Talk:Republic/Archive 9

See also

Talk:Republic/Archive 1
Talk:Republic/Archive 2
Talk:Republic/Archive 3
Talk:Republic/Archive 4 - (period: 1st half of March 2005) - Former "progress report" section; Mostly WHEELER and SimonP with classical definition of republic as central topic; see also: Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic; archived 22/04/05.
Talk:Republic/Archive 5 - (period: March 2005) - Former section re. "protection"; continuation of the discussion of Archive 4; whether or not to combine "republic" and "republicanism"; Most SimonP and WHEELER, but also several others contributing; archived 22/04/05.
Talk:Republic/Archive 6 - (period: late March/early April 2005) - Continuation of the previous ("Professionals speak on wheeler's behalf"); Australia (this is maybe more related with republicanism now); re-split republic/republicanism and related issues (most Francis and SimonP); archived 22/04/05.
Talk:Republic/Archive 7 - (April/May 2005) - Contains Francis's draft of article, moved to article text, and Simon's version of "Republics in political science" section. Long discussion between Francis and Simon; shorter between Francis and Septentrionalis. Archived 6 May 2005.
Talk:Republic/Archive 8 - (May 2005 - March 2006)

Aristotle

There is no reference to aristotle in the republic article. THis to me is incredibly strange. I was wondering if anyone has an opinion as to why this is the case.| Encarta mentions aristotle's notion of the polity as being the origin of the modern sense of the republic (certainly there is platos republic fo the notion). Mrdthree 14:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC) To my mind republic has always been associated with constitutional government rather than the complicated defintions currently offered. I want to rewrite the definition in line with Encarta on this topic so I am going to collwct some quotes below.[reply]

Form of state based on the concept that sovereignty resides in the people, who delegate the power to rule in their behalf to elected representatives and officials....Much of the confusion surrounding the concept of republicanism may be traced to the writings of Plato and Aristotle. (Encarta)
The era of modern republicanism began with the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789.....James Madison, often called the father of the U.S. Constitution, defined a republic in terms similar to those of Aristotle's polity....The development of the Soviet Union into a one-party totalitarian state demonstrated once more that republic and democracy are not synonymous, (Encarta)
a constitution is the ordering of a state in respect of its various magistracies, and especially the magistracy that is supreme over all matters. For the politeia is everywhere supreme over the state and the constitution is the politeia. For example, in democracies the people are supreme, but in oligarchies, the few; and, therefore, we say that these two forms of government also are different: and so in other cases (Aristotle politics 3.6)

Mrdthree 16:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Aristotle is mentioned in (to name only a few articles linked from the republic article):[reply]

Further there's some explanation in the politeia article comparing "politeia" (the word Aristotle *actually* used) with the res publica and republic concepts.

Encarta isn't really a reference: its "Republic (governement)" article draws together the content on governement systems of states that actually existed (the intended content of wikipedia's "republic" article) with the extended discussion of the philosophies forming the base of such *actual* states (only very overview-like in wikipedia's "republic" article, but more extended in wikipedia's republicanism article). Note that "republicanism" is only a "disambiguation" page in Encarta [1]

Note that there's also a wikipedia page awaiting creation, Republics in political theory, which of course would also need to make reference to Aristotle.

Anyway "Much of the confusion surrounding the concept of republicanism may be traced to the writings of Plato and Aristotle" is mentioned in wikipedia's republic article also, except that in the section on antiquity (a subsection of the "influence of republicanism" section), only that "authors of antiquity" are named in general, and only Plato and Cicero are mentioned as examples (naming Polybius, or Tacitus, etc would be as justifiable in such list of authors of Antiquity). --Francis Schonken 15:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encarta is a reference where I come from; you will really have to work harder to explain that one. You also left out a crucial point-- what are your references? it seems to me the text you restored is all POV. The only point thats not POV is ambiguous and points to the crucial role of the law in teh republics (see below)Mrdthree 15:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop bossing around (commandeering who has to do what), not giving references for what you put in the article. You give a reference to an Encarta article (which is only a reference out of many - wikipedia's republic article gives quite a few more)...

If you think you've a better definition than the one currently in the article, the idea is to discuss it here, on talk, and not start revert-warring over it. As you might have already read, my comment on the definition you want to force upon wikipedia is:

[...] sorry, I've never seen a definition of republic that juxtaposes it to "despotism", and even less do I see a reference for this definition, FYI, Hitler's Germany was "formally" a republic...

