Until the first half of the 19th century, two major contending families were predominant in political theory, namely republicanism and liberalism. The early 19th century unambiguously resolved this theoretical contestation in favor of liberalism. In the last two centuries, liberalism has been the leading political theory. The paper analyzes the revival of republican political theory within the framework of the "historical school" and puts forward the theoretical views of Quentin Skinner and John Pocock. Adapted from the source document.
The author's starting assumption is the domination of two undemocratic ideological orientations: liberalism & republicanism. The author sees republicanism & liberalism as the ideas proximate to the political or the democratic. These ideas operate semantically but cannot be identified with the political or the democratic. This is not possible as they are not commensurable structures. By providing a theoretical account of various historical traditions the author shows that European republicanism ignored democracy & considered it to be the worst form of government. This is partly true of the liberal political doctrine that evolved later. The author argues it is possible to convert republicanism to democratic pluralism i.e. that this is the biggest common good today. In this way republicanism may be spared its controversies. References. Adapted from the source document.
The Dubrovnik Republic existed as an autonomous political community, in complex geopolitical conditions, for no less than 450 years (1358-1808). Throughout this period the political system was neither changed nor was it seriously endangered from within. This makes the Dubrovnik Republic a unique phenomenon. The text puts forward a concise analysis of the historical-political circumstances, of the Republic's political & legal system, & of its republican ideology. Furthermore, three important theorists of the Dubrovnik republican ideology are contextualized, namely Nikola Gucetic, Tomo Basiljevic & Ivo Nadali. A closer look is provided into Gucetic's theoretical views on Dubrovnik republicanism. Adapted from the source document.
Republicanism and liberalism, as foundations of Modernity, are presented in terms of how they are interconnected and condition one another, as expressed in the conception of Jurgen Habermas' deliberative democracy. Firstly, both concepts are concisely defined; republicanism stresses the principle of virtue and community, while liberalism reveals the freedom of the individual and of particular provinces as the basic point in the development of a free order. Secondly, the author shows how Habermas links the two in the concept of deliberative democracy as inseparable parts of the modern political order. After that, the way is discussed in which Habermas uses the concept in his analysis of the European Union, i.e. of the possibility of deliberative democracy in the space of Europeization and globalization. The author concludes that, viewed from the perspective of Europeization and globalization, the effective potency of republicanism has become significantly reduced, while the potency of neoliberal tendencies has grown, with decidedly fatal consequences. Adapted from the source document.
The author looks into the forms of political power in the Renaissance, & the typology thereof as provided by Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince & in Discourses on Livy. The article aims to examine whether there is a differentia specifica distinguishing the Dubrovnik form of political order from similar forms of political power in Renaissance times. Republican forms of political power are analyzed here, & the author stresses the existence of forms situated along the transition line from republic to principate, ie., monarchy, & vice versa. An expose of presuppositions of Machiavelli's initial analysis of comparative political orders is followed by a comparative analysis of the Florentine republican model of government, the Venetian form of political power, and, finally, the Dubrovnik model of political order. Although each model had distinctive features, they were similar inasmuch as each preserved the common idea of civil republicanism (repubblicanesimo civile), & then shaped its political order in accordance with the interests of the main social & political forces in the country, ie., in its territory. For instance, the Florentine republicanism developed into a so-called "democratic republicanism" (here the term democracy means exclusively that which Machiavelli refers to as governo dei molti -- the government of many). Although such forms of wider participation of citizens in decision-making satisfied most citizens of Florence, the system was unstable, because it was subject to internal conflicts between fractions & parties, & to external pressures. The Venetian system of aristocratic republicanism was much more stable, but its social base was narrower and, ultimately, prior to its downfall, it transformed into a self-contained police system. The Dubrovnik model of political order was also a form of aristocratic republicanism, but its uniqueness lies in the fact that, unlike Venice or Genoa, it limited the authority & prerogatives of the state ruler, in this case the rector, who guaranteed the stability & non-corruption of the system. The inclusion of commoners through confraternities [bratovstina] in the city's public affairs made it possible to expand the social basis of such an order. These two characteristics also make the Dubrovnik political model unique. Adapted from the source document.
