Republic

A republic is a state or country that is led by people that don't found their power status on any principle beyond the control of the people living in that state or country.

Most commonly such principle beyond the control of the state's citizens is a hereditary principle, and in this sense a republic is the opposite of a monarchy. However, other variants to come to a state that is not a republic exist, for example the head of state of Vatican City is not appointed by a hereditary principle, but as this head of state is appointed by a committee (called conclave in this case) where the inhabitants of the state play no determining role, Vatican City cannot be called a republic. Also divine intercession allegedly plays or played a role in the appointment of several non-republic heads of state, for example the Dalai Lama, assigned by the interpretation of supernatural indications, used to be a head of state apart from being a religious leader.

Republics can (and usually do) have a single person that is head of state, in which case such head of state (even if in a joint office like the two consuls of the Roman Republic) is selected for a limited term.

The nominal head of state is sometimes stripped from any factual influence in governing a state, leaving such sovereign with no more than a ceremonial function. Although in practice such state can be governed similarly as a republic, conventionally such state or country is still called a monarchy.

Some states belonging to the British Commonwealth, like Australia, are conventionally not described as republics, though the practical governement system of such state may also be very near to that of a republic.

The term "republic" has been applied to states that were top-down totalitarian and/or had their leaders appointed externally, like for example the DDR (litterally: "German Democratic Republic"): the form of governement of such state is however usually not qualified as a republic.

The term "republic" can also be used to indicate a lapse of time in a state's history, or to (theoretical) models for a state organisation, not linked to a real-life governement system and/or not linked to an actual state or country: for these, and other, uses of the term republic outside the qualification of governement systems applied in actual states: see Republic (disambiguation)

The development of ideas regarding republics

The concept of republic in antiquity

In Western culture the ideas about what a republic is, and which types of republics can be distinghuished, all have their roots in antiquity.

Ancient Greece

In Ancient Greece several philosophers and historians set themselves to analysing and describing forms of government. No single expression or definition from this era, written down in Greek, that exactly corresponds with a modern understanding of the term republic survives, but the most essential building blocks to come to such modern definition are present in the works of (amongst others) Plato, Aristotle and Polybius. These authors saw three basic forms of state organisation:

A state governed by the people (antiquity's perception of democracy)
A state governed by a select few (antiquity's perception of oligarchy)
A state governed by a single person (antiquity's perception of monarchy)

Further, and it was most prominently Polybius who elaborated on this, they saw that most states have a government system that is composed of more than one of these basic principles, which then was called a mixed government system.

As however the earliest of these philosophers did not so much distinguish forms of government (as "government systems") on the basis of whether or not those ruling a state derived their power yes or no from the inhabitants of that state, comparisons with more modern analyses of republics vs. monarchies and/or democracies vs. totalitarian regimes are not always possible.

Further, even for the states "governed by people" these ancient philosophers didn't give it a second thought that not all persons were included: women were usually forgotten, and slaves or other lower classes always.

That the modern title of Plato's dialogue on the ideal state (The Republic) is a misnomer when seen through the eyes of modern political science is explained in Republic (Plato).

The impossibility, in most contexts, to translate the Greek concept "politeia" to "republic" is explained in the politeia article.

Nonetheless, Ancient Greek states like Athens and Sparta can be described as republics during parts of their history.

Ancient Rome

Both Livy (in Latin, living in Augustus' time) and Plutarch (in Greek, a century later) had described how Rome had developed its legislation, notably the transition from Kingdom to Republic, based on Greek examples. Probably some of this history, written more than half a millenium after the events, with scant written sources to rely on, is fictitious reconstruction - nonetheless the influence of the Greek way of dealing with government is clear in the state organisation of the Roman Republic.

The Greek historian Polybius, writing more than a century before Livy, was one of the first historians describing the emergence of the Roman Empire, and he had a great influence on Cicero, when this orator was writing his politico-philosophical works in the 1st century BC. One of these works was De re publica, where Cicero links the Latin res publica concept to the Greek politeia concept. As explained in the res publica article, also this concept only exceptionally links to the modern term "republic", although the word "republic" is derived from res publica.

