important powers, but they also have a prime minister as a head of government with important powers. | |||
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 ] and the president come from opposing political factions, this situation is called ]. | |||
In some countries, like ], ], and ], the head of state is not a single person but a committee (council) of several persons holding that office. The Roman Republic had two ]s, elected for a one-year term by the '']'', consisting of all adult, freeborn males who could prove citizenship. | |||
=== Elections === | |||
In ], presidents are elected, either directly by the people or indirectly by a parliament or council. Typically in presidential and semi-presidential systems the president is directly elected by the people or is indirectly elected as done in the United States. In that country, the president is officially elected by an ], chosen by the States. All U.S. States have chosen electors by popular election since 1832. The indirect election of the president through the electoral college conforms to the concept of the republic as one with a system of indirect election. In the opinion of some, direct election confers ] upon the president and gives the office much of its political power.<ref>"Presidential Systems" ''Governments of the World: A Global Guide to Citizens' Rights and Responsibilities''. Ed. C. Neal Tate. Vol. 4. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2006. pp. 7–11.</ref> However, this concept of legitimacy differs from that expressed in the United States Constitution which established the legitimacy of the United States president as resulting from the signing of the Constitution by nine states.<ref>Article VII, Constitution of the United States</ref> The idea that direct election is required for legitimacy also contradicts the spirit of the ], whose actual result was manifest in the clause<ref>Article II, Para 2, Constitution of the United States</ref> that provides voters in smaller states with more representation in presidential selection than those in large states; for example citizens of Wyoming in 2016 had 3.6 times as much electoral vote representation as citizens of ].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-petrocelli/its-time-to-end-the-electoral-college_b_12891764.html|title=Voters In Wyoming Have 3.6 Times The Voting Power That I Have. It's Time To End The Electoral College|first=William|last=Petrocelli|date=10 November 2016|website=huffingtonpost.com}}</ref> | |||
In states with a parliamentary system, the president is usually elected by the parliament. This indirect election subordinates the president to the parliament, and also gives the president limited legitimacy and turns most presidential powers into ]s that can only be exercised under rare circumstances. There are exceptions where elected presidents have only ceremonial powers, such as in ]. | |||
=== Ambiguities === | |||
The distinction between a republic and a monarchy is not always clear. The ] of the former British Empire and Western Europe today have almost all real political power vested in the elected representatives, with the monarchs only holding either theoretical powers, no powers or rarely used reserve powers. Real legitimacy for political decisions comes from the elected representatives and is derived from the will of the people. While hereditary monarchies remain in place, political power is derived from the people as in a republic. These states are thus sometimes referred to as ]s.<ref>The novelist and essayist ] regularly used the term crowned republic to describe the United Kingdom, for instance in his work ''A Short History of the World''. ] in his poem '' ''.</ref> | |||
Terms such as "liberal republic" are also used to describe all of the modern liberal democracies.<ref>]. "The Identity of the Bourgeois Liberal Republic". The Invention of the Modern Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.</ref> | |||
There are also self-proclaimed republics that act similarly to absolute monarchies with absolute power vested in the leader and passed down from father to son. North Korea and Syria are two notable examples where a son has inherited political control. Neither of these states are officially monarchies. There is no constitutional requirement that power be passed down within one family, but it has occurred in practice. | |||
There are also ] where ultimate power is vested in a monarch, but the monarch is chosen by some manner of election. A current example of such a state is ] where the ] is elected every five years by the ] composed of the nine hereditary rulers of the ], and the ], where the ] is selected by cardinal-electors, currently all ] under the age of 80. While rare today, elective monarchs were common in the past. The Holy Roman Empire is an important example, where each new emperor was chosen by a group of electors. Islamic states also rarely employed ], instead relying on various forms of election to choose a monarch's successor. | |||
The ] had an elective monarchy, with a wide suffrage of some 500,000 nobles. The system, known as the ], had developed as a method for powerful landowners to control the crown. The proponents of this system looked to classical examples, and the writings of the Italian Renaissance, and called their elective monarchy a '']'', based on ''res publica''. | |||
== Sub-national republics == | |||
{{Unreferenced section|date=June 2015}} | |||
]"]] | |||
In general being a republic also implies ] 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 ] 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. | |||
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 ]s. | |||
The ] was a federal entity composed of six republics (Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia). Each republic had its parliament, government, institute of citizenship, constitution, etc., but certain functions were delegated to the federation (army, monetary matters). Each republic also had a right of ] according to the conclusions of the ] and according to the ]. | |||
]]] | |||
In Switzerland, ] can be considered to have a republican form of government, with constitutions, legislatures, executives and courts; many of them being originally sovereign states. As a consequence, several ] cantons are still officially referred to as republics, reflecting their history and will of independence within the Swiss Confederation. Notable examples are the ] and the ].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/fr/articles/009925/2011-12-23/ |title=République |language=fr |publisher=] |quote=Les nouveaux cantons de la Suisse latine choisirent le titre de république, qui soulignait leur indépendance, alors que "canton" met l'accent sur l'appartenance à la Confédération; Genève, Neuchâtel et le Tessin l'ont conservé jusqu'à nos jours. |trans-quote=The new cantons of Latin Switzerland chose the title of republic, which underlined their independence, while "canton" emphasizes membership of the Confederation; Geneva, Neuchâtel and Ticino have kept it to this day.|access-date=1 February 2021}}</ref> | |||
], a sub-national entity.]] | |||
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 founders of the country intended most domestic laws to be handled by the states. 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 ] became ] 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 ], creating a ] that was a republic. Any state joining the union later was also required to be a republic. | |||
== Other meanings == | |||
{{republicanism sidebar}} | |||
===Archaic meaning=== | |||
Before the 17th Century, the term 'republic' could be used to refer to states of any form of government as long as it was not a tyrannical regime. French philosopher ]'s definition of the republic was "the rightly ordered government of a number of families, and of those things which are their common concern, by a sovereign power." Oligarchies and monarchies could also be included as they were also organised toward 'public' shared interests.<ref name="Munro">{{cite web |first1=André |last1=Munro |title=republic |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government |website=Encyclopedia Britannica |access-date=15 Dec 2021}}</ref> In medieval texts, 'republic' was used to refer to the body of shared interest with the king at its head.<ref>{{cite book |first1=Frank Anthony Carl |last1=Mantello |first2=A. G. |last2=Rigg |title=Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide |date=1996 |publisher=CUA Press |isbn=9780813208428 |page=209 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Bb32Th4WAK0C&pg=PA209 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Glenn |first1=Jason |title=Politics and History in the Tenth Century: The Work and World of Richer of Reims |date=2004 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9780521834872 |page=246 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tkPcvsHbsiIC&pg=PA246 }}</ref> For instance, the ] was also known as the ''Sancta Respublica Romana'', the Holy Roman Republic.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Christopher Dawson |title=The Making of Europe: An Introduction to the History of European Unity |date=2002 |publisher=CUA Press |isbn=9780813210834 |page=101}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Giuliano Amato, Enzo Moavero-Milanesi, Gianfranco Pasquino, Lucrezia Reichlin |title=The History of the European Union: Constructing Utopia |date=2019 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=9781509917426 |page=17}}</ref> The ] also continued calling itself ''the Roman Republic'' as the Byzantines did not regard monarchy as a contradiction to republicanism. Instead, republics were defined as any state based on popular sovereignty and whose institutions were based on shared values.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Anthony Kaldellis |title=Ethnography After Antiquity: Foreign Lands and Peoples in Byzantine Literature |date=2013 |publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press |isbn=9780812208405 |page=14}}</ref> | |||
=== Democracy vs. republic debate === | |||
{{See also|Democratic republic}} | |||
While the term ] has been used interchangeably with the term republic by some, others have made sharp distinctions between the two for millennia. "Montesquieu, founder of the modern constitutional state, repeated in his The Spirit of the Laws of 1748 the insight that Aristotle had expressed two millennia earlier, 'Voting by lot is in the nature of democracy; voting by choice is in the nature of aristocracy.{{'"}}<ref name=":6">Van Reybrouck, David. ''Against Elections'' (p. 75). Seven Stories Press. 2016.</ref> Additional critics of elections include ], ], and ], who said of the new French Republic, "What use is it to us, that we have broken the aristocracy of the nobles, if that is replaced by the aristocracy of the rich?"<ref name=":4">Van Reybrouck, David. ''Against Elections'' (p. 85). Seven Stories Press. 2016.</ref> | |||
=== Political philosophy === | |||
{{Main|Republicanism}} | |||
