|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | A '''republic''' is a [[form of government]] maintained by a [[state]] or [[country]] whose [[sovereignty]] is based on [[Populace|popular]] consent and whose [[governance]] is based on the absence of a single, all-powerful chief magistrate. Most republics depend on popular [[Representation (politics)|representation]] and control. Several definitions stress the importance of the [[rule of law]] as among the requirements for a republic.
| + | nn |
| − | | + | |
| − | After the Renaissance in the West "republics" and ''[[monarchy|monarchies]]'' are described as mutually exclusive.<ref name=Machiavelli>In the opening chapter of ''[[The Prince]]'' [[Niccolò Machiavelli|Machiavelli]] describes ''republics'' and ''monarchies'' as mutually exclusive. But even Machiavelli could not always adhere to this definition, not even in ''The Prince''. For example, when he tries to characterize the form of many governments of the [[Papal States]] in the 11th chapter of that book, he points out that usual methods and distinctions are not applicable for analyzing such a state.</ref> Defining a republic as a ''non-monarchy'', a common short definition,<ref>For instance in [[Webster's Third New International Dictionary|Webster's]] ''republic'' is defined as "a state where the head of state is not a monarch, and in modern times is usually a president".</ref> is based on this idea. Although largely covering what is usually understood by a republic such definition has borderline issues, for example while the distinction between ''monarchy'' and ''republic'' was not always made as it is in modern times, while ''[[oligarchy|oligarchies]]'' and ''[[aristocracy|aristocracies]]''are often considered neither ''monarchy'' nor ''republic'',<ref>During an interlude in about 1550-1650, epitomized by Jean Bodin's [[Six Livres de la république]] (1576), ''republic'' was defined simply as an ordered state of any kind. Since antiquity the basic categorization of forms of government was (1) a single person governs (includes monarchy, autarchy, states led by a single tyrant or dictator,...); (2) a limited number of people governs (includes oligarchy, aristocracy-governed states, etc); (3) the people governs, which is democracy. With this basic categorization, for instance a representative democracy can only be defined in terms of [[mixed government]] (that is: mixing characteristics of two or three of the basic categories into a "composed" form of government). Compare [[Tacitus]], ''[[Annals (Tacitus)|Ann.]]'' IV, 33: "All nations and cities are ruled by the people, the nobility, or by one man. [...]". By the Enlightenment this division in three basic types of government (+ "mixed" solutions) had changed, for instance [[Montesquieu]] defines his basic categories thus: "There are three species of government: republican, monarchical, and despotic" (''[[The Spirit of the Laws|Spirit of Laws]]'', II, 1), and then he defines two "types" of republic: "a republican government is that in which the body, or only a part of the people, is possessed of the supreme power; [...] When the body of the people is possessed of the supreme power, it is called a democracy. When the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a part of the people, it is then an aristocracy." (Op. cit. II, 1-2)</ref> and while such definition depends very much on the ''monarch'' concept, which has various definitions, not making clear which of these is used for defining ''republic''. It is post-French Revolution right-wing canard that "democratic republic" is a solecism.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 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 [[List of republics]] appears in a separate article. The third section is about how republics are approached as state organisations in [[political science]]: in political theory and political science, the term "republic" is generally applied to a [[state]] where the government's [[political power]] depends solely on the consent, however nominal, of the people governed.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Heads of state===
| + | |
| − | In most modern republics the [[head of state]] is termed [[president]]. Other titles that have been used are [[consul]], [[doge]], [[archon]] among many others. In republics that are also [[Democracy|democracies]] 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 [[constitution]] limits the number of terms the same person can be elected as president.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | If the head of state of a republic is at the same time the [[head of government]], this is called a [[presidential system]] (example: [[United States]]). In [[Semi-presidential system]]s, where the head of state is not the same person as the [[head of government]], the latter is usually termed [[prime minister]], [[premier]] or [[chancellor]]. Depending on what the president's specific duties are (for example, advisory role in the formation of a government after an election), and varying by convention, the president's role may range from the ceremonial and apolitical to influential and highly political. The Prime Minister is responsible for managing the policies and the central government. The rules for appointing the president and the leader of the government, in some republics permit the appointment of a president and a prime minister who have opposing political convictions: in [[France]], when the members of the ruling [[cabinet (government)|cabinet]] and the president come from opposing political factions, this situation is called [[cohabitation]]. In countries such as [[Germany]] and [[India]], however, the president needs to be strictly non-partisan.