Does a republic become obsolete?

Jan 2019
41
USA
#1
Does a republic reach a point where regression is inevitable due to human nature?

If you look at Rome, during the times of Julius Caesar and leading up to. The senate was split into factions, all battling for political advantage over the other. The priority seized to be the betterment of country, but the benefit of an individual’s own personal priorities and retention of power. It took Augustus taking the reins to stabilize this condition. I’m not suggesting that ruling a country as a dictatorship or an empire to be more beneficial to its people. There are certainly more cases where that form of government was unsuccessful. It does appear that a republic is highly susceptible to corruption, especially as the political engine begins to mature.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,620
Portugal
#3
Does a republic reach a point where regression is inevitable due to human nature?

If you look at Rome, during the times of Julius Caesar and leading up to. The senate was split into factions, all battling for political advantage over the other. The priority seized to be the betterment of country, but the benefit of an individual’s own personal priorities and retention of power. It took Augustus taking the reins to stabilize this condition. I’m not suggesting that ruling a country as a dictatorship or an empire to be more beneficial to its people. There are certainly more cases where that form of government was unsuccessful. It does appear that a republic is highly susceptible to corruption, especially as the political engine begins to mature.
Do you have any more examples besides Rome to complete the reasoning, or Rome is the only case?
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,381
Dispargum
#4
A republic only has value to its citizens if those citizens perceive that the republic is working for their best interests. If the republic isn't working for the people, then the people don't lose anything by losing their republic.
 
Jan 2019
41
USA
#5
Do you have any more examples besides Rome to complete the reasoning, or Rome is the only case?
I can answer this with risk of the thread getting closed. I would say in the United States politcal system presently, possibly even more so than the example I've given. A republic seems to morph into a contradiction of itself by manipulation of the systems that were intended to give power to it's people.
 
Jul 2016
7,758
USA
#6
I can answer this with risk of the thread getting closed. I would say in the United States politcal system presently, possibly even more so than the example I've given. A republic seems to morph into a contradiction of itself by manipulation of the systems that were intended to give power to it's people.
You claim republics are "highly susceptible to corruption," contradiction, and manipulation. Which form of govt isnt?

If republics are obsolete, what replaces them?
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,620
Portugal
#7
I can answer this with risk of the thread getting closed. I would say in the United States politcal system presently, possibly even more so than the example I've given. A republic seems to morph into a contradiction of itself by manipulation of the systems that were intended to give power to it's people.
Yes, I suppose that getting to the USA was the initial intent. And, yes, there is the risk of this thread being closed. And in this case the chamber should be a better option for this thread since obviously deals with current politics.

Anyway, I see that these are your first two posts here. Welcome to Historum!
 
Jan 2019
41
USA
#9
You claim republics are "highly susceptible to corruption," contradiction, and manipulation. Which form of govt isnt?

If republics are obsolete, what replaces them?
I don't think there a singular form of government which is immune. I think there are circumstances which show that transitioning away from a republic proved beneficial to the country as a whole. I imagine it would need to be handled on a case by case basis.

In the case of Rome, an empire.
 
Jul 2016
7,758
USA
#10
I don't think there a singular form of government which is immune. I think there are circumstances which show that transitioning away from a republic proved beneficial to the country as a whole. I imagine it would need to be handled on a case by case basis.

In the case of Rome, an empire.
Empire isn't a form of govt, its a grander nation with large imperial holdings outside of the central lands. The Principate, the form of govt that replaced the Senate ruling Republic, was a hereditary monarchy with very limited restrictions imposed by the remaining Senate.

Are you suggesting a monarchy or dictatorship, that is barely constrained from absolute power, is the proper replacement for a republic that is "highly susceptible to corruption," contradiction, and manipulation?

This thread is you suggesting the concept of a republic, specifically the United States of America, is outdated and should be replaced. You provided the problem, now provide the solution. What replaces it that is less "highly susceptible to corruption," contradiction, and manipulation?
 

Similar History Discussions