Republicanism is an ancient tradition of political thought that has enjoyed a remarkable 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.
Introduction : what is republicanism? -- Republican ideas in the ancient world -- Renaissance republicanism -- Early modern republicanism -- English republicanism -- Post-revolutionary English republicanism -- Republicanism during the Enlightenment -- The American Revolution -- The French Revolution -- Republicanism in the nineteenth century -- Republicanism today.
AbstractThis article criticizes radical labor republicanism on republican grounds. I show that its demand for universal workplace democracy via workers' cooperatives conflicts with republican freedom along three different dimensions: first, freedom to choose an occupation . . . and not to choose one; second, freedom within the very cooperatives that workers are to democratically govern; and, third, freedom within the newly proletarian state. In the conclusion, I ask whether these criticisms apply, at least in part, to the more modest, incrementalist strand of labor republicanism. To the extent that they do, delaboring republicanism might be the best response.
Socialist republicans advocate public ownership and control of the means of production in order to achieve the republican goal of a society without endemic domination. While civic republicanism is often attacked for its conservatism, the relatively neglected radical history of the tradition shows how a republican form of socialism provides powerful conceptual resources to critique capitalism for leaving workers and citizens dominated. This analysis supports a programme of public ownership and economic democracy intended to reduce domination in the workplace and wider society. I defend this socialist republicanism from both the Marxist objection that it overlooks the impersonal nature of domination under capitalism and the left-liberal objections that property-owning democracy or worker codetermination are sufficient to suppress dominating relationships. The resulting position identifies the need for more ambitious institutional grounds for republican liberty than is often supposed, while offering us a distinctive emancipatory justification for socialism.
A re-examination of two heavily covered 2008 legal battles -- the "virginity" & "burqa" affairs -- illustrates the capacity of the secular spirit to resist the religious spirit in France. These two affairs served as occasions for confirming & consolidating the republican consensus that had in 2004 been forged over the law prohibiting the wearing of religious symbols in public schools. This consensus places strict limits on the recognition of cultural & religious (especially Muslim) religious particularisms in the Republic. Some of its ambiguities, however, are worth unpacking -- in particular, the confusion between arguments drawn from republican law & those drawn from French culture. In contrast to this conservative republicanism, critical republicanism takes care not to posit that the institutions & norms specific to a particular community -- up to & including that of the French Republic -- are necessarily in keeping with republican principles. While it is absent from the Stasi Commission Report (France 2003), a similar line of reasoning can be found in the Bouchard-Taylor Report, which offers a republican justification for certain practices based on "reasonable compromises" (Quebec 2008). Adapted from the source document.
Republicanism has recently been defended by a variety of authors as a desirable alternative to liberalism. John W. Maynor is one of these. In his recent book, he has argued that republicanism is superior to liberalism, both in that its objectives are normatively preferable and because it is not beset with the same constitutive deficiencies as liberalism. However, his argument fails because the deficiencies he identifies in liberalism only apply to one class of liberals, and many of the normative aspects of his republicanism can be found in other forms of liberalism.
"As rapid economic development brings increasing uncertainty in East Asia, interest in a new version of republicanism, termed is neo-Roman republicanism, is growing across the region. Conceptualized as liberty as non-domination, this new form of republicanism has inspired not only Western but also East Asian political theorists. However, neo-Roman republican ideas in Northeast Asian countries continue to face serious conceptual and political challenges, which scholarly literature on both republicanism and on East Asian politics has largely failed to confront. This book addresses these challenges by surveying the latest theoretical contributions to the studies of republicanism in Western countries and the latest interpretations of how republicanism, including both communitarian republicanism and neo-Roman republicanism, has been appropriated in countries in East Asia. In particular, it deals with the key question of whether liberty as non-domination can work in non-Western contexts where the fundamental tenets of liberal democracy such as moral individualism and value pluralism, do not predominate. Across three sections, the chapters first provide a conceptual overview of republicanism as a global political theory, they then consider how republicanism has historically been received, resisted, and translated into East Asia, and finally, examine how historically informed possibilities fit with the emergent needs of contemporary Northeast Asian societies"--
