From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US Constitution garruntees a republican form of government; which is not clearly defined but implied; but is it not implied that democracy culminates in republicanism?

Isn't it obvious that republicanism respects no partisan, but makes clear the utility of philosophy, religion, art and science; and must prove business to follow the will of the people, supported by the keystone of liberty?

Does not the preamble of the US constitution prescribe the purpose of a republican form of government; which is republicanism?Sir Fartalot 20:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The term republic most commonly means the system of government in which the head of state is elected for a limited term, as opposed to a constitutional monarchy

but republic says:

Most of the dictatorial or totalitarian states in the world today are republics.

so are dictatorships republics or not?

Definitely not. The only two meaningful definitions of a Republic come from either Montesquieu or Madison. Montesquieu calls them Aristocratic if there are elections, and Democratic if everyone is a legislator. Madison describes, in Federalist 39, that a Republic is a government where all Officers (including Judges) are either elected, or appointed by people who are elected. JoshNarins 02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

---

... and their political wing Sinn Féin who support violence as a means of establishing a republic

... Sinn Féin's move away from violence has resulted in increased support and ...

So with these developments are Sinn Féin no longer considered republicans in Ireland?

Athens was a democracy. All the citizens voted on the issues all the time and the few public officials required were chosen by lot. They didn't even have the term republic. The modern republic with it's emphasis on elections would have been a oligarchy (rule by the few) to the Athenians. Athens is perhaps the only example of pure democracy applied on a national scale. Rousseau proposed a system exactly like Athens. A democracy rather than a republic.

Regardless if they had the term, since only 10% of Athenians were allowed to vote, the example of 15-16th century Poland comes close. They did not, however, have any officials (that I am aware of) elected by lottery. By Montesquieu's definition, there are two types of Republics, Aristocratic (ours) and Democratic (Athens). JoshNarins 02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 This article is incoherent 2 Better Summary for Canadian Republicanism 3 What fools and hypocrites 4 "Two Versions" template 5 I think a major rewrite is due 5.1 Cicero 5.2 Constitutional republic 5.3 The Republican Synthesis and the American Revolution 5.4 Two sections division 5.5 Objectivity? or USA-centrism?

[edit] This article is incoherent

This article is incoherent, because it tries to pretend there is a single meaning of "republicanism". Basically, the term has been used in so many diverse contexts these days, that it is better to identify the various meanings associated with it, and treat them as distinct concepts, nonetheless having some historical links. For example, this article implies that a republic is in some form opposed to a democracy -- an understanding that the Ancient Greeks or American Founding Father's may have had, but which has nothing to do with how "republicanism" is used by most Australians for example, or by most Catholics in Northern Ireland -- and then, Australians and Northern Ireland Catholics mean quite different things by these terms anyway! --137.111.13.34 07:33, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps an interesting side note is that all the Founders loved Montesquieu. It is what George Washington studied for the Second Constitutional Convention JoshNarins 02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better Summary for Canadian Republicanism

Having moved a very long chapter on Canadian Republicanism to its own page, the summary here needs to be improved. This summary is based upon the original long article, but it does not tie into the republicanism page very well. Also I cannot know whether the summary represents the most important points. Perhaps someone will like to improve it.

Canadian Republicanism now having its own page, the history of the movement can be recorded in appropriate detail. Perhaps the same person should improve the structure and detail of that page also.

[edit] What fools and hypocrites

As to the knowledge and expertise of our infamous Dr. SimonP of Republican theory. Let me quote Machiavelli's TRUE definition:

Thus the sagacious legislators, knowing the vices of each of these systems of government, (i.e. speaking of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) by themselves, have chosen one that should partake of all of them, judging that to be the most stable and solid. In fact, when there is combined under the same constitution a prince, a nobility, and the power of the people, then these three powers will watch and keep each other reciprocally in check." "Discourses on Titus Livius" end of Book I chapter II, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli, ed. by Robert M. Adams, pg 94.

"I think, then, that to found a republic which whould endure a long time it would be bewst to organize her internally like Sparta, or to locate her, like Venice, in some strong place". ibid, pg 97.WHEELER 16:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He deleted it off the Talk:Republic page. What is he trying to cover up?---his incompetence?WHEELER 21:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The quotes are still at Talk:Republic. I never deleted them, nor has anyone else. - SimonP 22:03, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Machiavelli wrote about/for the Medici TYRANTS. The hereditary aristocratic oligarchic "Republicans" of Florence were not his ideal, nor for whom he wrote. I am deeply offended that his handbook for Tyrants, "The Prince," was mentioned in the context of Republicanism. Scholars ahve, wisely, written that Machiavelli was the proponent of the divorce of politics and morals. JoshNarins 02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Two Versions" template

At the time of putting the "two versions" template the discussion is about whether or not "republicanism" should be a redirect to "republic", or whether republic and republicanism should each be articles in their own right.

