|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{cleanup}} | + | {{stub}} |
| | | | |
| − | In a broad definition, a '''republic''' is a [[state]] whose political organization rests on the principle that the citizens or [[wikipedia:electorate|electorate]] constitute the ultimate root of legitimacy and [[wikipedia:sovereignty|sovereignty]]. Several definitions, including that of the ''[[wikipedia:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica|1911 Encyclopædia Britannica]]'', stress the importance of autonomy and the '[[wikipedia:rule of law|rule of law]]' as part of the requirements for a Republic. Nonetheless, in practice most nations that do not have a hereditary monarchy call themselves a [[Republic]], and in its broadest sense the idea of a Republic can include almost any form of government that is not a [[wikipedia:Monarchy|Monarchy]]. | + | In a broad definition, a '''republic''' is a [[state]] whose political organization rests on the principle that the citizens or [[wikipedia:electorate|electorate]] constitute the ultimate root of legitimacy and [[wikipedia:sovereignty|sovereignty]]. |
| − | | + | |
| − | The specific organization of republican government varies widely between different republican states. This is rendered even more confusing by the fact that many forms of national governments that call themselves "republics" are actually some other form of government, such as [[wikipedia:oligarchies|oligarchies]], [[wikipedia:hereditary monarchies|hereditary monarchies]] or [[socialism|socialist]] states or simple [[wikipedia:dictatorship|dictatorship]]s.
| + | |
| − | rate article.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Characteristics of republics==
| + | |
| − | ===Heads of state===
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | If the head of state of a republic is at the same time the [[wikipedia:head of government|head of government]], this is called a [[wikipedia:presidential system|presidential system]]. In [[wikipedia:Parliamentary system|parliamentary]] and [[wikipedia:semi-presidential system|semi-presidential system]]s the head of state is not the same person as the [[wikipedia:head of government|head of government]], in that case the latter is usually termed [[wikipedia:prime minister|prime minister]] or [[wikipedia:premier|premier]]. Depending on whether the president has any specific tasks (for example, advisory role in the formation of a government after an election) this can leave the president with little more than a ceremonial function. The Prime Minister is responsible for managing the policies and the central government. Depending on the rules for appointing the president and the leader of the government, it is possible for some of these countries to have a situation where the president and the prime minister have opposing political convictions: when the members of the ruling [[wikipedia:cabinet (government)|cabinet]] and the president come from opposing political factions, this situation is called [[wikipedia:cohabitation|cohabitation]]. In some countries however, the president needs to be strictly non-partisan.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In some countries, like [[Wikipedia:Switzerland|Switzerland]] and [[Wikipedia:San Marino|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 [[Wikipedia:Consul|consul]]s, appointed for a year by the [[Wikipedia:Senate|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 major (the consul in power) and of consul suffectus (not-ruling consul, however with some supervision on the work of the consul major) 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 [[Wikipedia:Representative Democracy|representative democracy]], examples such as the post-1970 [[Wikipedia: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 Emperors 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|Rome}}.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Similarly, if taking the broad definition of republic above ("In a broad definition a '''republic''' is a [[state]] or country that is led by people that don't base their political power on any principle beyond the control of the people living in 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|LeopoldIII}}.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The often assumed "mutual exclusiveness" of monarchies and republics as forms of government{{ref|Prince}} 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|Zaire}}.
| + | |
| − | * 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: 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|EverydayLanguage}}.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 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, choosing whether to have a monarch as the head of state is a practical rather than an ideological consideration. For example, a state would not create a monarchy if there were no monarchial candidate readily available{{ref|Netherlands}}. 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 to the British Monarchy played an important 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 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|Religion}}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.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 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) there was not a single absolute monarchy 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 organised 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 monarch (or his 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: [[Catholicism]] in Belgium, [[Church of England]] in the [[United Kingdom]], [[Orthodoxy]] in Tsaristic [[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 at that time seen as the preferable form of state organisation, if one wanted to avoid the downsides of living under a too influential state 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. At first the states were free to establish religion, but they disestablished it instead.