The term ''republic'' originated from the writers of the ] as a descriptive term for states that were not monarchies. These writers, such as Machiavelli, also wrote important prescriptive works describing how such governments should function. These ideas of how a government and society should be structured is the basis for an ideology known as ] or ]. This ideology is based on the Roman Republic and the city states of Ancient Greece and focuses on ideals such as ], ] and mixed government.<ref>" {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180309140336/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/ |date=2018-03-09 }}" ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. Jun 19, 2006</ref> | |||
This understanding of a republic as a form of government distinct from a ] is one of the main theses of the Cambridge School of historical analysis.<ref>McCormick, John P. "Machiavelli against Republicanism: On the Cambridge School's 'Guicciardinian Moments{{'"}} ''Political Theory'', Vol. 31, No. 5 (Oct., 2003), pp. 615–43</ref> This grew out of the work of ] who in 1975 argued that a series of scholars had expressed a consistent set of republican ideals. These writers included Machiavelli, Milton, Montesquieu and the founders of the United States of America. | |||
Pocock argued that this was an ideology with a history and principles distinct from liberalism.<ref>Pocock, J. G. A ''The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition'' Princeton: 1975, 2003</ref> These ideas were embraced by a number of different writers, including ], ]<ref>Philip Pettit, ''Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government'', NY: Oxford U.P., 1997, {{ISBN|0-19-829083-7}}; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.</ref> and ]. These subsequent writers have further explored the history of the idea, and also outlined how a modern republic should function. | |||
=== United States === | |||
{{Main|Republicanism in the United States}} | |||
A distinct set of definitions of the term "republic" evolved in the United States, where the term is often equated with "]." This narrower understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison<ref>{{Cite web|title=Democracy - Democracy or republic?|url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy|access-date=2021-06-27|website=Encyclopedia Britannica|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=What Is a Democracy? |url=https://www.ushistory.org/gov/1c.asp|access-date=2021-06-27|website=www.ushistory.org}}</ref> and notably employed in ]. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in ]'s dictionary of 1828.<ref>{{Cite web|title=SEARCHING -word- for :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com|url=https://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,republic|access-date=2021-06-27|website=1828.mshaffer.com}}</ref> It was a novel meaning to the term; representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Everdell|2000}} p. 6</ref> There is also evidence that contemporaries of Madison considered the meaning of "republic" to reflect the broader definition found elsewhere, as is the case with a quotation of ] taken from the notes of ] where the question is put forth, "a Republic or a Monarchy?".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html|title=1593. Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790). Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. 1989|date=25 June 2022 }}</ref> | |||
The term republic does not appear in the ], but it does appear in Article IV of the Constitution, which "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." What exactly the writers of the constitution felt this should mean is uncertain. The ], in '']'' (1849), declared that the definition of ''republic'' was a "]" in which it would not intervene. In two later cases, it did establish a basic definition. In '']'' (1875), the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of a republic. | |||
However, the term republic is not synonymous with the republican form. The republican form is defined as one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.<ref>''In re Duncan'', 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; ''Minor v. Happersett'', 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.</ref><ref>GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government) – One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly ... Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 695</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=Multiple ellipses in cited quotation, reference is also specific to legal terminology, not common language.|date=December 2018}} | |||
Beyond these basic definitions, the word republic has a number of other connotations. W. Paul Adams observes that republic is most often used in the United States as a synonym for "state" or "government," but with more positive connotations than either of those terms.<ref>W. Paul Adams "Republicanism in Political Rhetoric Before 1776". ''Political Science Quarterly'', Vol. 85, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), pp. 397–421</ref> Republicanism is often referred to as the founding ideology of the United States.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Wood|first=Gordon|date=April 1990|title=Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution|url=https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2785&context=cklawreview|journal=Chicago-Kent Law Review|volume=66|pages=13–20 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230307154456/https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2785&context=cklawreview |archive-date= Mar 7, 2023 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last1=Hutchins|first1=Thomas|last2=Washington|first2=George|last3=Paine|first3=Thomas|last4=Jefferson|first4=Thomas|last5=Adams|first5=John|last6=Fadden|first6=Will|date=2008-04-12|title=Founded on a Set of Beliefs - Creating the United States {{!}} Exhibitions |url=https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/founded-on-a-set-of-beliefs.html|access-date=2021-06-27|website=Library of Congress }}</ref> Traditionally scholars believed this American republicanism was a derivation of the classical liberal ideologies of ] and others developed in Europe.<ref name=":0" /> | |||
In the 1960s and 1970s, ] began to argue that republicanism was just as, or even more important than liberalism in the creation of the United States.<ref>Bailyn, Bernard. ''The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution''. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967.</ref> This issue is still much disputed and scholars like ] completely reject this view.<ref>Kramnick, Isaac. ''Republicanism and Bourgeois Radicalism: Political Ideology in Late Eighteenth-Century England and America''. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990.</ref> | |||
== See also == | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] of the U.S. Constitution | |||
== References == | |||
{{Reflist}} | |||
* {{cite book | last=Finer | first=S.E. | title=The History of Government from the Earliest Times: Volume II: The Intermediate Ages | publisher=OUP Oxford | year=1999 | isbn=978-0-19-820790-0 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AhEab85xHAMC }} | |||
==Further reading== | ==Further reading== | ||
] | |||
* ], '']'' (1762) | |||
* Martin van Gelderen & ], eds., ''Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage'', v. 1, ''Republicanism and Constitutionalism in Early Modern Europe'', Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2002 | |||
*], The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans, 1983, 2nd ed., Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 2000 | |||
*Martin van Gelderen & |
* Martin van Gelderen & Quentin Skinner, eds., ''Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage'', v. 2, ''The Values of Republicanism in Early Modern Europe'', Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2002 | ||
* Willi Paul Adams, "Republicanism in Political Rhetoric before 1776", ''Political Science Quarterly'' 85(1970), pp. 397–421. | |||
*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 | |||
* |
* Joyce Appleby, "Republicanism in Old and New Contexts", in ''William & Mary Quarterly'', 3rd series, 43 (January, 1986), pp. 3–34. | ||
* Joyce Appleby, ed., "Republicanism" issue of ''American Quarterly'' 37 (Fall, 1985). | |||
* Frédéric Monera, L'idée de République et la jurisprudence du Conseil constitutionnel - Paris : L.G.D.J., 2004 -; | |||
* Sarah Barber, ''Regicide and Republicanism: Politics and Ethics in the English Republic, 1646–1649'', Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998. | |||
* Gisela Bock, Quentin Skinner & Maurizio Viroli, eds., ''Machiavelli and Republicanism'', Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1990. | |||
* {{citation|first=William R. |last=Everdell |title=The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans |edition=2nd |location=Chicago |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=2000}} | |||
* Eric Gojosso, ''Le concept de république en France (XVIe – XVIIIe siècle)'', Aix/Marseille, 1998, pp. 205–45. | |||
* James Hankins, "Exclusivist Republicanism and the Non-Monarchical Republic", ''Political Theory'' 38.4 (August 2010), 452–82. | |||
* Frédéric Monera, ''L'idée de République et la jurisprudence du Conseil constitutionnel'' – Paris: L.G.D.J., 2004 , | |||
* Philip Pettit, ''Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government'', Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997, pp. x and 304. | |||
* J. G. A. Pocock, ''The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition'', Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975 | |||
* J. G. A. Pocock, "Between Gog and Magog: The Republican Thesis and the Ideologia Americana", ''Journal of the History of Ideas'' 48 (1987), p. 341 | |||
* J. G. A. Pocock, "''The Machiavellian Moment'' Revisited: A Study in History and Ideology" ''Journal of Modern History'' 53 (1981) | |||
* Paul A. Rahe, ''Republics Ancient and Modern: Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution'', 3 v., Chapel Hill: U. of North Carolina Press 1992, 1994. | |||
* Jagdish P. Sharma, ''Republics in ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C.'', 1968 | |||
* David Wootton, ed., ''Republicanism, Liberty, and Commercial Society, 1649–1776'' (The Making of Modern Freedom series), Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994. | |||
== External links == | |||
*{{Commons category-inline|Republic}} | |||
*{{Commons category-inline|Republics}} | |||
*{{Wiktionary-inline|republic}} | |||
*{{Wikiquote-inline}} | |||
*]. . {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190324141847/http://www.reasoninrevolt.net.au/objects/pdf/a000109.pdf |date=2019-03-24 }} (7th ISECS, Budapest, 7/31/87). ''Valley Forge Journal''. June 1991. | |||
{{Authority control}} | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] |
Latest revision as of 22:00, 20 December 2024
Form of government This article is about the form of government. For the political ideology, see Republicanism. For other uses, see Republic (disambiguation).
