Garry_Owen

Is not republicanism the ideal form of representative democracy?

At its core is the ideal of removing arbitrary dominion over the people by anybody claiming, for whatever reason, to have the privilege and right to exercise such power.

Unlike a simple democracy (where the majority rule) a republic recognizes and accords to all and everyone their inalienable civil and human rights and by its Constitution constrains the majority, or their political representatives, to respect those rights. Everything in the life of the state must be compatible with the Constitution.

It is, to quote Abraham Lincoln at Gettysberg, the only form of government 'of the people, by the people, for the people'.

What state or countries have failed to live up to that ideal? Has any state or country achieved the republican ideal in the past?

Linschoten

I can't see that a constitutional monarchy need be any less democratic than a republic, or that there is any one ideal form of government, irrespective of the different histories and characters of different countries.

diddyriddick

As long as we limit this discussion to republicanism with a small "r," it can be a productive thread. Please don't make us act by inserting Republicanism with an upper case "R."

I've also moved it to a more appropriate subforum.

Ur-Lugal

I suspect that republicanism - which has had many different incarnations - is no more ideal than any other form of government, as it is administered by inherently fallible humans.

srb7677

No democracy, whether it be a republic or a constitutional monarchy or whatever, is ever going to be any better than the representatives we choose to elect. When we also consider that perhaps a majority of those who vote are too politically stupid to think for themselves, then we can see the potential for bad governments.

It is really incumbent upon those who have some intelligence, knowledge and ability to think independently, such as we who frequent this forum, to help to inform the politically stupid so that they are better able to employ intelligent thought processes in deciding whom to vote for. Of course, each of us will attempt to put our own political slant on the issues when we do this, but that is OK. In free democracies it is good for people to try and influence and persuade each other, thereby encouraging debate.

Garry_Owen

This is a rather arbitrary intervention in what I had anticipated would be a history discussion! I ended my OP with a question that invited debate on whether or not any state or country in the past had lived up to the republican ideal.

I have no interest or desire to discuss republicanism as a political philosophy per se. I'm sure everyone knows what republicanism is (then again that might be a bit optimistic on my part). Such a discussion can be conducted very well in any political science forum.

I want to discuss the various self-proclaimed 'republics' of the past and whether or not they lived up to the ideal. I want to debate the history of republicanism, not the theory.

PS. I see the thread entitled 'Nationalism' was left undisturbed where my thread on 'Repubilcanism' has been 'arbitrarily' interferred with. So, too, was the thread entitled 'English Law and Roman Law: Which was the best' left in situ. Such arbitrary interventions in peoples' lives would not be tolerated under a real republican government.

Garry_Owen

I fail to see the relevance of this post. Constitutional monarchies are certainly not republics. Maybe you ought rather to argue the case for the Cromwellian 'Republic'?

Garry_Owen

Which incarnation(s) of republicanism do you think was historically less ideal than any other form of government. Did any ever live up to their republican ideal. Indeed, has their ever been a true republic?

Garry_Owen

PS. As the mods want this discussion focussed on political theory rather than on history then I cannot agree with your staement.

Republicanism is a superior form of democracy in which a society as a whole enshrine in a Constitution the principles under which they want to live and be governed. That protects them from the tyrany of the majority of a simple democracy or from the arbitrary domination of those in power in a representative democracy.

I agree that the fallibility and corruptibility of people are a threat to any form of government but under a republican system the tyranny of arbitrary power is removed. By guaranteeing the civil and human rights of the individual people have protection and a means of redress against such random oppression.

Somebody mentioned that a constitutional monarchy was just as good as a republic in this regard but that is not so. All that a constituional monarchy restricts against is arbitrary intervention by a monarch. It does not necessarily protect individual rights unless those rights are recognized and guaranteed under law by a written constitution.

Linschoten

You started by asking whether republicanism is the 'ideal form of representative democracy'. I replied by saying that I do not think that it necessarily is, and that I don't think that there is any one ideal form of democracy, but different countries can develop the form that suits them best, in relation to their own history and character. If a republic suits the USA or Ireland, well and good, but the UK, Netherlands, Denmark etc. are monarchies, and I don't regard them as being any less democratic than any republic.

Why on earth should I want to argue the case for the Cromwellian Republic? It was that experiment that inoculated the English against republicanism and revolutions ever afterwards!

(You will soon discover here that the OP cannot determine what direction a thread will take, since other members will take it in what ever direction they like!)