| + | |
| − | * 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|Republicanism}}. Up to the [[French Fifth Republic|Fifth Republic]], ''[[laïcité]]'' can be seen to have a much more profound meaning in republican [[France]] than in its neighbouring countries ruled as a monarchy{{ref|Laicite}}.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Several states that called themselves republics have been fiercely anti-religious. This is particularly true for [[communism|communist]] republics like the (former) [[Soviet Republic]]s, [[North 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|Willem}}, 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|Multicultural}}) 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===
| + | |
| − | 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]]). 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|Federalist}}. This section tries to give an outline of which concepts of democracy are associated with which types of republics.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | As a preliminary remark it should be noted that the concept of "one equal vote per adult" did not become a genererally-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.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In a ''Western'' approach, warned by the possible dangers and impracticality of [[direct democracy]] described since antiquity{{ref|Warning}}, 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.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [[Marxism]] inspired state organisations that, at the height of the [[Cold War]], had barely more than a few external appearances in common with Western types of democracies. That is, notwithstanding that on an ideological level Marxism and [[communism]] sought to empower [[proletarian]]s. A Communist republic like [[Fidel Castro|Fidel Castro's]] [[Cuba]] has many "popular committees" to allow participation from citizens on a very basic level, without much of a far-reaching political power resulting from that. This approach to democracy is sometimes termed [[Basic democracy]], but the term is contentious: the intended result is often something in between direct democracy and [[grassroots democracy]], but connotations may vary{{ref|Pakistan}}.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 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. 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.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Influence of republicanism===
| + | |
| − | {{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|Rome}}.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Republicanism was the founding ideology of the [[United States of America]] and remains the core of American political values. See [[Republicanism in the U.S.]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 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 to what degree economic liberties should be regulated. This conflict is often described in terms of [[capitalism]] versus socialism, and the compromise between democracy and having an herditary head of state would be called [[constitutional monarchy]].
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====In antiquity====
| + | |
| − | [[Vaishali]] in India is considered to be the first oligarchic republic of the world in the 5th centrury BCE. A number of cities of the [[Levant]] achieved collective rule. [[Arwad]] has been cited{{ref|Bernal}} are the other first known example of a [[republic]], in which the people, rather than a monarch, are described as sovereign.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 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 experiment 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 governement, rather reads as a prelude to the [[Roman Empire|Imperial form of government]] that indeed emerged soon after Cicero's death.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====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 in 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 refocussing 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]].
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====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|Proletariat}}.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 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|Islam}} 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]]. The strife for islamic republics is generally not qualified as a form of "republicanism" by western scholars, and the idea of the [[republic]], with its ties to [[Ancient Rome]], is at its root a western one.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===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|Carefree}} 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.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Aggregations of states===
| + | |
| − | When a country or state is organised on several levels (that is: several states that are "associated" in a "superstructure", or a country is split in sub-states with a relative form of independency) several models exist:
| + | |
| − | * Both over-arching structure and sub-states take the form of a republic (Example: [[United States]])
| + | |
| − | * The over-arching structure is a republic, while the sub-states are not necessarily (Example: [[European Union]]);
| + | |
| − | * The over-arching structure is not a republic, while the sub-states can be (Example: [[Holy Roman Empire]], after the emergence of republics, like those of the [[Hanseatic League]], within its realm)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Sub-national republics====
| + | |
| − | In general being a republic also implies [[sovereignty]] as for the state to be ruled by the people it cannot be controlled by a foreign power. There are important exceptions to this, for example, Republics in the [[Soviet Union]] were member states which had to meet three criteria to be named republics,
| + | |
| − | :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.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 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.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Supra-national republics====
| + | |
| − | Sovereign countries can decide to hand in a limited part of their sovereignty to a supra-national organisation. The most famous example of this, since the second half of the 20th century, is the emergence of the [[European Union]], which models its organisation as a republic. That it would be a republic in a strict sense can be debated while the European Union is not a "country" in a strict sense. Being a republic is not part of the admission criteria for the member states{{ref|EUconstitution}}. Although the largest political family of EU parlementaries has a Christian denomination, the [[European constitution]] would establish its form of government as [[Secularity#Secular|secular]]{{ref|Secularity}}.
| + | |
