Talk:List of countries by date of transition to a republican system of government

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Non-European countries[edit]

If anyone wishes to expand this list to include non-European countries, please feel free to do so. Don't forget to change the title though. Kpalion 23:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read, shouldn't the USA be on this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMatchGirl (talk • contribs) 23:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit misleading to me. It looks as if Sweden or the UK (constitutional monarchies that mostly serve as folklore) were not even where Switzerland was by 1684 or Moldova by 1940. Maybe a timeline with several types of events (rather than merely the republic) would be more useful. Rl 08:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's not stressed enough in the article itself, but the list is based on the premise that a republic is a non-monarchy. In other words, the basic difference between the two is that the head of state in a monarchy is called "His/Her Majesty" (or something similar) and the head of state in a republic is called "Mr/Ms President" (or something of that sort). This distinction has nothing to do with democracy, civil rights etc. There are democratic monarchies, like all of those in Europe, and there are totalitarian republics like North Korea. So if anything is misleading, it's the political façades, not the article itself. And I think it's way better than the List of countries by date of nationhood which is really utter crap. Kpalion 18:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of obvious problems with this list. The treatment of countries which became republics more than once seems to be inconsistent. Countries which should be included, or for which the dates are wrong or questionable, include France ( What about the First Republic and the Second Republic, the 1870 republic was not called the Third Republic for nothing), Eqypt ( monarchy overthrown around 1953), Iraq ( Faisal II assasinated and monarchy ended 1958 not 1939 ), and the Phillipines ( US colony until 1946). England was arguably a republic during the 1650-1665 era.Eregli bob 12:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says clearly that it only takes into account the last transition to a republic. So in the case of countries like France, which became republics more than once, only the last such transition is listed here. And the list only includes countries which are republics today, so countries like the UK, which were repbulics at some point in history, but are monarchies now, are omitted. — Kpalion(talk) 16:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that places like Burma & Israel are on the list if they were not independent monarchies before they became republics on independence? If there are no valid reasons, then it should be corrected soon. That-Vela-Fella 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Discussion[edit]

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino Contradiction/add the USA[edit]

Based on the emboldended first line of the article, San Marino doesn't seem to qualify (per the third graph in the first section, San Marino was "a republic from its' inception.'

Similarly, on the same criteria as the inclusion of any Commonwealth realms, should not the USA circa 21 June 1788 be added?

I'll make these changes if there are no objections at 0300 UTC 9 August (or later). Sahrin (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True on the case for San Marino, it was founded as a republic. As for the USA, no since it was never a 'realm', but from colony directly to a republican nation on independence. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the article: "by date of their last transition from a monarchy to a republican form of government" - "realm" was my usage, trying to sound snoody and intelligent without cause. That said; there's no doubt that as a colony the US was a colony of the British Empire, and transitioned directly (...with some bumbling about) to a Republican form. Per my original comment, I've made the changes - and I think the article is accurate as is. Sahrin (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case for the USA, then every other colony to an independent republic should then be included from those in a monarchical system? Not just from the UK, but also from the Netherlands, etc. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that. I'd say that is the spirit of the article; regardless of the legal mechanics of the transition - the purpose is to denote nations which transferred from monarchial government to Republican. Sahrin (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would offer the argument that San Marino should be excluded from this list as it is categorized as a "European microstates or European ministates" Cameronarndt (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, and disclaiming any but basic knowledge of U.S. history, I'll note that my understanding is that the 13 British colonies which became independent as a result of the Treaty of Paris (1783) were then organized into a union under Articles of Confederation which (quoting that WP article) "provided clearly written rules for how the states' 'league of friendship' (Perpetual Union) would be organized." Power rested with the state governments with no requirement (AFAIK) that they be organized as republics. The current U.S. constitution came about later. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines[edit]

I've reverted this edit, which would have changed the date the Philippines became a Republic from July 1, 1902 (based on the passage in the U.S. of the Philippine Organic Act (1902)) to November 2, 1897 (based on the passage of a constitution and the establishment of a governmental structure by Katipunan revolutionaries then in revolt against the colonial government of Spain). That revolutionary movement terminated after a month and a half, on December 14, 1897, with the signing of the Pact of Biak-na-Bato, and was followed by a series of further unsuccessful attempts at revolution against Spain and then the U.S. (after the signing or the Treaty of Paris transferred sovereignty over the Philippines from Spain to the U.S.). As I understand it, the country became a de-facto and de-jure Republic with the passage of the aforementioned Philippine Organic Act (see Timeline of Philippine Sovereignty). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Library of Congress officially recognize the Malolos Congress the first republican congress on the islands. [1] --99.98.165.151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Assertions in this article re when the Philippines first became a Republic moved from saying that this happened on November 2, 1897 in this recent edit to saying that it happened on Januray (sic) 21, 1899 here. Both asserted dates are based on adoption of Republican constitutions by revolutionary groups (more-or-less the same revolutionary group, in fact, at two different points in time).