Part of the Politics series | ||||||||
Basic forms of government | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
List of countries by system of government | ||||||||
Source of power
|
||||||||
Power ideology
|
||||||||
Power structure |
||||||||
Related |
||||||||
Politics portal | ||||||||
A republic, based on the Latin phrase res publica ('public affair'), is a state in which political power rests with the public through their representatives—in contrast to a monarchy. Although a republic is most often a single sovereign state, subnational state entities that have governments that are republican in nature may be referred to as republics.
Representation in a republic may or may not be freely elected by the general citizenry. In many historical republics, representation has been based on personal status and the role of elections has been limited. This remains true today; among the 159 states that use republic in their official names as of 2017, and other states formally constituted as republics, are states that narrowly constrain both the right of representation and the process of election.
The term developed its modern meaning in reference to the constitution of the ancient Roman Republic, lasting from the overthrow of the kings in 509 BC to the establishment of the Empire in 27 BC. This constitution was characterized by a Senate composed of wealthy aristocrats wielding significant influence; several popular assemblies of all free citizens, possessing the power to elect magistrates from the populace and pass laws; and a series of magistracies with varying types of civil and political authority.
Etymology
See also: Res publica and CivitasThe term originates from the Latin translation of Greek word politeia. Cicero, among other Latin writers, translated politeia into Latin as res publica, and it was in turn translated by Renaissance scholars as republic (or similar terms in various European languages). The term can literally be translated as 'public matter'. It was used by Roman writers to refer to the state and government, even during the period of the Roman Empire.
The term politeia can be translated as form of government, polity, or regime, and it does not necessarily imply any specific type of regime as the modern word republic sometimes does. One of Plato's major works on political philosophy, usually known in English as The Republic, was titled Politeia. However, apart from the title, modern translations are generally used. Aristotle was apparently the first classical writer to state that the term politeia can be used to refer more specifically to one type of politeia, asserting in Book III of his Politics: "When the citizens at large govern for the public good, it is called by the name common to all governments (to koinon onoma pasōn tōn politeiōn), government (politeia)". In later Latin works the term republic can also be used in a general way to refer to any regime, or to refer specifically to governments which work for the public good.
In medieval Northern Italy, a number of city states had commune or signoria based governments. In the late Middle Ages, writers such as Giovanni Villani described these states using terms such as libertas populi, a free people. The terminology changed in the 15th century as the renewed interest in the writings of Ancient Rome caused writers to prefer classical terminology. To describe non-monarchical states, writers (most importantly, Leonardo Bruni) adopted the Latin phrase res publica.
While Bruni and Machiavelli used the term to describe the states of Northern Italy, which were not monarchies, the term res publica has a set of interrelated meanings in the original Latin. In subsequent centuries, the English word commonwealth came to be used as a translation of res publica, and its use in English was comparable to how the Romans used the term res publica. Notably, during The Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell the word commonwealth was the most common term to call the new monarchless state, but the word republic was also in common use.
History
While the philosophical terminology developed in classical Greece and Rome, as already noted by Aristotle there was already a long history of city states with a wide variety of constitutions, not only in Greece but also in the Middle East. After the classical period, during the Middle Ages, many free cities developed again, such as Venice.
Since the Age of Revolution the term republic has described a system of government in which the source of authority for the government is a constitution and the legitimacy of its officials derives from the consent of the people rather than heredity or divine right.
Classical republics
Main article: Classical republicThe modern type of republic itself is different from any type of state found in the classical world. Nevertheless, there are a number of states of the classical era that are today still called republics. This includes ancient Athens and the Roman Republic. While the structure and governance of these states was different from that of any modern republic, there is debate about the extent to which classical, medieval, and modern republics form a historical continuum. J. G. A. Pocock has argued that a distinct republican tradition stretches from the classical world to the present. Other scholars disagree. Paul Rahe, for instance, argues that the classical republics had a form of government with few links to those in any modern country.
The political philosophy of the classical republics has influenced republican thought throughout the subsequent centuries. Philosophers and politicians advocating republics, such as Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Adams, and Madison, relied heavily on classical Greek and Roman sources which described various types of regimes.
Aristotle's Politics discusses various forms of government. One form Aristotle named politeia, which consisted of a mixture of the other forms, oligarchy and democracy. He argued that this was one of the ideal forms of government. Polybius expanded on many of these ideas, again focusing on the idea of mixed government and differentiated basic forms of government between "benign" monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, and the "malignant" tyranny, oligarchy, and ochlocracy. The most important Roman work in this tradition is Cicero's De re publica.
Over time, the classical republics became empires or were conquered by empires. Most of the Greek republics were annexed to the Macedonian Empire of Alexander. The Roman Republic expanded dramatically, conquering the other states of the Mediterranean that could be considered republics, such as Carthage. The Roman Republic itself then became the Roman Empire.
Other ancient republics
The term republic is not commonly used to refer to pre-classical city-states, especially if outside Europe and the area which was under Graeco-Roman influence. However some early states outside Europe had governments that are sometimes today considered similar to republics.
In the ancient Near East, a number of cities of the Eastern Mediterranean achieved collective rule. Republic city-states flourished in Phoenicia along the Levantine coast starting from the 11th century BC. In ancient Phoenicia, the concept of Shophet was very similar to a Roman consul. Under Persian rule (539–332 BC), Phoenician city-states such as Tyre abolished the king system and adopted "a system of the suffetes (judges), who remained in power for short mandates of 6 years". 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. The Israelite confederation of the era of the Judges before the United Monarchy has also been considered a type of republic. The system of government of the Igbo people in what is now Nigeria has been described as "direct and participatory democracy".
Indian subcontinent
Main article: GaṇasaṅghaEarly republican institutions come from the independent gaṇasaṅghas—gaṇa means 'tribe' and saṅgha means 'assembly'—which may have existed as early as the 6th century BC and persisted in some areas until the 4th century AD in India. The evidence for this is scattered, however, and no pure historical source exists for that period. Diodorus, a Greek historian who wrote two centuries after the time of Alexander the Great's invasion of India (now Pakistan and northwest India) mentions, without offering any detail, that independent and democratic states existed in India. Modern scholars note the word democracy at the time of the 3rd century BC and later suffered from degradation and could mean any autonomous state, no matter how aristocratic in nature.