The pro's and con's are discussed, for instance:

• Talk:Republic#Split_of_.22republic.22_and_.22republicanism.22
• User_talk:Jtdirl#Republic_-_Republicanism_-_Republican

Anyway, there appears no consensus to merge the two articles. For myself I think the split is necessary to avoid unending discussions over NPOV issues. --Francis Schonken 11:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would be vehemently opposed to merging the two. This article lacks accuracy, and consistancy and is often outright wrong in some of its assertions. In the study of comparative politics which is the study of various forms of government a republic is simply a form or governance that has a central power and subsidiary regioal power. An example of a Federal government and State government of the United States. Despite the example given there is no reason to assume that a republic is a democracy. Rome was a Republic, a highly centrally power based government with subsidary powers. France is in its Fifth republic. Dave 03:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I think a major rewrite is due

• The very first sentence of this article is - as far as I know from my degree in comparative politics - flat wrong. The entire article is based on incorrect and inaccurate premises from the point of view of political science.
• Given this opinion I would like to see a major rewrite of this article done or in the absence of doing that some valid source citation for the information contained in the article.

Any and all comments, suggestions and critiques are not only welcome but invited. I have no desire to simply do a rewrite overnight because I disagree with the results of somebody elses hard work. Kudos to them for having spent the time to do the article in the first place! Dave 03:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I should read the other article, but this article leaves me flat.

[edit] Cicero

I also think the section on the Roman Republic needs work, especially in regards to Cicero. It is my understanding that we really only have bits and pieces of the republic, yet Cicero does write quite a lot about we could call republican philosophy. So maybe references to De Officiis, De Legibus, etc would be more appropriate. Furthermore, I recall that he spoke quite a bit against having kings/dictators as the form of government, because no matter how efficient they can be, they inevitably become tyrants. I'm wandering here, sorry, it's quite late for me. Anyway, Cicero's political writings are very important to this article because they so influenced the topic for nearly two millenia. If you read his stuff, you start seeing things that can be attributed to it everywhere. Novium 08:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional republic

Anyone want to help develop Constitutional republic? I just created the article and am amazed that it didn't exist, as it's the U.S. form of state. RJII 06:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Republican Synthesis and the American Revolution

"First and last it was a republican revolution, as historians such as Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood, Lance Banning and many others have demonstrated." This sentence should be revised: the nature of the American Revolution is an open historiographical debate. A number of eminent historians have argued that the Revolution was in fact more liberal than republican. The whole section on republican ideology in America needs revision.

The consensus since 1990 is pretty strongly in favor of republicanism --who are the dissenters? Rjensen 21:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two sections division

The difference between "Republicanism in the political sciences" and "Anti-monarchial republicanism" seems rather arbitrary. Why isn't Classical republicanism in the first section, instead of in the second? What kind of republicanism is not anti-monarchial? Finally, having Kant opening up the second section is kind of strange, as in no way his views can be said to be common! I think these two sections should properly be merged, as they are overlapping between themselves. Tazmaniacs 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

merger is a poor idea. Rjensen 05:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In British English, a republican monarchy is a contradiction in terms, but in American English it isn't. But if you read the article about Republicanism in Australia, it refers exclusively to anti-monarchism. Similarly, in Britain and many other countries, a republican is defined as an anti-monarchist. -86.134.90.205

[edit] Objectivity? or USA-centrism?

I question the objectivity of this article. It reads like pure United States propaganda, or at best, U.S. junior high school civics, i.e., indoctrination. All a republic really is, is a government whose 'head' (however conceived) is not, as such, a prince(ss). This is why dictators (fascist, communist, or other) can call their governments republics. Actually, maybe it's a problem of non-global POV: Americans believe a 'proper republic' is a "representative democracy," that's why they don't accept fascist or communist states' claims at being republics. (Nor theoretical "direct democracies," traditionally.) But to most of the world, all a republic is, is as I've defined it above. The article should be thrown out, or recast in terms as I've discussed.