Republicanism Richard Dagger
Political Science Faculty
Publications
2011
Republicanism Richard Dagger
University of
Richmond,
rdagger@richmond.edu
University
of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository
Political Science
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/polisci-faculty-publications
Part of the American Politics Commons,
Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, and
the
Political Theory Commons
Recommended Citation
Dagger, Richard.
"Republicanism." In The Oxford Handbook of The History of Political Philosophy, edited by George
Klosko, 701-11. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
This Book Chapter is
brought to you for free and open access by the Political Science at UR
Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Political Science
Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship
Repository. For more information, please contact scholarshiprepository@richmond.edu.
CHAPTER 43
REPUBLICANISM
RICHARD DAGGER
REPUBLICANISM is an ancient tradition of political
thought that has enjoyed a remark- able revival in recent years. As with
liberalism, conservatism, and other enduring political traditions, there is
considerable disagreement as to exactly what republicanism is and who counts as
a republican, whether in the ancient world or contemporary times. Scholars
agree, however, that republicanism rests on the conviction that government is
not the domain of some ruler or small set of rulers, but is instead a public matter-the res publica-to be directed by self-governing citizens.
This conviction historically has led
republicans to be suspicious of or downright hostile to monarchy, to the point
where opposition to monarchy is often taken to define republicanism. Hence the
eminent historian of political thought Quentin Skin- ner refers to 'a
republican (in the strict sense of being an opponent of monarchy) ... ' (Skinner 2008: 84). Dictionaries frequently add to this
negative definition the positive feature that republicans advocate government
by elected representatives. Both points are correct insofar as republicans have
generally opposed monarchy and favored representative government, but there is
also reason to be cautious here-and
reason to look more
closely at the definition of republicanism before turning to its history.
DEFINING REPUBLICANISM
··················································································································
Caution is necessary because important
thinkers commonly linked to the republican tradition, such as Aristotle and
Cicero, were neither unequivocally opposed to monarchy nor clearly committed to
representative government. As they saw it, a form of government is good if it
will promote the public good. The problem with monarchy is not that it cannot
do this; in some circumstances, Aristotle says, monarchy is the form of
government most likely to promote the public good. The problem is that monarchs
are all too likely, when unchecked by others, to become tyrants. That is why
Cicero and other
702 RICHARD DAGGER
classical republicans came to favor the
mixed constitution (or mixed government) as a way of preserving the
rule of law. A mixed constitution blends the rule of one with the rule of
the few and of the many, so that the monarchical element will be limited rather than absolute, with the monarch under the
law rather than above it. In this limited, constitutional sense of' monarchy',
republicans need not be opposed to monarchical governments. If, however, one means by 'monarchy' rule by one person who
holds complete, unchecked authority, then a republican will necessarily be opposed to monarchy.
The connection between republicanism
and representative government is similarly complicated. As the historical
accounts of the development of
political
representation indicate, the terms 'republic' and 'republican' antedate the
idea of government by elected representatives. Mixed constitutions require that
the few and the many have a voice, but not that the members of either group
elect those who speak for them. The rule of law cannot be effective where no
one makes laws, or discerns them in nature or custom, but the legislator or
legislators need not be elected. If
the circumstances
allow, in fact, republicans may even embrace a form of direct democracy in
which the people as a whole are free to assemble, debate, and cast their votes
for or against proposed laws. To be sure, modern and contemporary republicans
are typically advocates of
representative
government, but that is because they do not think that circumstances are
favorable to the exercise of direct
democracy-not, at least, when the public business must be conducted on a scale
as large as that of the modern state.