Key characteristics of the gaṇa seem to include a gaṇa mukhya (chief), and a deliberative assembly. The assembly met regularly. It discussed all major state decisions. At least in some states, attendance was open to all free men. This body also had full financial, administrative, and judicial authority. Other officers, who rarely receive any mention, obeyed the decisions of the assembly. Elected by the gaṇa, the chief apparently always belonged to a family of the noble class of Kshatriya Varna. The chief coordinated his activities with the assembly; in some states, he did so with a council of other nobles. The Licchavis had a primary governing body of 7,077 gaṇa mukhyas, the heads of the most important families. On the other hand, the Shakyas, Koliyas, Mallakas, and Licchavis, during the period around Gautama Buddha, had the assembly open to all men, rich and poor. Early republics or gaṇasaṅgha, such as Mallakas, centered in the city of Kusinagara, and the Vajjika (or Vṛjika) League, centered in the city of Vaishali, existed as early as the 6th century BC and persisted in some areas until the 4th century AD. The most famous clan amongst the ruling confederate clans of the Vajji Mahajanapada were the Licchavis. The Empire of Magadha included republican communities such as the community of Rajakumara. Villages had their own assemblies under their local chiefs called gramakas. Their administrations were divided into executive, judicial, and military functions.
Scholars differ over how best to describe these governments, and the vague, sporadic quality of the evidence allows for wide disagreements. Some emphasize the central role of the assemblies and thus tout them as democracies; other scholars focus on the upper-class domination of the leadership and possible control of the assembly and see an aristocracy. Despite the assembly's obvious power, it has not yet been established whether the composition and participation were truly popular. This is reflected in the Arthashastra, an ancient handbook for monarchs on how to rule efficiently. It contains a chapter on how to deal with the saṅghas, which includes injunctions on manipulating the noble leaders, yet it does not mention how to influence the mass of the citizens, indicating that the gaṇasaṅgha are more of an aristocratic republic, than democracy.
Icelandic Commonwealth
The Icelandic Commonwealth was established in 930 AD by refugees from Norway who had fled the unification of that country under King Harald Fairhair. The Commonwealth consisted of a number of clans run by chieftains, and the Althing was a combination of parliament and supreme court where disputes appealed from lower courts were settled, laws were decided, and decisions of national importance were taken. One such example was the Christianisation of Iceland in 1000, where the Althing decreed that all Icelanders must be baptized into Christianity, and forbade celebration of pagan rituals. Contrary to most states, the Icelandic Commonwealth had no official leader.
In the early 13th century, the Age of the Sturlungs, the Commonwealth began to suffer from long conflicts between warring clans. This, combined with pressure from the Norwegian king Haakon IV for the Icelanders to rejoin the Norwegian "family", led the Icelandic chieftains to accept Haakon IV as king by the signing of the Gamli sáttmáli ("Old Covenant") in 1262. This effectively brought the Commonwealth to an end. The Althing, however, is still Iceland's parliament, almost 800 years later.
Mercantile republics
In Europe new republics appeared in the late Middle Ages when a number of small states embraced republican systems of government. These were generally small, but wealthy, trading states, like the Mediterranean maritime republics and the Hanseatic League, in which the merchant class had risen to prominence. Knud Haakonssen has noted 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.
Italy was the most densely populated area of Europe, and also one with the weakest central government. Many of the towns thus gained considerable independence and adopted commune forms of government. Completely free of feudal control, the Italian city-states expanded, gaining control of the rural hinterland. The two most powerful were the Republic of Venice and its rival the Republic of Genoa. Each were large trading ports, and further expanded by using naval power to control large parts of the Mediterranean. It was in Italy that an ideology advocating for republics first developed. Writers such as Bartholomew of Lucca, Brunetto Latini, Marsilius of Padua, and Leonardo Bruni saw the medieval city-states as heirs to the legacy of Greece and Rome.
Across Europe a wealthy merchant class developed in the important trading cities. Despite their wealth they had little power in the feudal system dominated by the rural land owners, and across Europe began to advocate for their own privileges and powers. The more centralized states, such as France and England, granted limited city charters.
In the more loosely governed Holy Roman Empire, 51 of the largest towns became free imperial cities. While still under the dominion of the Holy Roman Emperor most power was held locally and many adopted republican forms of government. The same rights to imperial immediacy were secured by the major trading cities of Switzerland. The towns and villages of alpine Switzerland had, courtesy of geography, also been largely excluded from central control. Unlike Italy and Germany, much of the rural area was thus not controlled by feudal barons, but by independent farmers who also used communal forms of government. When the Habsburgs tried to reassert control over the region both rural farmers and town merchants joined the rebellion. The Swiss were victorious, and the Swiss Confederacy was proclaimed, and Switzerland has retained a republican form of government to the present.
Two Russian cities with a powerful merchant class—Novgorod and Pskov—also adopted republican forms of government in 12th and 13th centuries, respectively, which ended when the republics were conquered by Muscovy/Russia at the end of 15th – beginning of 16th century.
Following the collapse of the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum and establishment of the Turkish Anatolian Beyliks, the Ahiler merchant fraternities established a state centered on Ankara that is sometimes compared to the Italian mercantile republics.
The dominant form of government for these early republics was control by a limited council of elite patricians. In those areas that held elections, property qualifications or guild membership limited both who could vote and who could run. In many states no direct elections were held and council members were hereditary or appointed by the existing council. This left the great majority of the population without political power, and riots and revolts by the lower classes were common. The late Middle Ages saw more than 200 such risings in the towns of the Holy Roman Empire. Similar revolts occurred in Italy, notably the Ciompi Revolt in Florence.
Calvinist republics
See also: European wars of religionWhile the classical writers had been the primary ideological source for the republics of Italy, in Northern Europe, the Protestant Reformation would be used as justification for establishing new republics. Most important was Calvinist theology, which developed in the Swiss Confederacy, one of the largest and most powerful of the medieval republics. John Calvin did not call for the abolition of monarchy, but he advanced the doctrine that the faithful had the duty to overthrow irreligious monarchs. Advocacy for republics appeared in the writings of the Huguenots during the French Wars of Religion.
Calvinism played an important role in the republican revolts in England and the Netherlands. Like the city-states of Italy and the Hanseatic League, both were important trading centres, with a large merchant class prospering from the trade with the New World. Large parts of the population of both areas also embraced Calvinism. During the Dutch Revolt (beginning in 1566), the Dutch Republic emerged from rejection of Spanish Habsburg rule. However, the country did not adopt the republican form of government immediately: in the formal declaration of independence (Act of Abjuration, 1581), the throne of king Philip was only declared vacant, and the Dutch magistrates asked the Duke of Anjou, queen Elizabeth of England and prince William of Orange, one after another, to replace Philip. It took until 1588 before the Estates (the Staten, the representative assembly at the time) decided to vest the sovereignty of the country in themselves.
In 1641 the English Civil War began. Spearheaded by the Puritans and funded by the merchants of London, the revolt was a success, and King Charles I was executed. In England James Harrington, Algernon Sidney, and John Milton became some of the first writers to argue for rejecting monarchy and embracing a republican form of government. The English Commonwealth was short-lived, and the monarchy was soon restored. The Dutch Republic continued in name until 1795, but by the mid-18th century the stadtholder had become a de facto monarch. Calvinists were also some of the earliest settlers of the British and Dutch colonies of North America.