Among these many meanings of the expression res publica, it is only most often translated to "republic" in the case where the Latin expression refers to the Roman state with the form of government it had between the era of the Kings and the era of the Emperors, which was the Roman Republic. This Roman Republic would in a modern understanding of the word still be qualified as a true republic, even if not excelling in all the features Enlightenment philosophers saw for an ideal government system, for example there was no systematic separation of powers in the Roman Republic.

Occasionally Romans could still refer to their state as "res publica" in the era of the early emperors. The reason for this is that on the surface the state organisation of the Roman Republic had been preserved without the slightest alteration by the first emperors. They only had several offices, that in the era of the Republic were reserved to separate persons, accumulated in a single person, and had been successful in making some of these offices permanent, and thus had gradually built sovereignity in their person. Traditionally such references to the early empire as "res publica" are not translated as "republic".

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

And then there's Tacitus, a contemporary of Plutarch: frankly, whatever later commentators read in his works, Tacitus didn't give a damn whether on an abstract level a form of government could be analysed as a "republic" or a "monarchy" (see for example Ann. IV, 32-33). Not because he was "merely" a historian describing facts without interpreting them: sharply he analyses how the powers accumulated by the early Julio-Claudian dynasty were all given to the representants of this dynasty by a State that was and remained in an ever more "abstract" way a republic; nor was the Roman Republic "forced" to give away these powers to single persons in a consecutive dynasty: it did so out of free will, and reasonably in Augustus' case, because of his many merits towards the state, freeing it of civil wars and the like.

But at least Tacitus is one of the first to follow this line of thought: analysing in which measure such powers were given to the head of state because the citizens wanted to give them, and in which measure they were given because of other principles (for example, because one had a deified ancestor) — such other principles leading more easily to abuse by the one in power. In this sense, that is in Tacitus' analysis, the impossibility to return to the Republic is only irreversible when Tiberius establishes power shortly after Augustus' death (AD 14, much later than most historians place the start of the Imperial form of government in Rome): by this time too many "untouchable" principles had been mingled in to keep Tiberius away from power, and the age of "sockpuppetry in the external form of a republic", as Tacitus more or less describes this Emperor's reign, began (Ann. I-VI).

Further Western development

In the late Middle Ages a number of small states would again establish themselves as republics. Haakonssen notes that by the Renaissance Europe was divided with those states controlled by a landed elite being monarchies and those controlled by a commercial elite being republics. These included Italian city states like Florence and Venice and the members of the Hanseatic League.

Renaissance

The idea of the Republic is drawn from Ancient Greece and Rome but it was truly created during the Renaissance when scholars built upon their conception of the ancient world to advance their view of the ideal government. At this period the school of thought known as classical republicanism or civic humanism came into being outlining how best to run a republic. These authors, most prominent among them being Niccolò Machiavelli, based ideas about republics on the states of the classical world, such as Athens, Sparta, and the Roman Republic as well as the ancient works of political philosophy such as Aristotle, Polybius and especially Cicero - not forgetting Tacitus. In the Renaissance the classical states were dubbed republics, and are today still sometimes refered to as classical republics.

Niccolò Machiavelli is generally considered the most important of the formulators of a modern understanding of the republic. Instead of the ancient definitions that saw three basic government organisation forms, plus a set of usually ill-defined "combinations" of these basic forms, as described above, Machiavelli saw only two basic forms of state organisation: "all states, all the dominions that have had or now have authority over men have been and now are either republics or princedoms." (quote from The Prince).

The government of Venice was labeled a republic in the Renaissance.

Enlightenment

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

Up till then the situation had been different: even those Renaissance authors that spoke highly of republics were rarely critical of monarchies. While Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy is the period's key work on republics he also wrote The Prince on how to best run a monarchy. One cause of this was that the early modern writers did not see the republican model as one that could be applied universally, most felt that it could only be successful in very small and highly urbanized city-states.