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In some countries, like [[Switzerland]] and [[San Marino]], the head of state is not a single person but a committee (council) of several persons holding that office. The [[Roman Republic]] had two [[consul]]s, appointed for a year by the [[senate]]. During the year of their consulship each consul would in turn be head of state for a month at a time, thus alternating the office of [[consul maior]] (the consul in power) and of [[consul suffectus]] (the subordinate consul who retained some independence, and held certain veto powers over the consul maior) for their joint term.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Republics can be led by a head of state that has many of the characteristics of a monarch: not only do some republics install a president for life, and invest such president with powers beyond what is usual in a [[representative democracy]], examples such as the post-1970 [[Syria|Syrian Arab Republic]] show that such a presidency can apparently be made hereditary. Historians disagree when the Roman Republic turned into [[Imperial Rome]]: the reason is that the first [[Roman Emperor|Emperor]]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>[[Tacitus]], ''[[Annals (Tacitus)|Ann.]]'' I,1-15.</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Similarly, if taking the broad definition of republic above ("a [[state]] or [[country]] that is led by people whose [[political power]] is based on principles that are not beyond the control of the people of that state or country"), 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: [[Leopold III of Belgium]] replaced by [[Baudouin of Belgium|Baudouin]] in 1951 under popular pressure.</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 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:
| + | |
| − | * [[Autocracy|Autocrats]] might try to give themselves a democratic tenure by calling themselves president (or [[princeps]] or [[princeps senatus]] in the case of [[Ancient Rome]]), and the form of government of their country "republic", instead of using a monarchic based terminology.<ref>For instance [[Mobutu Sese Seko]] is generally considered such "autocrat" that tried to give an appearance of "republican democracy" to his style of government, for instance by allowing something that was generally regarded a sockpuppet opposition.</ref>
| + | |
| − | * For full-fledged [[representative democracy|representative democracies]] ultimately it generally does not make all that much difference whether the head of state is a monarch or a president, nor, in fact, whether these countries call themselves a monarchy or a republic. Other factors, for instance, religious matters (see next section) can often make a greater distinguishing mark when comparing the forms of government of actual countries.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | For this reason, in [[political science]] the several definitions of "republic", which in such a context invariably indicate an "ideal" form of government, do not always exclude monarchy:<ref name="Adams"/> the evolution of such definitions of "republic" in a context of [[political philosophy]] is treated in [[republicanism]]. 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>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The least that can be said is that [[Anti-Monarchism]], the opposition to monarchy as such, did not always play a critical role in the creation and/or management of republics. For some republics, not choosing a monarch as head of state, could as well be a practical rather than an ideological consideration. Such "practical" considerations could be, for example, a situation where there was no monarchial candidate readily available.<ref>For instance the [[Dutch Republic|United Provinces]]: after the [[Oath of Abjuration]] (1581) the [[François, Duke of Anjou|Duke of Anjou]] and later the [[Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester|Earl of Leicester]] were asked to rule the Netherlands. After these candidates had declined the office, the [[Republic of the Seven United Netherlands|Republic]] was only established in 1588.</ref> However, for the states created during or shortly after [[the Enlightenment]] the choice was always deliberate: ''republics'' created in that period inevitably had anti-monarchial characteristics. For the [[United States]] the opposition of some to the [[British Monarchy]] played a role, as did the overthrow of the French Monarchy in the creation of the [[first French Republic]]. By the time of the creation of the [[French Fifth Republic|Fifth Republic]] in that country "anti-monarchist" tendencies were barely felt. The relations of that country to other countries made no distinctions whether these other countries were "monarchies" or not.