Liberal republics
Liberal republics in early modern EuropeAn allegory of the French Republic in ParisSeptinsular Republic flag from the early 1800sA revolutionary Republican hand-written bill from the Stockholm riots during the Revolutions of 1848, reading: "Dethrone Oscar he is not fit to be a king: Long live the Republic! The Reform! down with the Royal house, long live Aftonbladet! death to the king / Republic Republic the People. Brunkeberg this evening". The writer's identity is unknown.Along with these initial republican revolts, early modern Europe also saw a great increase in monarchical power. The era of absolute monarchy replaced the limited and decentralized monarchies that had existed in most of the Middle Ages. It also saw a reaction against the total control of the monarch as a series of writers created the ideology known as liberalism.
Most of these Enlightenment thinkers were far more interested in ideas of constitutional monarchy than in republics. The Cromwell regime had discredited republicanism, and most thinkers felt that republics ended in either anarchy or tyranny. Thus philosophers like Voltaire opposed absolutism while at the same time being strongly pro-monarchy.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Montesquieu praised republics, and looked on the city-states of Greece as a model. However, both also felt that a state like France, with 20 million people, would be impossible to govern as a republic. Rousseau admired the republican experiment in Corsica (1755–1769) and described his ideal political structure of small, self-governing communes. Montesquieu felt that a city-state should ideally be a republic, but maintained that a limited monarchy was better suited to a state with a larger territory.
The American Revolution began as a rejection only of the authority of the British Parliament over the colonies, not of the monarchy. The failure of the British monarch to protect the colonies from what they considered the infringement of their rights to representative government, the monarch's branding of those requesting redress as traitors, and his support for sending combat troops to demonstrate authority resulted in widespread perception of the British monarchy as tyrannical.
With the United States Declaration of Independence the leaders of the revolt firmly rejected the monarchy and embraced republicanism. The leaders of the revolution were well-versed in the writings of the French liberal thinkers, and also in the history of the classical republics. John Adams had notably written a book on republics throughout history. In addition, the widely distributed and popularly read-aloud tract Common Sense, by Thomas Paine, succinctly and eloquently laid out the case for republican ideals and independence to the larger public. The Constitution of the United States, which went into effect in 1789, created a relatively strong federal republic to replace the relatively weak confederation under the first attempt at a national government with the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union ratified in 1781. The first ten amendments to the Constitution called the United States Bill of Rights, guaranteed certain natural rights fundamental to republican ideals that justified the Revolution.
The French Revolution was also not republican at its outset. Only after the Flight to Varennes removed most of the remaining sympathy for the king was a republic declared and Louis XVI sent to the guillotine. The stunning success of France in the French Revolutionary Wars saw republics spread by force of arms across much of Europe as a series of client republics were set up across the continent. The rise of Napoleon saw the end of the French First Republic and her Sister Republics, each replaced by "popular monarchies". Throughout the Napoleonic period, the victors extinguished many of the oldest republics on the continent, including the Republic of Venice, the Republic of Genoa, and the Dutch Republic. They were eventually transformed into monarchies or absorbed into neighboring monarchies.
Outside Europe, another group of republics was created as the Napoleonic Wars allowed the states of Latin America to gain their independence. Liberal ideology had only a limited impact on these new republics. The main impetus was the local European-descended Creole population in conflict with the Peninsulares—governors sent from overseas. The majority of the population in most of Latin America was of either African or Amerindian descent, and the Creole elite had little interest in giving these groups power and broad-based popular sovereignty. Simón Bolívar, both the main instigator of the revolts and one of its most important theorists, was sympathetic to liberal ideals but felt that Latin America lacked the social cohesion for such a system to function and advocated autocracy as necessary.
In Mexico, this autocracy briefly took the form of a monarchy in the First Mexican Empire. Due to the Peninsular War, the Portuguese court was relocated to Brazil in 1808. Brazil gained independence as a monarchy on September 7, 1822, and the Empire of Brazil lasted until 1889. In many other Latin American states various forms of autocratic republic existed until most were liberalized at the end of the 20th century.
European states in 1815 Monarchies (55) Republics (9) |
European states in 1914 Monarchies (22) Republics (4) |
European states in 1930 Monarchies (20) Republics (15) |
European states in 1950 Monarchies (13) Republics (21) |
European states in 2015 Monarchies (12) Republics (35) |
The French Second Republic was created in 1848 but abolished by Napoleon III who proclaimed himself Emperor in 1852. The French Third Republic was established in 1870 when a civil revolutionary committee refused to accept Napoleon III's surrender during the Franco-Prussian War. Spain briefly became the First Spanish Republic in 1873–74, but the monarchy was soon restored. By the start of the 20th century France, Switzerland and San Marino remained the only republics in Europe. This changed when, after the 1908 Lisbon Regicide, the 5 October 1910 revolution established the Portuguese Republic.
In East Asia, China had seen considerable anti-Qing sentiment during the 19th century, and a number of protest movements developed calling for constitutional monarchy. The most important leader of these efforts was Sun Yat-sen, whose Three Principles of the People combined American, European, and Chinese ideas. Under his leadership, the Republic of China was proclaimed on January 1, 1912.
Republican ideas were spreading, especially in Asia. The United States began to have considerable influence in East Asia in the later part of the 19th century, with Protestant missionaries playing a central role. The liberal and republican writers of the West also exerted influence. These combined with native Confucian inspired political philosophy that had long argued that the populace had the right to reject unjust governments that had lost the Mandate of Heaven.
During this period, two short-lived republics were proclaimed in East Asia; the Republic of Formosa and the First Philippine Republic.
Republicanism expanded significantly in the aftermath of World War I when several of the largest European empires collapsed: the Russian Empire (1917), German Empire (1918), Austro-Hungarian Empire (1918), and Ottoman Empire (1922) were all replaced by republics. New states gained independence during this turmoil, and many of these, such as Ireland, Poland, Finland and Czechoslovakia, chose republican forms of government. Following Greece's defeat in the Greco-Turkish War (1919–22), the monarchy was briefly replaced by the Second Hellenic Republic (1924–35). In 1931, the proclamation of the Second Spanish Republic (1931–39) resulted in the Spanish Civil War leading to the establishment of a Francoist regime.
The aftermath of World War II left Italy with a destroyed economy, a divided society, and anger against the monarchy for its endorsement of the Fascist regime. These frustrations contributed to a revival of the Italian republican movement. King Umberto II was pressured to call the 1946 Italian institutional referendum to decide whether Italy should remain a monarchy or become a republic. The supporters of the republic chose the effigy of the Italia turrita, the national personification of Italy, as their unitary symbol to be used in the electoral campaign and on the referendum ballot on the institutional form of the State, in contrast to the Savoy coat of arms, which represented the monarchy. On June 2, 1946 the republican side won 54.3% of the vote and Italy officially became a republic, a day celebrated since as Festa della Repubblica. Italy has a written democratic constitution, resulting from the work of a Constituent Assembly formed by the representatives of all the anti-fascist forces that contributed to the defeat of Nazi and Fascist forces during the liberation of Italy.
Decolonization
In the years following World War II, most of the remaining European colonies gained their independence, and most became republics. The two largest colonial powers were France and the United Kingdom. Republican France encouraged the establishment of republics in its former colonies. The United Kingdom attempted to follow the model it had for its earlier settler colonies of creating independent Commonwealth realms still linked under the same monarch. While most of the settler colonies and the smaller states in the Caribbean and the Pacific retained this system, it was rejected by the newly independent countries in Africa and Asia, which revised their constitutions and became republics instead.
Britain followed a different model in the Middle East; it installed local monarchies in several colonies and mandates including Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen and Libya. In subsequent decades revolutions and coups overthrew a number of monarchs and installed republics. Several monarchies remain, and the Middle East is the only part of the world where several large states are ruled by monarchs with almost complete political control.
