Talk:Republicanism

message: 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)
thread_title: 2002

message: 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, because women didn't have voting rights, and people living in Athens could never become Atheneans if they weren't born by an [and later both parents] Athenian father.
Rousseau proposed a system exactly like Athens because he supported sexism and racism over immigrants.  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)
thread_title: Athens

message: :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)
replies: text: The article should reflect how the word "republic" is actually used, today and historically, and not limit itself to the definitions made by two historical thinkers. Mirambo 16:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The US

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  This article is incoherent 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Two Versions" template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cicero 

message: 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)
replies: text: Is there any other kind of Republic, though? Granite26 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Parlementry Republics for one and I believe, though I haven't check and could be wrong, More people exist in Parlementry Republics than Constitutional.(Morcus (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Constitutional republic

message: "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)
thread_title: The Republican Synthesis and the American Revolution

message: 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.
:I disagree, I think that throughout most of history republic and representative democracy were pretty much the same thing.   Certainly this was the definition through the 1700s and early 1800s when most of this was going on.  I think that you are mistaking (non-elective systems) tendency to try to co-opt the... (general good things) associated with the republican system as an actual muddying of the definition's waters.  In short, every definition I found said something along the lines of 'the people have a say in the government'.  That being said, there's nothing that says that a communist state couldn't also be a republic. Granite26 (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivity? or USA-centrism? 

message: The latter is a stub, and I'm not sure one can really distinguish that much French Republicanism from the tradition of Republicanism in general. In any cases, even if Republicanism in France may have some discrete features (close to the Radicalism tradition, insistance on secularism) "Republicanism" is not so long yet as to justify a spin-out. Tazmaniacs 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed every keystroke of Républicanisme is now in this article. Good job, Getoar. What was then needed was not a deletion, but simply a redirect, which I have now done.  That is, Républicanisme now redirects to Republicanism. Hult041956 (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Républicanisme]] here 

message: The term "republicanism" as it applied applies in the United States has become ab-used over the last 30 years.  The current political interpretation is one which places too much emphasis on "civic virtue" while at the same time warping that phrase to pronounce a dictatorial Christian morality.
As the Federal Convention assembled in May of 1787 it's members did agree, though, on some basic principles and use of terms. All believed in government by consent, which in eighteenth century understanding included (1) constitutional monarchy, where the monarch's powers were limited and where the government included an assembly elected by the people; (2) a republic, meaning some form of representative government without a hereditary executive; and (3) democracy, which meant either town meeting style democracy, or simply the direct voice of the people within a government. The Revolutionary struggle against the government of George III left even constitutional monarchy in ill-repute in America. (Many letters, however, including at times John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, continued to think it theoretically the form most likely to insure freedom and good government). Equally discredited was "mere democracy" which still meant, as Aristotle had taught, rule by the passionate, ignorant, demagogue-dominated "voice of the people". This was sure to produce first injustice, then anarchy, and finally tyranny. Hence, virtually all shades of opinion reviled monarchy and democracy, and, publicly at least, affirmed republicanism. (This republicanism of the 1780's was not in principle different from what in Britain and America by mid-nineteenth century was generally called representative democracy. The founders would not have been opposed to modern connotations of the word "democracy", nor would they have used the word "republic" to mark out a distinction from those connotations. In scorning "democracy", eighteenth-century theorists had in mind Aristotle's picture of a heedless, emotional, manipulated populace that would still be denigrated by most modern democratic theorists).
In 1787, republicanism then was positioned between monarchy and "mere democracy". As it benefited from experience of the years after 1776 and struggled to contain the tension between "inalienable rights", and majority rule, republicanism became both more moderate and more intricate. A broadly based lower house of a legislature continued to be basic to government by consent, but increasingly, the election of other officials came to be regarded as good republican practice. Also, mindful of colonial experience, and following the arguments of Montesquieu, the idea that the legislative, executive, and judicial powers had to be "separated", made to "check and balance" each other in order to prevent tyranny, gained wide acceptance. This often validated devices of government that would restrain or "refine" the will of the majority in order to protect rights, or "higher law".
Thus, while eighteenth-century American republicanism was committed to the sovereignty of the people, it was also a complicated approach to government. It opposed traditional monarchical tyranny, but was equally hostile to mob rule. It also sought balancing and refining devices that would at once restrain the power of rulers, encourage the better judgment of the people, and enable the union to defend itself in a dangerous world. Edmund Burke stated the problem succinctly. "To make a government requires no great prudence; settle the seat of power, teach obedience, and the work is done. To give freedom is still more easy. It is not necessary to guide; it is only necessary to let go the rein. But to form a free government, that is, to temper together the opposite elements of liberty and restraint in one conscious work, requires much thought; deep reflection; a sagacious, powerful, and combining mind." -- "Anti-federalist papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates" - Ralph Ketcham, page 6.
--The Trucker 15:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Republicanism in the 1780's