This research deals with the stages of development of the political order of Florence, focusing on the changes of the republican order. Starting from Machiavelli's Florentine Histories, which set forth a criticism of the first period of republican government until the establishment of the Medici seigniory, the author also analyses the other two stages of republican government in Florence. He thus puts together a periodization of three republican models of Florence during the Renaissance, which he refers to as the First, Second & Third Republics. The period of the First Republic stretches from 1250 to 1434, until the establishment of the first Medici seigniory. The period of the Second Republic, which lasted from 1498 to 1512, is assessed here as the period of a mature republic, which also witnessed a clear-cut defining of the theory of civil republicanism, primarily through the works of Machiavelli & Guicciardini. The Second Republic ended with the Medici restauration, when the republican government was once again suspended, & the republican institutions were abolished, although the state formally retained the designation of republic. After the fall of Rome in 1527, the Medici rule in Florence also collapsed, & the period of the Third Republic began; it lasted from 1527 to 1530. This short stretch of time saw a radicalization of the Florentine republicanism, but the social antagonism within the city-state was also radicalized. For this reason, the Third Republic did not manage to withstand the internal tensions & conflicts, & thus to face a deteriorated international state of affairs. The republican government collapsed again & made way for the second Medici restauration. The author describes & analyses in the text the republican institutions & their metamorphoses from the First Republic to the Third Republic, as well as the attempts to stabilize the republican government & realize Machiavelli's theory of the mixed form of government. The Florentine political order is therefore outlined as a development from communal democracy to civil republicanism with strong democratic elements, which, as a result of historical circumstances, was superseded by oligarchic forms of government. Adapted from the source document.
The text problematizes Hobbes's relation towards republicanism. This is carried out in three stages. The first stage shows the form in which republican ideas were present in English political thought in the first half of the 17th century. It turns out that, prior to the publication of Leviathan in 1651, there was no coherent anti-monarchic republican theory in England. Still, English political thought was familiar with its individual elements and those elements had a major influence on the course of the constitutional crisis and the civil war itself. The second stage provides an analysis of Hobbes's criticism of two republican ideas which he deems particularly fatal to the survival of the state. The first idea is the ideal of mixed government, which Hobbes rejects as incompatible with the fundamental condition of state preservation, namely indivisible sovereign power. Thereafter, relying on Skinner's analysis, the author outlines Hobbes's criticism of the republican conception of liberty, which is at the core of the attack on monarchy as a form of state incompatible with the liberty of citizens. In contrast to such a perception, Hobbes constructs a completely novel definition of liberty, which enables him to show that the liberty of citizens is equal in democracy, aristocracy and monarchy. Finally, the third stage inquires into the implications of Hobbes's criticism of republicanism with regard to the conceptual field of his mature theory of the state. Emphasis is put on the assertion that this criticism does not also imply a rejection of democracy as a form of state. Indeed, the analysis shows that, within the framework of Hobbes's theory of the state, criticism of republicanism, perceived as vindication of the state, is prerequisite to the existence of democracy itself. Adapted from the source document.
The author presents Petitt's reaction to the central dichotomy that ensues from MacIntyre's thinking about politics on the borderline between the liberal thought (as the continuation of the Enlightenment) & the communitarian thought (Aristotelianism-inspired but characteristic of the anti-enlightenment, romantic tradition). Petitt considers that dichotomy mystifying, since it conceals other interesting alternatives, such as pre-liberal, republican political thought. He tries to prove the republican tradition worthy of serious consideration & claims that it can be evolved into a truly appealing political stance. The author concisely describes liberalism & communitarianism as seen by MacIntyre & Petitt. Then he goes on to describe republicanism, as seen by Petitt. And finally, the author lists critical objections to Petitt's description of republicanism due to which that political alternative does not seem as attractive as Petitt claims. Adapted from the source document.