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===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 [[Reformation]] 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 [[polytheism]] to [[Christianity]] in [[Ancient Rome]] maybe had brought new rulers, but no change in the idea that monarchy was the obvious way to rule a country. Similarly, late [[Middle Age]] republics, like [[Venice]], emerged without questioning the religious standards set by the [[Roman Catholic]] 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>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | This would change, for instance, by the [[cuius regio, eius religio]] from the [[Treaty of Augsburg]] (1555): this treaty, applicable in the [[Holy Roman Empire]] and affecting the numerous (city-)states of [[Germany]], ordained citizens to follow the religion of their ruler, whatever Christian religion that ruler chose - apart from [[Calvinism]] (which remained forbidden by the same treaty). In France the king abolished the relative tolerance towards non-Catholic religions resulting from the [[Edict of Nantes]] (1598), by the [[Edict of Fontainebleau]] (1685). In the [[United Kingdom]] and in [[Spain]] the respective monarchs had each established their favourite brand of Christianity, so that by the time of [[the Enlightenment]] in Europe (including the depending [[colony|colonies]]) there was not a single [[absolute monarch]]y that tolerated another religion than the official one of the state.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====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 [[state religion]]: in this approach living under a monarch is seen as more easily inducing a uniform religion. All great monarchies had their state religion, in the case of [[pharaoh]]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 [[imperial cult]]). On a different scale, kingdoms can be entangled in a specific flavour of religion: [[Roman Catholic church|Catholicism]] in [[Belgium]], [[Church of England]] in the [[United Kingdom]], [[Orthodox]] in [[Tsar]]istic [[Russia]] and many more examples.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In absence of a monarchy, there can be no monarch pushing towards a single religion. As this had been the general perception by the time of [[the Enlightenment]], it is not so surprising that republics were seen by some Enlightenment thinkers as the preferable form of state organisation, if one wanted to avoid the downsides of living under a too influential state religion. [[Rousseau]], an exception, envisioned a republic with a demanding state "civil religion":
| + | |
| − | * [[United States]]: the [[Founding Fathers]], seeing that no single religion would do for all Americans, adopted the principle that the federal government would 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 [[French Revolution]], leading to the [[first French Republic]], was at least as much anti-religious, and led to the confiscation, pillage and/or destruction of many [[abbey]]s, [[beguinage]]s, [[church]]es and other religious buildings and/or communities.<ref>see also [[Republicanism and religion]]</ref> Although the French revolutionaries tried to institute civil religions to replace "uncivic" Catholicism, nevertheless, up to the [[French Fifth Republic|Fifth Republic]], ''[[laïcité]]'' can be seen to have a much more profound meaning in republican [[France]] than in neighbouring countries ruled as monarchies.<ref>Example: [[French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools]] - a similar law was tentatively debated in Belgium, but deemed incompatible with the less profoundly ''secularized'' Belgian state.</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Several states that called themselves republics have been fiercely anti-religious. This is particularly true for [[communism|communist]] republics like the (former) [[Soviet Union]], [[Vietnam]], [[North Korea]], and [[China]].
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Republics highlighting state religion impact====
| + | |
| − | 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: [[Islamic republic]]s generally take this approach, but the same is also true (in varying degrees) for example in the [[Judaism|Jewish]] state of [[Israel]], in the [[Protestantism|Protestant]] republic that originated in the [[Netherlands]] during the [[Renaissance]],<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), [[William I of Orange]] had been the obvious choice for king: the volume ''Nieuwe tijden'' from the ''Cultuurgetijden'' series as mentioned in a previous note, elaborates on p. 63-65 (supported by a quote of the contemporary [[Pontus Payen]]) that William of Orange was perceived as too lenient towards Catholicism to be acceptable as king for the Protestants.</ref> and in the [[Catholic]] [[Irish Republic]], among others. In this case the advantage that is sought is that no ''broad-thinking'' monarch could push his citizens towards a less strict application of religious prescriptions (like for instance the [[Millet (Ottoman Empire)|Millet]] system had done in the [[Ottoman Empire]]<ref>Although in Turkey the ensuing ''republic'' would become relatively tolerant towards other religions, the straight [[multicultural]] approach of the Millet system, that had allowed Christians and Jews to form state-in-state like communities, would remain unparallelled.</ref>) or change to another religion altogether (like the swapping of religions under the [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]]/[[Edward VI of England|Edward VI]]/[[Mary I of England|Mary I]]/[[Elizabeth I of England|Elizabeth I]] 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 [[Iranian revolution|overthrow of the regime]] of the [[Mohammad Reza Pahlavi|Shah]] in [[Iran]], to be replaced by a ''republic'' with influential [[ayatollah]]s (which is the term for religious leaders in that country), the most influential of which is called "[[Supreme Leader of Iran|supreme leader]]".