message: The first sentence in the section "Liberty versus dangers of democracy" has a sentence that is obviously wrong, but I don't know what is intended, so I have no idea how to fix it:
"Original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they of democracy."
CosineKitty (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read that as "what they (thought of as the dangers) of democracy" which is coherent with the thoughts of the framers and the form of the section.  Also, I'm changing the tag to the section name Granite26 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Made this change Granite26 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Added a little bit about the Tyranny of the masses Granite26 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Added this.  I think it's important to note that de jeur sufferage didn't become de facto until much later Granite26 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the presence of a large number of African American elected officials in the South in the Reconstruction era shows that at least some freed slaves could vote.  67.173.10.34 (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And the subsequent disappearance of such after the end of Reconstruction and Federal occupation demonstrates that for about 90 years, the rights of most blacks to vote in much of the South remained largely theoretical.  23:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberty versus dangers of democracy 

message: It's worthless. The initial assertions are false, the classical antecedents section is unreferenced. Republicanism does not refer to a movement 'committed to liberty' at all. Apparently the only source is the 'Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy'. Hardly academic. I vote it be removed, or replaced with 'Republicanism refers to movements opposed to an hereditary head of state.' Which is what the term means. Molotov2 (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This entire article 

message: This entire article is worthless.
The reference to "an emphasis on liberty" has nothing to do with the topic. "Republicanism" which is a form of goverment werein Liberty is your rights to select it over the will of Eminent Domain.13:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ok, I Agree

message: This article is so bad it would be better if it didn't exist. I don't mean to offend anyone, so let me keep strictly to what I think should be done in order to write a good article on republicanism:
1. Admit it has multiple meanings, historically and geographically.
2. Expose those meanings, and relate it to the origin of the word.
3. Find those basic meanings that are common - I guess it will be something on the lines of "against monarchy, hereditary rule, or any kind of sovereignity above the law that people are submitted to", and "the belief on the existence of things that should be public - that means, not private". Remember that res publica means "public thing". But it would be great if someone pointed out some other meanings that were also common.
3. Never, under any circunstance, suggest that "real republicanism should be....". There's no "true republicanism" waiting for us to find out what it is.
4. Finally, remember that republic is not the same as republicanism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.45.231 (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true.  This and several other articles are in the state they are in because of a now-banned user who wished to push a particular point of view.  Total rewrite would be in order.  RJC Talk Contribs 04:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this article is fine. Could you be more specific in your criticisms? -- LightSpectra (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting the whole thing 

message: Ok, usually I would just be bold and make such a trivial change but I keep getting reverted. I wish to rename the England Section to "England, Ireland and Scotland" or Great Britain. This is because the section covers more than just England-related material. Some examples: 1) The Commonwealth of England covered not just England but the entire British Isles (see the map on Commonwealth of England). 2) The same is true of the Glorious Revolution both William and Mary were not only monarchs of England but also monarchs of Scotland and Ireland. 3) The American Revolution is also mentioned. The Americans did not wage war against England but against the state of Great Britain. --Cameron* 17:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: the solution is to use "Britain" -- that's the term most historians use.Rjensen (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is talking about Republicanism *in* England. It is talking about the thinkers behind it, and one instance of it being put into practice. However at the time Cromwell put it into practice it only affected England (and Wales). But the section does not talk about Republicanism in Scotland, Wales or Ireland, only England. Incorrect changes are not trivial changes. O Fenian (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, Britain is good. I've added some info so it shouldn't be a problem now. --Cameron* 11:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those belong in the "Enlightenment republicanism" section. O Fenian (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming England section 

message: The article should maybe try to explain why the early Republics were built in opposition to clericalism and religious power, and why Monarchies were asociated with religion, while Republics were not, the exception being the Islamic republics of the East. In France, the Third Republic had a good dose of anticlericalism, the Mexican Republic too, much like the pre-1936 Republic of Spain. In America too, there was a rejection of the official/established Anglican Church during the Revolution. ADM (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Monarchy and Religion

message: The section on Ancient India is unsourced; related Wiki articles are based on vague references in the Encyclopedia Britannica. However in its main article on India the EB clarly states: "The political system in these states was either monarchical or a type of representative government that variously has been called republican or oligarchic. The fact that representation in these latter states' assemblies was limited to members of the ruling clan makes the term oligarchy, or even chiefdom, preferable." That is it explictly rejects "republicanism" for these states, so I deleted the section.Rjensen (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And thank God someone had the good sense to explain the diffrerece between that and republicanism on the republicanism article. Or were you trying to say delete it and leave everyone in the dark? ~ R.T.G 22:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient India

message: It makes me laugh to think of all the knee-jerk "modern" people out there who don't know of anything from before 1950, sipping a Starbucks and trying to understand this article, with its words like "Republicanism," "radical," "liberal," etc -- words which have little in common with their modern counterparts. Tragic romance (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah what a dumb wrd to use on the article Republicanism, republicanism. What? ~ R.T.G 22:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off topic, but... 