Socialist republics
See also: People's Republic and Socialist stateIn the wake of the First World War, the Russian monarchy fell during the Russian Revolution. The Russian Provisional Government was established in its place on the lines of a liberal republic, but this was overthrown by the Bolsheviks who went on to establish the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). This was the first republic established under Marxist–Leninist ideology. Communism was wholly opposed to monarchy and became an important element of many republican movements during the 20th century. The Russian Revolution spread into Mongolia and overthrew its theocratic monarchy in 1924. In the aftermath of the Second World War, the communists gradually gained control of Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Hungary and Albania, ensuring that the states were reestablished as socialist republics rather than monarchies.
Communism also intermingled with other ideologies. It was embraced by many national liberation movements during decolonization. In Vietnam, communist republicans pushed aside the Nguyễn dynasty, and monarchies in neighbouring Laos and Cambodia were overthrown by communist movements in the 1970s. Arab socialism contributed to a series of revolts and coups that saw the monarchies of Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen ousted. In Africa, Marxism–Leninism and African socialism led to the end of monarchy and the proclamation of republics in states such as Burundi and Ethiopia.
Constitution
A republic does not necessarily have a constitution but is often constitutional in the sense of constitutionalism, meaning that it is constituted by a set of institutions which provide a separation of powers. The term constitutional republic is a way to highlight an emphasis on the separation of powers in a given republic, as with constitutional monarchy or absolute monarchy highlighting the absolute autocratic character of a monarchy.
Head of state
Structure
With no monarch, most modern republics use the title president for the head of state. Originally used to refer to the presiding officer of a committee or governing body in Great Britain the usage was also applied to political leaders, including the leaders of some of the Thirteen Colonies (originally Virginia in 1608); in full, the "President of the Council". The first republic to adopt the title was the United States of America. Keeping its usage as the head of a committee the President of the Continental Congress was the leader of the original congress. When the new constitution was written the title of President of the United States was conferred on the head of the new executive branch.
If the head of state of a republic is also the head of government, this is called a presidential system. There are a number of forms of presidential government. A full-presidential system has a president with substantial authority and a central political role.
In other states the legislature is dominant and the presidential role is almost purely ceremonial and apolitical, such as in Germany, Italy, India, and Trinidad and Tobago. These states are parliamentary republics and operate similarly to constitutional monarchies with parliamentary systems where the power of the monarch is also greatly circumscribed. In parliamentary systems the head of government, most often titled prime minister, exercises the most real political power. Semi-presidential systems have a president as an active head of state with important powers, but they also have a prime minister as a head of government with important powers.
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 some countries, like Bosnia and Herzegovina, San Marino, and Switzerland, 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, elected for a one-year term by the comitia centuriata, consisting of all adult, freeborn males who could prove citizenship.
Elections
In democracies, presidents are elected, either directly by the people or indirectly by a parliament or council. Typically in presidential and semi-presidential systems the president is directly elected by the people or is indirectly elected as done in the United States. In that country, the president is officially elected by an electoral college, chosen by the States. All U.S. States have chosen electors by popular election since 1832. The indirect election of the president through the electoral college conforms to the concept of the republic as one with a system of indirect election. In the opinion of some, direct election confers legitimacy upon the president and gives the office much of its political power. However, this concept of legitimacy differs from that expressed in the United States Constitution which established the legitimacy of the United States president as resulting from the signing of the Constitution by nine states. The idea that direct election is required for legitimacy also contradicts the spirit of the Great Compromise, whose actual result was manifest in the clause that provides voters in smaller states with more representation in presidential selection than those in large states; for example citizens of Wyoming in 2016 had 3.6 times as much electoral vote representation as citizens of California.
In states with a parliamentary system, the president is usually elected by the parliament. This indirect election subordinates the president to the parliament, and also gives the president limited legitimacy and turns most presidential powers into reserve powers that can only be exercised under rare circumstances. There are exceptions where elected presidents have only ceremonial powers, such as in Ireland.
Ambiguities
The distinction between a republic and a monarchy is not always clear. The constitutional monarchies of the former British Empire and Western Europe today have almost all real political power vested in the elected representatives, with the monarchs only holding either theoretical powers, no powers or rarely used reserve powers. Real legitimacy for political decisions comes from the elected representatives and is derived from the will of the people. While hereditary monarchies remain in place, political power is derived from the people as in a republic. These states are thus sometimes referred to as crowned republics.
Terms such as "liberal republic" are also used to describe all of the modern liberal democracies.
There are also self-proclaimed republics that act similarly to absolute monarchies with absolute power vested in the leader and passed down from father to son. North Korea and Syria are two notable examples where a son has inherited political control. Neither of these states are officially monarchies. There is no constitutional requirement that power be passed down within one family, but it has occurred in practice.
There are also elective monarchies where ultimate power is vested in a monarch, but the monarch is chosen by some manner of election. A current example of such a state is Malaysia where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is elected every five years by the Conference of Rulers composed of the nine hereditary rulers of the Malay states, and the Vatican City-State, where the pope is selected by cardinal-electors, currently all cardinals under the age of 80. While rare today, elective monarchs were common in the past. The Holy Roman Empire is an important example, where each new emperor was chosen by a group of electors. Islamic states also rarely employed primogeniture, instead relying on various forms of election to choose a monarch's successor.
The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth had an elective monarchy, with a wide suffrage of some 500,000 nobles. The system, known as the Golden Liberty, had developed as a method for powerful landowners to control the crown. The proponents of this system looked to classical examples, and the writings of the Italian Renaissance, and called their elective monarchy a rzeczpospolita, based on res publica.
Sub-national republics
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
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.
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 nation states.
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a federal entity composed of six republics (Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia). Each republic had its parliament, government, institute of citizenship, constitution, etc., but certain functions were delegated to the federation (army, monetary matters). Each republic also had a right of self-determination according to the conclusions of the second session of the AVNOJ and according to the federal constitution.
In Switzerland, all cantons can be considered to have a republican form of government, with constitutions, legislatures, executives and courts; many of them being originally sovereign states. As a consequence, several Romance-speaking cantons are still officially referred to as republics, reflecting their history and will of independence within the Swiss Confederation. Notable examples are the Republic and Canton of Geneva and the Republic and Canton of Ticino.
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 founders of the country intended most domestic laws to be handled by the states. 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 that was a republic. Any state joining the union later was also required to be a republic.
Other meanings
Archaic meaning
Before the 17th Century, the term 'republic' could be used to refer to states of any form of government as long as it was not a tyrannical regime. French philosopher Jean Bodin's definition of the republic was "the rightly ordered government of a number of families, and of those things which are their common concern, by a sovereign power." Oligarchies and monarchies could also be included as they were also organised toward 'public' shared interests. In medieval texts, 'republic' was used to refer to the body of shared interest with the king at its head. For instance, the Holy Roman Empire was also known as the Sancta Respublica Romana, the Holy Roman Republic. The Byzantine Empire also continued calling itself the Roman Republic as the Byzantines did not regard monarchy as a contradiction to republicanism. Instead, republics were defined as any state based on popular sovereignty and whose institutions were based on shared values.
Democracy vs. republic debate
See also: Democratic republicWhile the term democracy has been used interchangeably with the term republic by some, others have made sharp distinctions between the two for millennia. "Montesquieu, founder of the modern constitutional state, repeated in his The Spirit of the Laws of 1748 the insight that Aristotle had expressed two millennia earlier, 'Voting by lot is in the nature of democracy; voting by choice is in the nature of aristocracy.'" Additional critics of elections include Rousseau, Robespierre, and Marat, who said of the new French Republic, "What use is it to us, that we have broken the aristocracy of the nobles, if that is replaced by the aristocracy of the rich?"
Political philosophy
Main article: RepublicanismThe term republic originated from the writers of the Renaissance as a descriptive term for states that were not monarchies. These writers, such as Machiavelli, also wrote important prescriptive works describing how such governments should function. These ideas of how a government and society should be structured is the basis for an ideology known as classical republicanism or civic humanism. This ideology is based on the Roman Republic and the city states of Ancient Greece and focuses on ideals such as civic virtue, rule of law and mixed government.