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Concepts of democracy===
| + | |
| − | {{OR}}
| + | |
| − | Republics are often associated with [[democracy]], which seems natural if one acknowledges the meaning of the expression from which the word "republic" derives (see: [[res publica]]).{{Fact|date=March 2007}} This association between "republic" and "democracy" is however far from a general understanding, even if acknowledging that there are [[Democracy (varieties)|several forms of democracy]].<ref>See for example ''[[Federalist No. 10]]'' by [[James Madison]] - An original framer of the U.S. Constitution advocates a ''republic'' over a "democracy," or rather, an aristocratic republic over a democratic one. See [[Republicanism in the United States]] for the [[connotation]]s of the terms "democracy" and "republic" in the 1787 context when this article was written. Further clarification of this "democracy" vs "republic" idea in the US can be found in [[Republicanism in the United States#A typical definition of democracy vs republic]]</ref> This section tries to give an outline of which concepts of democracy are associated with which types of republics.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | As a preliminary remark, the concept of "one equal vote per adult" did not become a generically-accepted principle in democracies until around the middle of the 20th century: before that in all democracies the [[Suffrage|right to vote]] depended on one's financial situation, [[sex]], [[race]], or a combination of these and other factors. Many forms of government in previous times termed "democracy", including for instance the [[Athenian democracy]], would, when transplanted to the early 21st century be classified as [[plutocracy]] or a broad [[oligarchy]], because of the rules on how votes were counted.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Warned by the possible dangers and impracticality of [[direct democracy]] described since antiquity,<ref>Some of the earliest warnings in this sense came from [[Socrates]]' pupils [[Plato]] and [[Xenophon]] around 400 BC: indeed their friend Socrates had been condemned to death in an entirely "democratic" system at [[Athens]], hence they preferred the ''less democratic'' [[Sparta]]n system of government. See also [[Trial of Socrates]] - [[Laws (dialogue)]].</ref> there was a convergence towards [[representative democracy]], for republics as well as monarchies, from [[the Enlightenment]] on. A direct democracy instrument like [[referendum]]s is still basically mistrusted in many of the countries that adopted representative democracy. Nonetheless, some republics like [[Switzerland]] have a great deal of direct democracy in their state organisation, with usually several issues put before the people by referendum every year.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Some of the hardline [[totalitarianism]] lived on in the East, even after the [[Iron Curtain]] 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 Stalinist 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.{{Fact|date=March 2007}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | {{main|Republicanism}}
| + | |
| − | Like ''Anti-monarchism'' and ''religious differences'', [[republicanism]] played no equal role in the emergence of the many actual republics. Up to the republics that originated in the late Middle Ages, even if, from what we know about them, they also can be qualified "republics" in a modern understanding of the word, establishing the kind and amount of "republicanism" that led to their emergence is often limited to educated guesswork, based on sources that are generally recognised to be partly fictitious reconstruction.<ref>For example, what is known about the origins of the Roman Republic is based on works by [[Polybius]], [[Livy]], [[Plutarch]], and others, all of which wrote at least some centuries after the emergence of that Republic — without exception all these authors have historical exactitude issues, including relative uncertainty over the year when the Roman Republic would have emerged.</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Over time there were various mixtures of republicanism along with democratic theories of the rights of individuals, which (for instance in the [[Age of Enlightenment]]) would find expression in the formation of liberal and socialist parties. What both [[liberalism]] and [[socialism]] 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 [[capitalism]] (the economic system promoted by liberals). The compromise between democracy and having an hereditary head of state is called [[constitutional monarchy]].