--Francis Schonken 16:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opening definition does not distinguish a republic from a dspotism or monarchy.It is in fact equivocal with the definition of political authoritarianism. It seems to me it is an effort to express a point of view, especially as it has no reference. Mrdthree 16:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a broad definition, a republic is a state or country that is led by people who do not base their political power on any principle beyond the control of the people of that state or country."

Article 48 was used by Adolf Hitler in 1933 to establish a dictatorship, ending the Weimar Republic and ushering in the Third Reich.Mrdthree 17:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems it was a republic, just not in the modern sense. But in either case, it still meets the critera of being guided by lawful authority rather than arbirary authority at least so far as the constitution gave him absolute power. Mrdthree 17:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The opening definition does not distinguish a republic from a dspotism or monarchy.":
1. The second paragraph of the opening definition is *exclusively* devoted to the juxtaposition with monarchy (...and also points to the weaknesses of such definition);
2. No, the opening definition does not juxtapose to despotism, while including that
  - ... would be extremely POV, while there are several republics that were despotic, e.g. Mobutu's Zaire;
  - ... would be an *ideologic* definition, so doesn't belong in the *republic* article, but rather in the *republicanism* article and/or in political theory related articles;
  - ... is not OK with current practice of naming of countries that contain the word "republic", such definition would, for example, state that North Korea is *by definition* not despotic (while the rulers of that country chose to use the name "republic" in the name of their country).
"It is in fact equivocal with the definition of political authoritarianism" – Pardon? where do you get that? The definition of Authoritarianism is not remotely comparable with that definition of republic.
"It seems to me it is an effort to express a point of view" – Pardon? Which point of view would that be? Your vague POVvish remark is not near to make that contention clear. All ideological definitions of republic, like the one you propose, are *by definition* more POV, if you want to use such definition for the characterisation of forms of governement of *actual* countries that named themselves "republic". Sorry, any definition that implies that countries like North Korea, or Hitler's Germany or Syria would *by definition* not be republics (...not withstanding that they name themselves republic, and that name is used by international organisations like UN), or alternatively, that they would *by definition* be not despotic (which is a *political* statement) pushes a POV. It would be Original Research, to say the least...
"especially as it has no reference" – Pardon? If it has no reference, the assertion that the definition of a republic *should* include a distinction from despotism (like you propose) has even less of a reference. --Francis Schonken 17:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now stop pushing POV

Your last edit summary:

revert #2-- hitler abolished parliament and established the reichstag--empire

is extremely contentious...

The third reich is nowhere listed as an Empire...
And, as explained above your definition is problematic, and even less referenced, for use as a definition for "forms of government of real states and countries that have been termed republic" (which is different from an "ideological" definition of republic, which is a definition that can only be used in a context of republicanism).
As said, whether or not there was a parliament (which is *not* something that is a part of the definition of a republic, not even in your unreferenced self-fabricated definition), is completely independent from the fact of whether states termed themselves republic. Mobutu, all through his reign, termed his country republic. As far as I know he is quite often described as a despot (while, following your definition he was not), and had a (sockpuppet) parliament during several periods of his reign - and no parliament in other periods. Whether or not he had a parliament didn't change the inclusion of the term "republic" in the name of his country (although he changed it from "Congo" to "Zaire", but continously adding the "republic" epithet).

So please stop the POV(-pushing). --Francis Schonken 17:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

republics as non-hereditarily-ruled states

The article, at least in the lead section, doesn't sufficiently acknowledge the common usage according to which a "republic" is any state without a hereditary monarch or hereditary aristocracy. Deep in the article there are allusions this usage, contrasting republics with monarchies and noting that many democratic consitutional monarchies have political movements aimed at ending the monarchy, and that these style themselves "republican"; these references seem at odds with the lead section as currently written, which says nothing about republics being defined in contradistinction to monarchies. The lead section should be amended to include this usage explicitly and up-front. --Trovatore 20:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here:

Alternatively, the term republic is often used in contradistinction with monarchy, or other forms of government in which the real or titular control of the state is in the hands of a hereditary ruler or hereditary nobility. Thus, in democratic countries that are constitutional monarchies, movements aimed at eliminating the monarchy style themselves republican.