This understanding of a republic as a form of government distinct from a liberal democracy is one of the main theses of the Cambridge School of historical analysis. This grew out of the work of J. G. A. Pocock who in 1975 argued that a series of scholars had expressed a consistent set of republican ideals. These writers included Machiavelli, Milton, Montesquieu and the founders of the United States of America.
Pocock argued that this was an ideology with a history and principles distinct from liberalism. These ideas were embraced by a number of different writers, including Quentin Skinner, Philip Pettit and Cass Sunstein. These subsequent writers have further explored the history of the idea, and also outlined how a modern republic should function.
United States
Main article: Republicanism in the United StatesA distinct set of definitions of the term "republic" evolved in the United States, where the term is often equated with "representative democracy." This narrower understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term; representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics. There is also evidence that contemporaries of Madison considered the meaning of "republic" to reflect the broader definition found elsewhere, as is the case with a quotation of Benjamin Franklin taken from the notes of James McHenry where the question is put forth, "a Republic or a Monarchy?".
The term republic does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, but it does appear in Article IV of the Constitution, which "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." What exactly the writers of the constitution felt this should mean is uncertain. The Supreme Court, in Luther v. Borden (1849), declared that the definition of republic was a "political question" in which it would not intervene. In two later cases, it did establish a basic definition. In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of a republic.
However, the term republic is not synonymous with the republican form. The republican form is defined as one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.
Beyond these basic definitions, the word republic has a number of other connotations. W. Paul Adams observes that republic is most often used in the United States as a synonym for "state" or "government," but with more positive connotations than either of those terms. Republicanism is often referred to as the founding ideology of the United States. Traditionally scholars believed this American republicanism was a derivation of the classical liberal ideologies of John Locke and others developed in Europe.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Bernard Bailyn began to argue that republicanism was just as, or even more important than liberalism in the creation of the United States. This issue is still much disputed and scholars like Isaac Kramnick completely reject this view.
See also
- Free state
- Primus inter pares
- List of republics
- Index: Republics
- Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution
References
- "Republic | Definition of Republic by the Oxford English Dictionary". Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved 2022-05-10.
A state in which power rests with the people or their representatives; specifically a state without a monarchy. Also: a government, or system of government, of such a state; a period of government of this type. The term is often (especially in the 18th and 19th centuries) taken to imply a state with a democratic or representative constitution and without a hereditary nobility, but more recently it has also been used of autocratic or dictatorial states not ruled by a monarch. It is now chiefly used to denote any non-monarchical state headed by an elected or appointed president.
- "Definition of Republic". Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved 2017-02-18.
a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch
- "Republic". Merriam Webster. Merrium-Webster Inc. Retrieved 5 June 2019.
- ^ "Republic"j, New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Ed. Maryanne Cline Horowitz. Vol. 5. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2005. p. 2099
- Lewis, Charlton T.; Short, Charles (1879). "res, II.K". A Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved August 14, 2010.
- Bloom, Allan. The Republic. Basic Books, 1991. pp. 439–40
- "Republic | Encyclopedia.com". www.encyclopedia.com. Retrieved 2018-10-20.
- Rubinstein, Nicolai. "Machiavelli and Florentine Republican Experience" in Machiavelli and Republicanism Cambridge University Press, 1993.
- ^ Haakonssen, Knud. "Republicanism." A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit. eds. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1995.
- Everdell (2000) p. xxiii.
- ^ Munro, André. "republic". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 15 Dec 2021.
- Paine, Thomas (1776). "On the Origin and Design of Government in General, With Concise Remarks on the English Constitution". Common Sense.
- Nippel, Wilfried. "Ancient and Modern Republicanism". The Invention of the Modern Republic ed. Biancamaria Fontana. Cambridge University Press, 1994 p. 6
- Reno, Jeffrey. "republic". International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences p. 184
- Pocock, J.G.A. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (1975; new ed. 2003)
- Paul A. Rahe, Republics, Ancient and Modern, three volumes, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1994.
- Jidejian, Nina (2018). TYRE Through The Ages (3rd ed.). Beirut: Librairie Orientale. pp. 57–99. ISBN 9789953171050.
- Medlej, Youmna Jazzar; Medlej, Joumana (2010). Tyre and its history. Beirut: Anis Commercial Printing Press s.a.l. pp. 1–30. ISBN 978-9953-0-1849-2.
- Bernal, M.; Moore, D.C. (2001). Black Athena Writes Back: Martin Bernal Responds to His Critics. History / Classics. Duke University Press. pp. 356-357. ISBN 978-0-8223-2717-2.
-
Clarke, Adam (1825). "PREFACE To The BOOK OF JUDGES". The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments: The Text Printed from the Most Correct Copies of the Present Authorized Translation Including the Marginal Readings and Parallel Texts with a Commentary and Critical Notes Designed as a Help to a Better Understanding of the Sacred Writings. Vol. 2. New-York: N. Bangs and J. Emory. p. 3. Retrieved 10 June 2019.
The persons called Judges were the heads or chiefs of the Israelites who governed the Hebrew Republic from the days of Moses and Joshua, till the time of Saul.
-
Everdell, William Romeyn (1983). "Samuel and Solon: The Origins of the Republic in Tribalism". The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans (2 ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press (published 2000). p. 18. ISBN 9780226224824. Retrieved 10 June 2019.
Samuel has the distinction of being the first self-conscious republican in his society of whom we have nearly contemporary written record and of whose actual existence we can be reasonably sure.
- ^ Everdell (2000)
- Nwauwa, Apollos O. "Concepts of Democracy and Democratization in Africa Revisited". Archived from the original on 14 August 2012. Retrieved 8 March 2022.
- Diodorus 2.39
- Larsen, 1973, pp. 45–46
- de Sainte, 2006, pp. 321–3
- Robinson, 1997, p. 22
- Robinson, 1997, p. 23
- Thapar, Romila (2002). Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. University of California. pp. 146–150. ISBN 9780520242258. Retrieved 28 October 2013.
- Raychaudhuri Hemchandra (1972), Political History of Ancient India, Calcutta: University of Calcutta, p.107
- Republics in ancient India. Brill Archive. pp. 93–. GGKEY:HYY6LT5CFT0.
- Bongard-Levin, 1996, pp. 61–106
- Sharma 1968, pp. 109–22
- Trautmann T. R., Kautilya and the Arthashastra, Leiden 1971
- Chu, Henry (April 2, 2011). "Iceland seeks to become sanctuary for free speech". Los Angeles Times.
- ^ Finer 1999, pp. 950–955.
- Ferdinand Joseph Maria Feldbrugge. Law in Medieval Russia, IDC Publishers, 2009
- Finer 1999, pp. 955–956.
- Finer 1999, p. 1020.
- "Republicanism". Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment p. 435
- "Introduction". Republicanism: a Shared European Heritage. By Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner. Cambridge University Press, 2002 p. 1
- "Republicanism". Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment p. 431
- "Latin American Republicanism" New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Ed. Maryanne Cline Horowitz. Vol. 5. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2005.
- The Ottoman Empire and Russian Empire are counted amongst Europe. Counted as republics are the Swiss Confederation, the Free Cities of Hamburg, Bremen, Lübeck and Frankfurt, the Most Serene Republic of San Marino, the Republic of Cospaia, the Septinsular Republic and the German Confederation; however, member states of the German Confederation are also separately counted (35 monarchies).
- The Ottoman Empire and Russian Empire are counted amongst Europe.
- The Republic of Turkey is counted amongst Europe, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a single republic, the Irish Free State as an independent monarchy (see also Irish head of state from 1922 to 1949), Vatican City as an elective monarchy, the Kingdom of Hungary as a nominal monarchy.