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | There is however, for instance, no doubt that republicanism was a founding ideology of the [[United States of America]] and remains at the core of American political values. See [[Republicanism in the U.S.]]{{Fact|date=March 2007}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====In antiquity====
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The important politico-philosophical writings of antiquity that survived the Middle Ages rarely had any influence on the emergence or strengthening of republics in the time they were written. When [[Plato]] wrote the [[dialogue]] that later, in English speaking countries, became known as ''[[Republic (Plato)|The Republic]]'' (a faulty translation from several points of view), Athenian democracy had already been established, and was not influenced by the treatise (if it had, it would have become ''less'' republican in a modern understanding). Plato's own experiments with his political principles in [[Syracuse, Italy|Syracuse]] were a failure. [[Cicero]]'s ''[[De re publica]]'', far from being able to redirect the Roman state to reinforce its republican form of government, rather reads as a prelude to the [[Roman Empire|Imperial form of government]] that indeed emerged soon after Cicero's death.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In the Middle Ages, in [[Russia]] existed two Republics, the [[Novgorod Republic]] and the [[Pskov Republic]], which were highly developed and innovative for the Medieval times.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====In the renaissance====
| + | |
| − | The emergence of the [[Renaissance]], on the other hand, was marked by the adoption of many of these writings from Antiquity, which led to a more or less coherent view, retroactively termed "[[classical republicanism]]". Differences however remained regarding which kind of "mix" in a [[mixed government]] type of ideal state would be the most inherently ''republican''. For those republics that emerged after the publication of the Renaissance philosophies regarding republics, like the '''[[United Provinces of the Netherlands]]''', 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).
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Enlightenment republicanism====
| + | |
| − | [[Image:Statue-place-Republique2.jpg|thumb|An allegory of the Republic in Paris]]
| + | |
| − | The Enlightenment had brought a new generation of political thinkers, showing that, among other things, political ''philosophy'' was in the process of refocusing to political ''science''. This time the influence of the political ''thinkers'', like [[Locke]], on the emergence of republics in America and France soon thereafter was unmistakable: [[Separation of powers]], [[Separation of church and state]], etc were introduced with a certain degree of success in the new republics, along the lines of the major political thinkers of the day.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In fact, the Enlightenment had set the standard for republics, as well as in many cases for monarchies, in the next century. The most important principles established by the close of the Enlightenment were the [[rule of law]], the requirement that governments reflect the [[self-interest]] of the people that were subject to that law, that governments act in the [[national interest]], in ways which are understandable to the public at large, and that there be some means of [[self-determination]].
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | =====In the United Kingdom and the United States=====
| + | |
| − | In his book, [[A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States|''A Defence of the Constitutions'']] (1787), [[John Adams]] used the definition of "republic" in [[Samuel Johnson|Dr. Johnson]]'s 1755 ''[[A Dictionary of the English Language|Dictionary]]'': "a government of more than one person." But elsewhere in the same tract, and in several other writings, Adams made it clear that he thought of the British state as a ''republic'' because the executive, though a unitary "king," was obligated to obey laws enacted with the concurrence of the legislature.<ref name="Adams">For instance, following quote taken from John Adams, "Novanglus" in ''Boston Gazette'', [[6 March]] [[1775]] (reprinted in ''The Papers of [[John Adams]]'', vol. 7, p. 314): "If [[Aristotle]], [[Livy]], and [[James Harrington|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>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Proletarian republicanism====
| + | |
| − | The next major branch in political thinking was pushed forward by [[Karl Marx]], who argued that classes, rather than nationalities, had interests. He argued that governments represented the interests of the dominant class, and that, eventually, the states of his era would be overthrown by those dominated by the rising class of the [[proletariat]].<ref>See for instance [[Marxism]], [[Paris Commune]].</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 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.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Islamic Republicanism====
| + | |
| − | Following decolonialization in the second half of 20th century, the ''political'' dimension of the Islam<ref>That [[Islam]] would have a more ''intrinsic'' political dimension than most other religions is argued, among others, by [[Afshin Ellian]] ([http://www.onderzoekinformatie.nl/en/oi/nod/onderzoeker/PRS1270113/]) in his book ''Brieven van een Pers'' (Meulenhoff - ISBN 90-290-7522-8)</ref> knew a new impulse, leading to several [[Islamic republic]]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 [[Qur'an]]. While, however, there is no apparent reason why [[sharia]] 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".