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

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

French Enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau and Montesquieu expanded upon and altered the ideas of what an ideal republic would be: some of their new ideas were scarcely retraceable to antiquity or the Renaissance thinkers. Among other things they contributed and/or heavily elaborated notions like social contract and separation of powers.

Eventually, the French Revolution, which was to throw over the French monarchy at the end of the 18th century, installed, at first, a republic.

Only a few decades later also kingdoms, like the Belgian state emerging in 1830, would start to adopt some of the innovations of the progressive political philosophers of the Enlightenment too.

Non-western traditions

Outside of Europe government systems without (heriditary) monarchy before the modern period are not generally termed republics. Islam, for instance, is opposed to monarchies seeing the ideal state as one where the ummah, caliph, and sharia all play a role in governance. These concept share some of the same classical roots as the ideas about republics in Western Europe, but in pre-modern times such government forms are not generally called republics.

Modern republics

Since the French Revolution the overthrow of monarchies has become common place and the vast majority of countries are today republics of some form. There are only a few dozen kingdoms, dominions, emirates, or principalities remaining. The republics of today have little in common besides not being monarchies of some form. Countries that call themselves republics include nations as diverse as North Korea, Iran, Togo, and the United States. Most states in the world consider themselves to be some sort of republic. Of those that are not monarchies only the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, State of the Vatican City, the State of Israel, the Union of Myanmar and Russian Federation reject the label republic. Israel and Russia, and even Myanmar and Libya, would meet many definitions of the term republic, however.

In modern times, the head of state of a republic is usually formed by only one person, the president, but there are some exceptions such as Switzerland, which has a seven-member council as its head of state, called the Bundesrat, and San Marino, where the position of head of state is shared by two people.

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. Republics in the Soviet Union 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.

France

For the history of the development of the French Republic, see: First Republic - (First Empire) - Second Republic - (Second Empire) - Third Republic - (Vichy France) - Fourth Republic - Fifth Republic

Spain

See First Republic and Second Republic for the two (relatively short-lived) eras when Spain was governed as a republic.

United States

In the United States republic came to mean a state that did not practice direct democracy but rather had the government only indirectly controlled by the people. In the rest of the world this is known as representative democracy. This language originates with the Founding Fathers and can largely be explained by the early creation of the American republic. At the time of the American Revolution democracy was still associated with the negative views the classical scholars had of it. It was a pejorative term used to refer to what would today be called mob rule. The view was rooted in the writings of Aristotle and others who saw pure majoritarian rule as a form of despotism. Kant believed that a true republic was only one that protected minorities. Thus some of the Founder's, most prominently John Adams, proposed that the new nation should be a republic rather than a democracy. The Federalist Papers outline the idea that pure democracy is actually quite dangerous, because it allows a majority to infringe upon the rights of a minority. A republic was thus defined as a state in which the will of the people was at some remove from actual governance. However, some other Founding Father's used the terms republic and democracy interchangeably.

Using the word republic also tied in with the Founding Father's interest in republican ideology and a number of republican ideas were integrated into the new constitution. For instance many see the system of checks and balances being based on the republican belief in mixed government. There is a heated debate among academics as to how important republicanism was to the Founding Fathers. The traditional view was that it was of little import when compared to liberalism. In the 1960s and 1970s a revisionist school lead by the likes of 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 Kramnick completely reject this view.

The term republic does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, but does appear in Article IV of the Constitution which "guarantees a republican form of government for the states." What exactly the writers of the constitution felt this should mean is uncertain. The Supreme Court in Luther v. Borden 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 US v. Cruishank the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of republic. In re Duncan it ruled that the "right of the people to choose their government" is also part of the definition. It is also generally assumed that the clause prevents any state from being a monarchy.