- The Republic of Turkey is counted amongst Europe, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a single republic, the Free Territory of Trieste as an independent republic, Vatican City as an elective monarchy, the Spanish State as a nominal monarchy.
- The Republic of Turkey is counted amongst Europe, the Russian Federation as a single republic, the Republic of Kosovo (recognised by most other European states) as an independent republic, Vatican City as an elective monarchy. The Republic of Kazakhstan is not shown on this map and is excluded from the count. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (recognised only by Turkey) and all other unrecognised states are excluded from the count.
- "Italia", Dizionario enciclopedico italiano (in Italian), vol. VI, Treccani, 1970, p. 456
- Guichonnet, Paul (1975). Histoire de l'Italie (in French). Presses universitaires de France. p. 121.
- Bazzano, Nicoletta (2011). Donna Italia. L'allegoria della Penisola dall'antichità ai giorni nostri (in Italian). Angelo Colla Editore. p. 72. ISBN 978-88-96817-06-3.
- Bocca, Giorgio (1981). Storia della Repubblica italiana (in Italian). Rizzoli. pp. 14–16.
- Smyth, Howard McGaw Italy: From Fascism to the Republic (1943–1946) The Western Political Quarterly vol. 1 no. 3 (pp. 205–222), September 1948.JSTOR 442274
- Anderson, Lisa. "Absolutism and the Resilience of Monarchy in the Middle East." Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 106, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 1–15
- OED, s. v.
- "Presidential Systems" Governments of the World: A Global Guide to Citizens' Rights and Responsibilities. Ed. C. Neal Tate. Vol. 4. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2006. pp. 7–11.
- Article VII, Constitution of the United States
- Article II, Para 2, Constitution of the United States
- Petrocelli, William (10 November 2016). "Voters In Wyoming Have 3.6 Times The Voting Power That I Have. It's Time To End The Electoral College". huffingtonpost.com.
- 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 Idylls of the King .
- Dunn, John. "The Identity of the Bourgeois Liberal Republic". The Invention of the Modern Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
- "République" (in French). Historical Dictionary of Switzerland. Retrieved 1 February 2021.
Les nouveaux cantons de la Suisse latine choisirent le titre de république, qui soulignait leur indépendance, alors que "canton" met l'accent sur l'appartenance à la Confédération; Genève, Neuchâtel et le Tessin l'ont conservé jusqu'à nos jours.
[The new cantons of Latin Switzerland chose the title of republic, which underlined their independence, while "canton" emphasizes membership of the Confederation; Geneva, Neuchâtel and Ticino have kept it to this day.] - Mantello, Frank Anthony Carl; Rigg, A. G. (1996). Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide. CUA Press. p. 209. ISBN 9780813208428.
- Glenn, Jason (2004). Politics and History in the Tenth Century: The Work and World of Richer of Reims. Cambridge University Press. p. 246. ISBN 9780521834872.
- Christopher Dawson (2002). The Making of Europe: An Introduction to the History of European Unity. CUA Press. p. 101. ISBN 9780813210834.
- Giuliano Amato, Enzo Moavero-Milanesi, Gianfranco Pasquino, Lucrezia Reichlin (2019). The History of the European Union: Constructing Utopia. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 17. ISBN 9781509917426.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Anthony Kaldellis (2013). Ethnography After Antiquity: Foreign Lands and Peoples in Byzantine Literature. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 14. ISBN 9780812208405.
- Van Reybrouck, David. Against Elections (p. 75). Seven Stories Press. 2016.
- Van Reybrouck, David. Against Elections (p. 85). Seven Stories Press. 2016.
- "Republicanism Archived 2018-03-09 at the Wayback Machine" Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Jun 19, 2006
- McCormick, John P. "Machiavelli against Republicanism: On the Cambridge School's 'Guicciardinian Moments'" Political Theory, Vol. 31, No. 5 (Oct., 2003), pp. 615–43
- Pocock, J. G. A The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition Princeton: 1975, 2003
- Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, NY: Oxford U.P., 1997, ISBN 0-19-829083-7; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
- "Democracy - Democracy or republic?". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2021-06-27.
- "What Is a Democracy? [ushistory.org]". www.ushistory.org. Retrieved 2021-06-27.
- "SEARCHING -word- for [republic] :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com". 1828.mshaffer.com. Retrieved 2021-06-27.
- Everdell (2000) p. 6
- "1593. Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790). Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. 1989". 25 June 2022.
- In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.
- GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government) – One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly ... Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 695
- W. Paul Adams "Republicanism in Political Rhetoric Before 1776". Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 85, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), pp. 397–421
- ^ Wood, Gordon (April 1990). "Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution". Chicago-Kent Law Review. 66: 13–20. Archived from the original on Mar 7, 2023.
- Hutchins, Thomas; Washington, George; Paine, Thomas; Jefferson, Thomas; Adams, John; Fadden, Will (2008-04-12). "Founded on a Set of Beliefs - Creating the United States | Exhibitions". Library of Congress. Retrieved 2021-06-27.
- Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967.
- Kramnick, Isaac. Republicanism and Bourgeois Radicalism: Political Ideology in Late Eighteenth-Century England and America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990.
- Finer, S.E. (1999). The History of Government from the Earliest Times: Volume II: The Intermediate Ages. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-820790-0.
Further reading
- Martin van Gelderen & Quentin Skinner, eds., Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, v. 1, Republicanism and Constitutionalism in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2002
- Martin van Gelderen & Quentin Skinner, eds., Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, v. 2, The Values of Republicanism in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2002
- Willi Paul Adams, "Republicanism in Political Rhetoric before 1776", Political Science Quarterly 85(1970), pp. 397–421.
- Joyce Appleby, "Republicanism in Old and New Contexts", in William & Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 43 (January, 1986), pp. 3–34.
- Joyce Appleby, ed., "Republicanism" issue of American Quarterly 37 (Fall, 1985).
- Sarah Barber, Regicide and Republicanism: Politics and Ethics in the English Republic, 1646–1649, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998.
- Gisela Bock, Quentin Skinner & Maurizio Viroli, eds., Machiavelli and Republicanism, Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1990.
- Everdell, William R. (2000), The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans (2nd ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press
- Eric Gojosso, Le concept de république en France (XVIe – XVIIIe siècle), Aix/Marseille, 1998, pp. 205–45.
- James Hankins, "Exclusivist Republicanism and the Non-Monarchical Republic", Political Theory 38.4 (August 2010), 452–82.
- Frédéric Monera, L'idée de République et la jurisprudence du Conseil constitutionnel – Paris: L.G.D.J., 2004 Fnac, LGDJ.fr
- Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997, pp. x and 304.
- J. G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975
- J. G. A. Pocock, "Between Gog and Magog: The Republican Thesis and the Ideologia Americana", Journal of the History of Ideas 48 (1987), p. 341
- J. G. A. Pocock, "The Machiavellian Moment Revisited: A Study in History and Ideology" Journal of Modern History 53 (1981)
- Paul A. Rahe, Republics Ancient and Modern: Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution, 3 v., Chapel Hill: U. of North Carolina Press 1992, 1994.
- Jagdish P. Sharma, Republics in ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C., 1968
- David Wootton, ed., Republicanism, Liberty, and Commercial Society, 1649–1776 (The Making of Modern Freedom series), Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994.
External links
- Media related to Republic at Wikimedia Commons
- Media related to Republics at Wikimedia Commons
- The dictionary definition of republic at Wiktionary
- Quotations related to Republic at Wikiquote
- Everdell, William R. Everdell. "From State to Freestate: The Meaning of the Word Republic from Jean Bodin to John Adams". Archived 2019-03-24 at the Wayback Machine (7th ISECS, Budapest, 7/31/87). Valley Forge Journal. June 1991.