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Economical factors===
| + | |
| − | The ancient concept of [[res publica]], when applied to politics, had always implied that citizens on one level or another ''took part'' in governing the state: at least citizens were not indifferent to decisions taken by those in charge, and could engage in political debate. A line of thought followed often by historians<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 [[Hanseatic League]], nor late 19th century [[Catalonia]], nor the Netherlands during their [[Golden Age]] 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.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Here also the different nature of republics inspired by Marxism becomes apparent: Karl Marx theorised that the government of a state should be based on the proletarians, that is on those whose political opinions never had been asked before, even less had been considered to really matter when designing a state organisation. There was a problem Marxist/Communist types of republics had to solve: most proletarians were lacking interest and/or experience in designing a state organisation, even if acquainted with ''[[Das Kapital]]'' or [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]]' writings. While the ''practical'' political involvement of proletarians on the level of an entire country hardly ever materialised, these communist republics were more often than not organised in a very top-down structure.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Examples of republics==
| + | |
| − | {{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 [[Libya]]n Arab [[Jamahiriya]], the State of [[Israel]], and the [[Russia]]n [[Federation]]. Israel, Russia, and Libya would meet many definitions of the term ''republic'', however.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Since the term ''republic'' is so vague by itself, many states felt it necessary to add additional qualifiers in order to clarify what kind of republics they claim to be. Here is a list of such qualifiers and variations on the term "republic":
| + | |
| − | * ''Without'' other qualifier than the term ''Republic'' - for example [[France]] and [[Turkey]].
| + | |
| − | * [[Constitutional republic]] - A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches so that no individual or group has absolute power and the power of the majority of the population is checked by only allowing them to elect representatives. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power, makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.
| + | |
| − | * [[Parliamentary republic]] - a republic with an elected Head of state, but where the Head of state and Head of government are kept separate with the Head of government retaining most executive powers, or a Head of state akin to a Head of government, elected by a Parliament.
| + | |
| − | * [[Federal republic]], [[confederation]] or [[federation]] - a federal union of states with a republican form of government. Examples include [[Austria]], [[Brazil]], [[Germany]], [[India]], the [[United States|USA]], [[Russia]] and [[Switzerland]].
| + | |
| − | * [[Islamic Republic]] - Countries like [[Afghanistan]], [[Pakistan]], [[Iran]] are republics governed in accordance with Islamic law. (Note: [[Turkey]] is a distinct exception and is ''not'' included in this list; while the population is predominantly Muslim, the state is a staunchly secular republic.)
| + | |
| − | * [[Arab Republic]] - for example, [[Syria]] its name reflecting its theoretically pan-Arab [[Ba'athist]] government.
| + | |
| − | * [[People's Republic]] - Countries like [[People's Republic of China|China]], [[North Korea]] are meant to be governed for and by the people, but generally without direct elections. Thus, they use the term ''People's Republic'', which was shared by many past [[Communist state]]s.
| + | |
| − | * [[Democratic Republic]] - Tends to be used by countries who have a particular desire to emphasize their claim to be democratic; these are typically Communist states and/or ex-[[colonialism|colonies]]. Examples include the [[German Democratic Republic]] (no longer in existence) and the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]].