States of the United States are required, like the federal government, to be republican in form, with final authority resting with the people. This was required because the states were intended to create and enforce most domestic laws, with the exception of areas delegated to the federal government and prohibited to the states. The founding fathers of the country intended most domestic laws to be handled by the states, although, over time, the federal government has gained more and more influence over domestic law. Requiring the states to be a republic in form was also seen as protecting the citizens' rights and preventing a state from becoming a dictatorship or monarchy.

Over time this Founder's definition was declined as pejorative definition of democracy faded. By the time of Andrew Jackson and the new Democratic Party democracy was seen as an unmitigated positive and it has remained so to this day. The limitations on democracy were removed pace by pace: the President and Senators were made to be directly elected by the population; property qualifications were removed; and referendums and other forms of direct democracy became widely accepted at the state and local level.

Already in the 20th century the United States and its system of government were most often referred to as a democracy. President George W. Bush, being a republican himself, speaks about spreading democracies, and not republics, around the world.

Germany

See BRD and GDR - some of the episodes of the development a republican form of government in Germany, like Hitler's Third Reich phantasies and the split resulting from WW II, can, with hindsight, only be described as "painful" - but that doesn't diminish the qualities of federal republic that eventually emerged in Germany in the 2nd half of the 20th century.

List of republics

There are and were a very large number of republics in the world. A republican form of government can be combined with many different kinds of economy and democracy. Some examples for certain forms of republic are:

Antiquity

Roman Republic (...-...)
...

Middle Ages and Renaissance

Venice (...-...)
...

Enlightenment and later

Federal republics

Republics governed by representative democracy, in which the states play a crucial role:

USA (since ...)
Germany (since ...)

Confederations

Confederal republics are usually governed by a combination of representative democracy and direct democracy:

Switzerland (since ....)

Islamic Republics

Republics governed in accordance with Islamic law:

Afghanistan (....)
Pakistan (....)
Iran (....)

People's Republics

Meant to be governed by the people, this name is generally used by far-east communist states:

China (....)
North Korea (....)

Soviet and related (former) Communist Republics

In the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, some associated countries, and/or their successors would use the name "republic", while not completely corresponding with a "western" view on the essential characteristics of a republic:

GDR (....-....)

Other

A wide array of other adjectives are used: democratic is common but in most cases meaningless and/or redundant. Other modifiers are rooted in tradition and history, equally only with a limited practical and/or political meaning:

Syria is the "Arab Republic" reflecting its theoretically pan-Arab Ba'athist government.
San Marino qualifies itself as the "Most Serene Republic"
Uruguay is the "Eastern Republic".

Many republics, however, did not seek to add such qualifiers to their name:

French Republic (1st: ....-....; 2nd: ....-....; 3rd: ....-....; 4th and 5th since ....)

References

Emergence of the Roman Republic:
- Parallel Lives by Plutarch, particularily:
  - (From the translation in 4 volumes, available at Project Gutenberg:) Plutarch's Lives, Volume I (of 4)
  - More particularily following Lives and Comparisons (D is Dryden translation; G is Gutenberg; P is Perseus Project; L is LacusCurtius website):

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

Republic and republicanism:
- Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967.
- Brugger, Bill. Republican Theory in Political Thought: Virtuous or Virtual? Basingstoke: St. Martin's Press, 1999.
- Fink, Zera. The Classical Republicans: An Essay in the Recovery of a Pattern of Thought in Seventeenth-Century England. Evanston: Northwestern university Press, 1962.
- Gelderen, Martin van and Quentin Skinner. eds. Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
- Haakonssen, Knud. "Republicanism." A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit. eds. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1995.
- Kramnick, Isaac. Republicanism and Bourgeois Radicalism: Political Ideology in Late Eighteenth-Century England and America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990.
- Maynor, John W. Republicanism in the Modern World. Cambridge: Polity, 2003.
- Pettit, Philip. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
- Pocock, J.G.A. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975.
- Sandel, Michael J. Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996.