Now, we have a claim that the U.S. LofC "officially recognizes" the latter of the two. AFAIK, The LofC has no authority to extend official recognition of anything at all on behalf of the U.S. Government. The LofC URL which you link is chapter 24 of A Country Study: Philippines, Library of Congress Call Number DS655 .P598 1993. Chapter 22 of that country study, here, mentions the earlier convention, though it doesn't mention the Republican constitution adopted by the revolutionaries at that earlier convention.

Here, the U.S. LofC is reporting certain historical events which took place during the the Philippine Revolution and (as of the chapter 24 timeframe) in the context of Spanish-American War. During both the chapter 22 and chapter 24 timeframes, the Philippines was a colony of Spain, and revolutionaries were seeking to wrest control of the country from Spain. Spain controlled the nation's capital and portions of the country; revolutionaries controlled some portions of the country. The leaders of the revolution adopted two separate constitutions at two separate times, and promulgated documents declaring themselves as a national government. Among the community of nations, no nation recognized the revolutionaries as the legitimate government of the Philippines.

As far as this article is concerned, the question at issue is "When did the government of the Philippines first become a Republic?". The adoption of a republican constitutions by a revolutionary groups does not make the revolted-against country a Republic except, possibly, in historical hindsight after the revolution succeeds. The adoption of Republican constitutions by revolutionaries whose revolutions do not succeed does not make the revolted-against country a Republic as of the adoption date(s) of Republican constitutions by those failed revolutionary groups. Accordingly, I've reverted these edits. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the revolution did succeed. The United States (by virtue of the CIA Factbook [2] and the State Department [3]) has acknowledged that. Regardless of that fact, the first time that a fully-functioning republican system ever existing in that country began on November 1935, at the time of the Philippine Commonwealth, when the first internationally-recognized president ruled the country. But the question here lies on the fact that these succeeding events might not have happened if it weren't for the Philippine Declaration of Independence on June 12, 1898. I believe the answer lies on the status of Puerto Rico which has an organic act and a constitution but it is not a republic or is it? --99.98.165.151 (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the recent International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence specifically states that there are "no prohibitions on declarations of independence" with regards to international law.--99.98.165.151 (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand the constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, it regards itself as a democratic republic which is in commonwealth with the U.S. As I understand the U.S. position on that, it regards P.R. as an unincorporated territory with limited and revocable authority for self-government. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You say that the revolution did succeed, citing the CIA Factbook entry on the Philippines. I don't see any support for that assertion there. Please, what specific information there do you read as supporting that assertion?
You also cite a pro-forma statement by U.S. SecState Hillary Clinton congratulating the people of the Philippines on the 112th anniversary of the Philippine declaration of independence. As I read that, it supports an assertion that such a declaration was made, but I see no support for an assertion that the Philippine Revolution succeeded.Please take a look at the Philippine Revolution and Philippine-American War articles and sources cited there.
You also point to a WP article quoting the ICJ president as saying, "international law contains no 'prohibition on declarations of independence'". It is not a violation of international law for you and half a dozen of your friends to sit around your kitchen table tonight and draw up a declaration of independence and a constitution which, taken together, declare that you, as representatives of the people of your country, declare independence from the government of your country and that the seven of you are constituted as a new interim government of your country pending elections to select representatives for a legislature and a ruler-in-chief for the country. However, doing that does not invalidate the government from which you have declared independence and does not legitimize your new government either de-facto or de-jure. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of former republics[edit]

What about including a list of countries which were once Republics but are now monarchies, such as the Spanish Republic, the Dutch Republic or the English Republic? --Philip Stevens (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that these should be simply included in the list, with a note explaining that the country has since transitioned from the Republican system to some other system. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the countries I mentioned above to the list. I put them in italics to distinguish them from current republics. --Philip Stevens (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes your heart bleed to see that dark time in British history but they rightly should be included. I was thinking maybe "former republics" could have their own colour and be noted in the introduction in the way they are split from after ww1/ww2 so the distinction is even clearer. Some people are lazy and do no always read the full notes section within a table. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the colour of the former republics to yellow and added a note in the opening, they should stand out a bit more now. And yes, the republic was the most tyrannical government in British history. --Philip Stevens (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent assertions[edit]

"Independence won from the British Empire on September 3, 1783; Republican Constitution adopted in 1788"

This really isn't correct. The United States was a republic from its inception. The articles of conferation under which the US operated for 15 years was a republican form of government. It didn't become a republic in 1788.