| + | |
| − | * [[Commonwealth]] (''[[Rzeczpospolita]]'') - Both words (English and Polish) are derived from the Latin word ''res publica'' (literally "common affairs"). Used in Poland for the current [[Republic of Poland]], and historical Nobles' Rzeczpospolita.
| + | |
| − | * [[Free state (government)|Free state]] - Sometimes used as a label to indicate implementation of, or transition from a [[monarchy|monarchical]] to, a republican form of government. Used for the [[Irish Free State]] under an [[Irish Republicanism|Irish Republican]] government, while still remaining associated with the [[British Empire]].
| + | |
| − | * [[Venezuela]] has adopted since the adoption of the 1999 constitution the title of [[Bolivarian]] Republic of Venezuela.
| + | |
| − | * Other modifiers are rooted in tradition and history and usually have no real political meaning. [[San Marino]], for instance, is the "Most Serene Republic" while [[Uruguay]] is the "Eastern Republic".
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Republics in political theory==
| + | |
| − | In [[political theory]] and political science, the term "republic" is generally applied to a [[state]] where the government's [[political power]] depends solely on the consent, however nominal, of the people governed. This usage leads to two sets of problematic classification. The first are states which are oligarchical in nature, but are not nominally hereditary, such as many [[dictatorship]]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 [[constitutional monarchies]]. The first case causes many outside the state to deny that the state should, in fact, be seen as a Republic. In many states of the second kind there are active "republican" movements that promote the ending of even the nominal monarchy, and the semantic problem is often resolved by calling the state a [[Democracy]].
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Generally, political scientists try to analyse underlying realities, not the ''names'' by which they go: whether a political leader calls himself "king" or "president", and the state he governs a "monarchy" or a "republic" is not the essential characteristic, whether he exerces power as an autocrat is. In this sense political analysts may say that the [[First World War]] was, in many respects, the death knell for monarchy, and the establishment of republicanism, whether de facto and/or de jure, as being essential for a modern state. The [[Austro-Hungarian Empire]] and the [[German Empire]] were both abolished by the terms of the peace treaty after the war, the Russian Empire overthrown by the [[Russian Revolution of 1917]]. Even within the victorious states, monarchs were gradually being stripped of their powers and prerogatives, and more and more the government was in the hands of elected bodies whose majority party headed the executive. Nonetheless post-WWI Germany, a ''de jure'' republic, would develop into a ''de facto'' autocracy by the mid 1930s: the new peace treaty, after the [[Second World War]], took more precaution in making the terms thus that also ''de facto'' (the Western part of) Germany would remain a republic.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Notes and references==
| + | |
| − | <references/>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Further reading==
| + | |
| − | * [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]], ''[[The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right|Du Contrat Social, ou Principes de Droit Politique]]'' (1762)
| + | |
| − | * {{cite web | author = William R. Everdell | authorlink = William Everdell | year = 2000 | url = http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/13978.ctl | title = ''The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans'' | publisher = University of Chicago Press }}
| + | |
| − | *Martin van Gelderen & [[Quentin Skinner]], eds., ''Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage'', v1, ''Republicanism and Constitutionalism in Early Modern Europe'', Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2002
| + | |
| − | *Martin van Gelderen & Quentin Skinner, eds., ''Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage'', v2, ''The Values of Republicanism in Early Modern Europe'', Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2002
| + | |
| − | *Philip Pettit, ''Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government'', NY: Oxford U.P., 1997, ISBN 0-19-829083-7; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
| + | |
| − | * Frédéric Monera, ''L'idée de République et la jurisprudence du Conseil constitutionnel'' - Paris: L.G.D.J., 2004 [http://www.fnac.com/Shelf/article.asp?PRID=1601897&Mn=2&Ra=-1&To=0&Nu=2&Fr=3]-[http://www.lgdj.fr/rech_rapide.php?_Sess=c22f5de9dee93f9554d169596caad970&_Mots=monera&_TypeCode=];
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | {{wikipedia|Republic}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [[Category:Forms of government]]
| + | |