Don't see the relevance:

Republican is a different article (currently with a cleanup template, but that's irrelevant for the republic article); I don't see why the lead section of the "republic" article should in any way attempt to define "republican" (what you inserted). Wrong place.
non-monarch definition is linked from lead section in footnote 1. In that footnote the problematic nature of that definition is also explained.
Above the intro section there's a disambig sentence, that says this article is about republic as form of government (which is the most obvious meaning, and already fills the article quite well), and that other meanings (for which usually "republican" or "republicanism" would be used as a name..., as well as a host of other and specific meanings of the word "republic") can be reached via a disambiguation page: republic (disambiguation). If anything (not meaning "republic as form of governement") is missing there, just add it.

So that's why I moved that paragraph here. But probably I'll not be the only one having an opinion on it. --Francis Schonken 20:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I very strongly disagree. This is one of the principal meanings of the word "republic"; it must be prominently explained in the lead section. The footnote is simply not prominent enough, and also seems to be there specifically to disparage the usage. If you don't like my wording, please make a counterproposal that addresses my concerns. --Trovatore 21:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an issue about the disambig page either; this is about republics as a form of government. For example the United Kingdom is not a republic, as a form of government, even though it certainly recognizes popular sovereignty. The only reason it's not is that, formally, it has a monarch and a hereditary nobility. --Trovatore 21:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you moved the footnote into the main text. I don't find that an acceptable alternative. As I said, it seems mainly designed to argue against the usage, not to explain it. In common usage, the UK is simply not a republic, no matter how many "characteristics" it may share with a republic. --Trovatore 22:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic and Law in Intro

I have to take issue with your relegating the law to a minor position in the notion of republic (existant or otherwise). If you wish to discount the generalization that a republican government appeals to the law to justify its authority you have to provide a counter-example (and not one that was recognized to be a crime by the governemt). In other words the idea of a code of law is essential to the republic--it is not an absolute despotism.Mrdthree

the OED says: republic

1. The state, the common weal 2. a. A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler; a commonwealth. Now also applied loosely to any state which claims this designation. b. Applied to particular states having this form of constitution a. Any community of persons, animals, etc., in which there is a certain equality among the members.

A despot: An absolute ruler of a country; hence, by extension, any ruler who governs absolutely or tyrannically; any person who exercises tyrannical authority; a tyrant, an oppressor. Mrdthree 17:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The OED definition is referred to in the article as one out of several possible definitions. But the OED definition is not used as a *unique* definition, like you try to do with the definition you give. Note that also the definition you want to remove is only indicated as "a" *possible* definition, among the others mentioned in the intro section. Further, for dictionary definitions, I refer to wiktionary:republic, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. Further, I refer to #Now stop pushing POV above. Note that NPOV is non-negotiable. Stop pushing your POV that *by definition* all real-life republics are non-despotic. You didn't give a reference for that, neither is there one AFAIK. --Francis Schonken 18:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derive a real world definition of republic

The article states: "a republic is a state or country that is led by people who do not base their political power on any principle beyond the control of the people of that state or country. Several definitions, including that of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, stress the importance of autonomy and the rule of law as part of the requirements for a republic." At best this simply rephrases the definition of a government. Why isnt this definition negated if I provide one counter-example?

Counter example: The US government wants to control Iraq. Therefore the US government has a principle beyond controlling the people of the US, Therefore it is not a real world republic. (obviously I could do this over and again).

hmm, maybe the formulation of the definition wasn't clear to you. The "political power" of the US government is based on "elections" afaik, and "elections" are a principle that is not beyond the control of the people of that state or country. It's not clear to me how you managed to mis-read that. It's not clear to me how you managed to deform a "principle not beyond the control of the people" to "a principle beyond controlling the people of...".

Maybe, it needs changing to "principle not beyond the control by the people", I don't know whether that's still fluent English, but it would avoid the misreading you managed to perform, I suppose. --Francis Schonken 20:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a start for an opening sentence:

A republic is a state or country whose executive is not a monarch, and whose government stresses political autonomy and the rule of law. Mrdthree 19:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[...] "whose executive is not a monarch", see difficulties with using "monarch" (without defining that term) in a definition of republic, as explained in the second paragraph of the intro. Mobutu was a "monarch", if not according to the most general definitions of that term, he was at least a "monarch" in his home region (a Northern part of Congo/Zaire). Some "republics" have been electing a head of state, and after such election use a monarchical terminology for the head of state, continuing "republic" as qualifier for the country. That's one of the problems why no exact date for the transition of Ancient Rome from a "republic" to "Imperial form of Reign" can be determined. Some recent scholars have given a new impetus to the idea that Rome was *in fact still a republic* until the end of the principate (... which is some centuries later than where most scholars place the transition). Similarly, "monarchs" have been ruling "republics" in Poland, in some parts of the Medieval German Empire (even the "emperor" himself was "elected" in several periods of the Holy Roman Empire), in Italian city-states in the transition from middle ages to renaissance (the epoch Machiavelli was writing his books... some of the governors of these Italian city-states were "monarchs" formally ruling a republic)... etc.
"whose government stresses political autonomy", sorry, no, not all republics respond to that idealism. Some republics came into existence by some rich tradesmen coming together, grasping power, as an instrument to keep the center of gravity of political power in their ranks. It's POV to gloss over that with a "rosy" allegation of political autonomy. It would be as correct to say that "monarchs" stressed, by their government, "political autonomy". If any "political autonomy" was stressed in more modern totalitarian states that called themselves "republic", it came from outside, *against* the government of the country in question.
"[...] rule of law" is included in the first paragraph, with a reference to the Britannica. This part of a possible definition currently uses an external reference. Note that *not all* definitions take that as an obligatory part of the definition of republic. Note also that, again, in real life not all republics were set up in view of that ideal. Many were set up to do away with "the rule of law", simply they didn't want the "rule of law" exerced by an ancient regime, and rather concentrated on doing away with rule of law, see for instance the "bumpy" start of the first phases of the French republic... The first French republic didn't really manage to set up "rule of law". Their three maximes were "liberty, egality, fraternity": even in their ideals they didn't inscribe rule of law, which didn't come about really until the future "monarch" Napoleon imposed it (etc. - there are more examples for this, as there are more examples for the other things described above). --Francis Schonken 20:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for the misunderstanding. It seems sort of rough on english grammar, like a double negative. e.g. do not put the hat beyond the house=do put the hat within the house.Mrdthree 22:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the source of my confusion is that 'beyond' can be a synonym for 'besides'. e.g. In a broad definition, a republic is a state or country that is led by people who do not base their political power on any principle besides the control of the people of that state or country. Mrdthree 05:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find your discussions ridiculous! Sparta had kings and Cicero called it a Republic!!! And if you moderns think you know the definition of a Latin word that Cicero didn't know, you are off your rockers!!! Cicero also said the Roman Republic started under the Roman Kings!!! The first republics of Crete had kings. To say republic has nothing to do with monarchs makes a mockery of history.WHEELER 20:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately my problem was that the original definition was defined in the negative, stylistic no-no and the meaning was unclear to me because of the distance of the negative to the dependent clause it was modifying:

"a republic is a state or country that is led by people who 'do not base their political power on any principle beyond the control of the people of that state or country."

vs.

"a republic is a state or country that is led by people whose political power is based on principles that are not beyond the control of the people of that state or country."

Mrdthree 20:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Information

"In all the republics of antiquity the government was divided between a senate and a popular assembly; and in cases where a king stood at the head of affairs, as at Sparta, the king had little more than the executive. A senate in the early times was always regarded as an assembly of elders, which is in fact the meaning of the Roman senatus as of the Spartan γερουσία, and its members were elected from among the nobles of the nation. The number of senators in the ancient republics always bore a distinct relation to the number of tribes of which the nation was composed. [Boule, Gerusia.]"

The above quote comes from an Article by Leonhard Schmitz, Ph.D., F.R.S.E., Rector of the High School of Edinburgh on pp1016‑1022 of William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875. The article is here at: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Senatus.html

This is the definition of a republic: It is Mixed government that had kings or didn't have kings. Both Harpers Classical Dictionary and the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities mentions that Sparta IS a Republic. Always was and always will be. The problem lies in that Your Wikipedia article, doesn't address history. Not a single person using your article can read history or classical texts and make sense of it. All REPUBLICS HAD SENATES!!! and true aristocracies.WHEELER 02:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of 'Republic'

i am contending that the following should be added, as a footnote to the definition, especially in light of the John Adams quote, and also the Machiavelli qualification.