message: I removed the featured photograph at the top of the article, because it was an inappropriate, immodest depiction. People be at least be able to come to Wikipedia and be safe from bombarding immodesty. E. Novachek (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What? ~ R.T.G 22:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed photograph 

message: It seems to me that much of the discussion in here is getting caught up about defining republicanism by what it was against instead of what it is for. I've seen people say it's monarchies, religious authorities, and even the majority. Why don't we take a little bit of a closer look and ask why they were against such things.? Tyranny is the answer, and the nexus of each of these things. Republics were created in order to protect against tyranny. That's the main purpose and I haven't seen a single soul point that out yet, which is pretty depressing.
: Not so sure, if we consider Republics of the Soviet Union! 87.89.44.229 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Easy solution

message: Rich Farmbrough, 03:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Melvyn Bragg examines how English republicanism has developed from Cromwell to the present day." http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00546mp     truthdowser (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: In Our Time

message: I entirely removed this section for the reasons that it was poorly written and lacking citations. It read as follows:
Vaishali (ancient city) (Part of Modern State Bihar, India) is oldest and first Republic of World. It became repulic in 600 B.C similar to those later found in ancient Greece.
I think Republicanism in India is a valuable topic which deserves a section in this article; however, the current section falls far below standards in many respects, and so I removed it altogether rather than let it stand as it is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaimakides (talk • contribs) 19:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Republicanism in Ancient India" section removed 

message: I had to smile when I read the Wiki entry, there is much here that no longer applies, not in the United States, not in most places of the world where there is a Constitution that regulates a Republic of even where a Monarchy regulates a Republic.
Republicanism in the United States in contemporary times is nothing like what is being described here in this article. Republicanism in the United States means wildly different ideologies are harbored by the extremist ideologically-right-wing of the political spectrum in the U.S., making the term obsolete when applied to that country. The term Republicanism may be wholly different outside of the United States, but when applied to that country the term holds completely different meaning.
Other Republics around the world have also either fractured and died (a.k.a. Balkenization) else they are better described as theocratic fascist Oligarchies, just as the United States is. Globalization and the technological means to compete economically world wide has killed the concept of Republicanism as predominantly described in this Wiki entry.
After reading the entry the best that could be said about it is that it is an historic phenomena that is being described, one that is very rare among contemporary nation States. Damotclese (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  U. S. Section Rather Obsolete 

message: The swipe against the GOP should be removed it has little to do with this. Republicanism has it's own US page which spells out how it's come to be viewed over time. This paragraph does not appear there and seems to be more opinion than fact and the wording leads me to think it's biased. I'd leave the small portion defining Republicanism in early US history and point to the full Wikipedia article which is a much more complete article all around and far more useful. If opinion is needed the Republican party of Thomas Jefferson is not the current GOP I'd hate for them to usurp some benefit from that by such casual blurring of the original meaning. 
This part:
"Since the 20th century, the term republicanism is more likely to refer to the policies of the Republican Party, the nation's right-wing political party, than to republican values generally."
Mrmeval1 (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the GOP swipe.  

message: I think Republicanism in Spain deserves it's own article, comsidering it's long, bloody and complex history, and because it's also plays a role in contemporary Spanish politics. Charles Essie (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and create it. However, the section you have tagged is neither long nor complex. It is less than 200 words. I am deleting the "Split" tag because "splitting" a short and not particularly informative single-paragraph section does not make sense.  Scolaire (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republicanism in Spain 

message: First, Ireland is not a member of the Commonwealth.  The independence was won after a bitter war, and Ireland didn't want anything to do with Britain afterwards.
Second, the word "republican" has an unusual meaning in Ireland.  It is equated with nationalism and opposition to the 1926 partition.  I'm not sure if that really belongs in this article.  82.31.40.109 (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland 

message: Here is the way that the world is.  In the 21st century, most of the nations of the world are republics in the sense that they are not monarchies.  For many of them, they are republics ONLY in this sense. But how do you express that in what should be an encyclopedic, non-POV article?  2600:1004:B11E:C3D7:E157:EA9E:DB98:2DE1 (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to phrase the truth? 

message: It appears that the push for a republic, has dwindled in the last several months, in Antigua and Barbuda & Jamaica. Anybody hear anymore about it? GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republican movements in Antigua and Barbuda & Jamaica