The author draws our attention to the European unfamiliarity with American political thought. He also talks about Jefferson's natural law theory that he took over from Locke & adapted to American circumstances. The features of American political thought are outlined by means of comparing common law & rule of law with the concept of Rechtstaat. The author suggests that natural law & common law are a powerful determinant of the concept of republicanism that deeply influences American political thought. Adapted from the source document.
On the occasion of the bicentennial of the publication of Kant's Treatise on Perpetual Peace, the author attempts to evoke & actualize that classic of modern philosophy of politics. According to Hajo Schmidt, the strong point of Kant's concept was his realism, which prevented him from slipping into intellectual, utopian idealization of human nature & political relations among people. Having in mind not only the rational but also irrational aspects of human nature, ie, the insuperable chasm between good & evil, Kant in that respect offers edifying peacemaking propositions. This he achieves by advocating the concepts of free individuals, independent national states, & the cosmopolitan unity of humankind. These three moments make up the content of Kant's concept of republicanism. Their identity & plurality are the foundations of the peace. 3 References. Adapted from the source document.
On the occasion of the bicentennial of the publication of Kant's Treatise on Perpetual Peace, the author attempts to evoke & actualize that classic of modern philosophy of politics. According to Hajo Schmidt, the strong point of Kant's concept was his realism, which prevented him from slipping into intellectual, utopian idealization of human nature & political relations among people. Having in mind not only the rational but also irrational aspects of human nature, ie, the insuperable chasm between good & evil, Kant in that respect offers edifying peacemaking propositions. This he achieves by advocating the concepts of free individuals, independent national states, & the cosmopolitan unity of humankind. These three moments make up the content of Kant's concept of republicanism. Their identity & plurality are the foundations of the peace. 3 References. Adapted from the source document.
Having in mind the long evolution of constitutions & constitutional politics & the universal appeal of the process of the interplay between virtue & demagogy that occurs during presidential elections, the author touches on several topics. The first are the standard "dogmatic" comparative provisions regarding the election of the head of state which the author looks into through the constitutional-legal prism of the so called selection effect. As the institution of the president of the republic exists in many constitutions & is thus among the most significant institutionalized aspects of political & social life of every country, the author focuses on the extent in which that institution in the electoral context contributes to the affirmation of republicanism, democracy & public sphere. The author concludes that the election of presidents & the effects of electoral selection, among other things, affect the process of political integration that ought -- to not only in Croatia but everywhere & due to a plethora of reasons -- promote the universally accepted ontological principles of contemporary constitutional-democratic state. Appendixes, References. Adapted from the source document.
Political attitudes & activity of Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of American democracy, are described in this text. The author describes Jefferson's role in political activities of major importance for the creation of the US: compiling the Declaration of Independence, operating the Legislative Assembly of the state of Virginia, enacting of the separation of church & state, creating American foreign policy & the policy of Western colonization, introducing the first ten Constitutional amendments as a guarantee of human & civil rights, & elaborating on the principles of the organization of federal government. Jefferson fought against excessive legislation on powers of central political institutions. He established the tradition of Republicans versus Federalists led by Hamilton. That opposition gave birth to the modern American two-party system. Jefferson's presidency was also significant due to the elimination of centralist & oligarchic tendencies of previous Federalist governments. The author suggests that Jefferson's political theory & practice have left a permanent mark on the contemporary theory of democratic republicanism. 45 References. Adapted from the source document.