Many other countries on the list have had many republican constitutions and are dated from the first one, not the second or third or fourth one.

A quick question[edit]

  • San Marino declared its independence from Rome.
  • The Netherlands won its independence from Spain.
  • Switzerland was declared independent via the Treaty of Westphalia.
  • Argentina won its independence from Spain.
  • Chile won its independence from Spain.
  • Korea was liberated from Japan.
  • Indonesia declared its independence from the Netherlands.
  • Burma declared its independence from Britain.
  • Israel was declared independent via mandate from the United Nations.
  • Cyprus declared its independence from Britain.
  • Singapore was declared independent via expulsion from Malaysia.

So...where exactly is the United States? AuburnAttack21 (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make the same page for adoption of democracy Prabuddha Magre (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

If a new republican state gains independence from another republic, should it be included in this list or not? Palestine is included in the list, while South Sudan and Timor Este aren't.93.49.39.99 (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poland[edit]

Should Poland's Regency Council really be treated as a monarchy? Poland's date of republican inception should really be in 1917, not in 1918 just because a Field Marshal took power from a loose group of politicians and Clergy who weren't a royal family anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevolutionizeSeven (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerlindependent?[edit]

For a second I thought this was a very exceptional special English word but seems like a typo. Someone should fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7C0:409:8D1C:E121:86D1:EA37:2BD6 (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of the Congo[edit]

The Republic of the Congo gained independence on 15 August 1960 as a republic but belonged to a republic (France) before. Where to put it? Same for other countries like Algeria, Morocco, ... --androl (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no legend[edit]

What do the background colours and italics mean?

94.173.210.180 (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second this question — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.74.205 (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait[edit]

Kuwait was a republic for a short amount of time when it was a puppet state of Iraq. Hikerblunt01 (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List is innacurate.[edit]

Many non-Republics on this list, such as Russia being listed as a Republic because of Lenin's coup. There wasn't an actual republic until the collapse of the Soviet Union as the USSR was a single-party state. 8.27.218.220 (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unrecognized states[edit]

It looks like there's an edit war in progress between @Peter Ormond: and an anon re mention of unrecognized states in the article. I've placed a notice about this discussion here on the anon's talk page. I'm mentioning this here because I think that the issue or unrecognized states goes beyond the specifics at issue there. Open questions are whether or not this article should mention unrecognized states and, if so, how prospective mentionees should be filtered for inclusion and whether/how they should be differentiated from recognized states go beyond the specifics currently at issue, and that ought to be discussed here.

I note that one other example of an unrecognized state currently mentioned in the article is the First Philippine Republic; there may be others. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added Tibet for partial accuracy because the polity was not recognized by all countries but remained part of China. The ROC had Outer Mongolia and Tibet as monarchies but that became republics between 1924 and 1951 though Outer Mongolia was recognized by the ROC in 1946 under Soviet pressure and Tibet was absorbed into the PRC. I will temporarily re-add the Tibet section for now and add a note until this is resolved. —142.112.224.106 (talk)< — Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USA[edit]

According to the Colonial government in the Thirteen Colonies article, the 13 british colonies in America which became independent from Britain as a result of the Treaty of Paris (1783) were in transition from colonial status during their revolution, and some of them were not able to adopt constitutions until 1777. During the revolution and for a time after it ended, they were in a union under articles of Confederation which (quoting that WP article) "provided clearly written rules for how the states' 'league of friendship' (Perpetual Union) would be organized." Power rested with those state governments until the U.S. constitution became effective on March 4, 1789. It seems to me that the U.S. became a republic de jure when the current constitution became effective, and perhaps de facto when republican constitutions became effective in all 13 of the states in that union. I'm no historian, though; I can't cite sources supporting that offhand and havn't been able to nail down citeable supporting sources by searching online.

My dates disagree with the date currently asserted without support in this article. Discussion? Sources? Wtmitchell (updated) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(follow-up) The Constitution of the United States article has a quote from Owings v. Speed, 18 U.S. 420 (1820) saying, "The present Constitution of the United States did not commence its operation until the first Wednesday in March 1789". Given that the U.S. is presently a Republic, citing that would support an assertion that the U.S. became a republic on that date. I have WP:BOLDly edited this article to say that, with an edit summary saying, 'See "USA" on the talk page. If you disagree, please discuss there and identify sources supporting an assertion that the U.S. became a republic on an earlier date before changing the date here.' Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_by_date_of_transition_to_a_republican_system_of_government&oldid=1208225039"