In a republic, sovereignty is based on popular consent; and its governance is based on popular representation and control. A republic contrasts with a dictatorship or other autocracy, but not necessarily with a monarchy, if the latter be based on a body of fundamental law, usually embodied in a clearly delineated constitution. see the quote of John Adams in the second following paragraph. The presence of a king sitting on a throne need not automatically disqualify a constitutional monarchy from its inclusion as a de facto republic. In such a monarchy, as England/Great Britain following its Revolution of 1688-89, we find a "monarchy" in name only, since the government then came under popular consent and control, with executive authority strictly circumscribed, i.e., not absolute. Stevewk 22:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is one definition of republic, and yes, it ought to be mentioned. But it's not the usual one. If you ask any Brit whether the UK is a republic, he'll say, of course not, it's a constitutional monarchy. And if he advocates making the UK into a republic, he means abolishing the monarchy. This is the most common understanding of the term, and it ought to come first. The current lead paragraph does not make this clear enough, in fact. --Trovatore 22:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Trovatore. In modern usage "country without a monarch" is the principal meaning of "republic." john k 22:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nobody's saying that's not the principal meaning. that's why i'm proposing it go in a footnote. and to Trovatore, you're right, the current first paragraph is a disgrace. it could hardly be more inadequately and just badly written. by the way, the UK IS a de facto republic, and has been since 1689, whether the average UK citizen believes it or not. Stevewk 23:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A de facto republic, not a republic. --Trovatore 00:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REREAD the proposed footnote. yes. Stevewk 01:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it actually does look more reasonable this time. But the first paragraph should say clearly that, in the common definition, a monarchy can't be a republic (even if it's a de facto republic). --Trovatore 01:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well then, you're still not understanding me. a monarchy cannot be any type of republic if it is an absolute monarchy. a monarchy can and is a de facto republic if it is a constitutional monarchy. check these Adams' quotes:

"there is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the very definition of a republic is "an empire of laws, and not of men." That, as a republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangement of the powers of society, or, in other words, that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the laws, is the best of republics."

Thoughts on Government Apr. 1776 Papers 4:86-93
http://www.constitution.org/jadams/thoughts.htm

"If Aristotle, Livy, and Harrington knew what a republic was, the British constitution is much more like a republic than an empire. They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition is just, the British constitution is nothing more or less than a republic, in which the king is first magistrate. This office being hereditary, and being possessed of such ample and splendid prerogatives, is no objection to the government's being a republic, as long as it is bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." (my emphasis -sk)

Quote by: John Adams,(1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President Source: Novanglus, in Boston Gazette, 6Mar1775, Adams Papers, V II, p. 314

give up the ghost, my friends. makes no difference if the chief executive is a king or a president... the most accurate way to put it is: the British constitutional monarchy is, de facto, a republic. Stevewk 02:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...but not a republic. It doesn't matter whether you think it matters or not. --Trovatore 02:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok then, i'll go ahead and use "de facto" republic in a footnote, and i'm also going to rewrite the first paragraph, and incorporate the Adams' quote. Stevewk 16:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I fail to see the improvement. Adams' use of the term (based on Johnson's use of the term), is two and a half centuries old, and it didn't take on. Today that use of the term is obsolete. That it is mentioned in the intro at all is maybe more than needed. If it takes more than half of the second paragraph of the intro, that is, imho, already slightly over the top. Expanding that to several paragraphs of the intro, enlarging the quote etc, is a further step backwards.

Please see also Wikipedia:Lead section why this should better not evolve this way. --Francis Schonken 20:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, what I see is how mine is nothing but an improvement. "Lead section" includes nothing that would preclude anything i've written. that use is not "obsolete." i defy you to produce the dictionary def. that employs "obs." anywhere therein. this is simply a smokescreen, because you're taking this personally. you dont want me to have the rewrite, despite the fact that it's a huge improvement. you're probably embarassed that it took an "outsider" to come up with something genuinely worth including. you're exclusion of the words of one of the most credible sources to be found, a US founding father, on the grounds that those words are "old" (say, what?), look like positive proof of that to me. i dont want a war, but you're being ignorant about this, and provoking one. you refuse to educate yourself. mine is a clear attempt to compromise, which i did by burying most of my stuff in a footnote. then, you just go ahead and blank everything out. sorry, if you think i'm gonna roll over in the face of what appears (to me) to be sheer ignorance, you got another thing coming. and by the way, if this [see also Wikipedia:Lead section why this should better not evolve this way] was supposed to be some kind of threat, it too failed. i read it, and my rewrite qualifies hands-down as a legitimate lead. sorry, you're just flat wrong about this. Stevewk 21:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]