Autor u članku razmatra suvremene oblike predstavničke demokracije u svjetlu triju teorijskih i ideoloških sukoba. Prvi se odnosi na one koji se bore za konsolidiranu predstavničku demokraciju, te razvijaju teorije "manjkave demokracije". Predstavnici tog pravca razmatraju elemente koji nedostaju njihovim režimima da bi normalno funkcionirali kao sustavi predstavničke demokracije, te sustave više ne klasificiraju samo prema formalnim kriterijima (parlamentarna ili predsjednička predstavnička demokracija), nego razmatraju i integraciju drugih podsustava u sustav konzekventnih demokratskih pravila igre u "ukotvljenoj demokraciji". Drugi pravac odnosi se na pojavu populizma kao izazova predstavničkoj demokraciji. Zemlje u kojima je predstavnička demokracija konsolidirana sve su manje zadovoljne formaliziranim rutinama sustava i razvijaju nove populističke vizije bolje i reprezentativnije demokracije nasuprot puke proceduralne demokracije u kojoj postoji konkurencija elita. I na kraju, treći pravac odnosi se na nove modele demokracije koji se razvijaju u normativnim teorijama koje razmatraju nedostatke predstavničkih demokracija. Unutar tog pravca razvijaju se vizije "boljih demokracija" u duhu republikanizma, deliberativne demokracije, refleksivne demokracije i drugih koncepcija "demokratizacije demokracije".* ; In this paper, the author examines contemporary forms of representative democracy in the light of three theoretical and ideological conflicts. The first conflict concerns those who strive for a consolidated representative democracy, and develop theories of "defective democracies". Advocates of this thrust examine the elements which their regimes lack to operate normally as systems of representative democracy, and no longer classify systems only against formal criteria (parliamentary or presidential representative democracy), but also consider the integration of other subsystems into the system of consistent democratic rules of the game in an "embedded democracy". The second thrust concerns the rise of populism as a challenge to representative democracy. Countries in which representative democracy has been consolidated are increasingly dissatisfied with the formalised system routines and develop new populist visions of a better and more representative democracy in contrast to the mere procedural democracy in which there is a competition of elites. Finally, the third theoretical thrust concerns new models of democracy developed in normative theories which deal with the deficiencies of representative democracies. In this view, visions of "better democracies" have been developed in the spirit of republicanism, deliberative democracy, reflexive democracy and other concepts of "democratisation of democracy.
U našoj historiografiji prevladava mišljenje da je atentat u Narodnoj skupštini 20. lipnja 1928. bio izvršen iz nacionalnog razloga, tj. zahtjeva poslanika iz Hrvatske da Hrvatska bude tretirana kao posebna jedinica, odnosno da joj se poštuju njena stečena prava za autonomijom. O smrti Stjepana Radića i događajima koji su posljedica atentata u Narodnoj skupštini pisali su mnogi - i političari i povjesničari - i gotovo su svi apostrofirali nacionalni karakter tog sukoba, ali analiza zbivanja pokazuje da je sukobljavanje srpskih radikala i Kluba Seljačko-demokratske koalicije imalo više uzroka među kojima gospodarski razlozi zauzimaju značajno mjesto. ; The widespread view in Croatian historiography is that the assassination in the National Assembly that took place on 20 June 2018 was motivated by nationalism, i.e. that it came about due to the request of the Croatian deputies for Croatia to be treated as a single unit, that is to respect the vested right of Croatia to autonomy. Many politicians and historians wrote about the death of Stjepan Radić and the events that unfolded as a consequence of the assassination in the National Assembly, most of which emphasized the ethnic character of that conflict, but an analysis of events shows that the cause of the conflict between Serbian nationals and the Peasant-Democratic Coalition deputies was multifaceted, with economic grounds having a prominent place. It is worth noting that the harshest conflict in the Assembly was over Glavnjača and economic/financial issues. The Radicals wanted to reap the benefits of sending food into impoverished parts of the country because they already owned large swaths of land, but Radić believed Croatian regions should also take part in that state-funded operation. His idea was supported by Svetozar Pribićević, while the text of the Nettuno Conventions further exacerbated the conflicts in the Assembly. His efforts in the field of nutrition did not begin just before he passed away. He was supposed to become the Commissioner for Economic Affairs, which included food-related issues, as early as November 1918, but his appointment fell through due to him promoting republicanism and the opposition of Pribićević. Radić and Pribićević operated in unison during 1928, which represented a massive improvement. It is a shame that the assassination severed this connection and worsened the relations between Croatians and Serbs. Stjepan Radić died on 8 August 1928, which was a consequence of the gunshot wound inflicted during the session of the National Assembly held in Belgrade on 20 June. Dr Đuro Basariček died in the Assembly, Pavao Radić was mortally wounded and died shortly after being hospitalized, while three CPP deputies suffered gunshot wounds (Ivan Granđa and Ivan Pernar, as well as S. Radić).
