Editing Republicanism (section)

==Theory==
=== Neo-republicanism<!--'Neo-republicanism' and 'Neorepublicanism' redirect here--> ===
[[File:Cass Sunstein (2008).jpg|thumb|[[Cass Sunstein]]]]

'''Neorepublicanism'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> is the effort by current scholars to draw on a classical republican tradition in the development of an attractive public philosophy intended for contemporary purposes.<ref>Frank Lovett and Philip Pettit. "Neorepublicanism: a normative and institutional research program." ''Political Science'' 12.1 (2009): 11ff. ([http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/DkZDjE3ZCC8aiDeVBEDe/full/ online]).</ref> Neorepublicanism emerges as an alternative postsocialist critique of market society from the left.<ref>Gerald F. Gaus, "Backwards into the future: Neorepublicanism as a postsocialist critique of market society." ''Social Philosophy and Policy'' 20/1 (2003): 59–91.</ref>

Prominent theorists in this movement are [[Philip Pettit]] and [[Cass Sunstein]], who have each written several works defining republicanism and how it differs from liberalism. [[Michael Sandel]], a late convert to republicanism from [[communitarianism]], advocates replacing or supplementing liberalism with republicanism, as outlined in his ''Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy''.

Contemporary work from a neorepublican include jurist [[K. Sabeel Rahman]]'s book ''Democracy Against Domination'', which seeks to create a neorepublican framework for [[economic regulation]] grounded in the thought of [[Louis Brandeis]] and [[John Dewey]] and [[popular sovereignty|popular control]], in contrast to both [[New Deal]]-style [[managerialism]] and [[neoliberal]] [[deregulation]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Rahman |first1=K. Sabeel |title=Democracy Against Domination |date=2016 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0190468538 |url=https://global.oup.com/academic/product/democracy-against-domination-9780190468538?cc=us&lang=en&}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Shenk |first1=Timothy |title=Booked: The End of Managerial Liberalism, with K. Sabeel Rahman |url=https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/booked-end-managerial-liberalism-k-sabeel-rahman |website=Dissent Magazine |access-date=6 August 2018}}</ref> Philosopher Elizabeth Anderson's ''Private Government'' traces the history of republican critiques of private power, arguing that the classical [[free market]] policies of the 18th and 19th centuries intended to help workers only lead to their domination by employers.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Anderson |first1=Elizabeth |title=Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don't Talk about It) |date=2017 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-1400887781 |url=https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10938.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Rothman |first1=Joshua |title=Are Bosses Dictators? |url=https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/are-bosses-dictators |magazine=The New Yorker |date=12 September 2017 |access-date=6 August 2018}}</ref> In ''From Slavery to the Cooperative Commonwealth'', political scientist Alex Gourevitch examines a strain of late 19th century American republicanism known as labour republicanism that was the [[producerism|producerist]] [[labour union]] [[The Knights of Labor]], and how republican concepts were used in service of [[workers rights]], but also with a strong critique of the role of that union in supporting the [[Chinese Exclusion Act]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Gourevitch |first1=Alex |title=From Slavery to the Cooperative Commonwealth: Labor and Republican Liberty in the Nineteenth Century |date=2014 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1139519434}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Stanley |first1=Amy Dru |title=Republic of Labor |url=https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/alex-gourevitch-labor-republicans-slavery-cooperative-commonwealth-review |website=Dissent Magazine |access-date=6 August 2018}}</ref>

===Democracy===
[[File:Thomas Paine rev1.jpg|thumb|Portrait of [[Thomas Paine]]]]
[[File:Upprop för republik 1848.jpg|thumb|A revolutionary republican hand-written bill from the Stockholm riots during the [[Revolutions of 1848]], reading: "Dethrone [[Oscar I of Sweden|Oscar]] he is not fit to be a king – rather the Republic! Reform! Down with the Royal house – long live {{Lang|sv|[[Aftonbladet]]|italic=no}}! Death to the king – Republic! Republic! – the people! Brunkeberg this evening." The writer's identity is unknown.]]

In the late 18th century there was convergence of democracy and republicanism. Republicanism is a system that replaces or accompanies inherited rule. There is an emphasis on liberty, and a rejection of corruption.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/ |title=Republicanism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) |publisher=Plato.stanford.edu |access-date=2013-02-03}}</ref> It strongly influenced the [[American Revolution]] and the [[French Revolution]] in the 1770s and 1790s, respectively.<ref name="Pocock 1975"/> Republicans, in these two examples, tended to reject inherited elites and aristocracies, but left open two questions: whether a republic, to restrain unchecked majority rule, should have an unelected [[upper chamber]]—perhaps with members appointed as meritorious experts—and whether it should have a [[constitutional monarch]].<ref>Gordon S. Wood, ''The Creation of the American Republic 1776–1787'' (1969)</ref>

Though conceptually separate from democracy, republicanism included the key principles of rule by [[consent of the governed]] and sovereignty of the people. In effect, republicanism held that kings and aristocracies were not the real rulers, but rather the whole people were. Exactly ''how'' the people were to rule was an issue of democracy: republicanism itself did not specify a means.<ref>[[R. R. Palmer]], ''The Age of the Democratic Revolution: Political History of Europe and America, 1760–1800'' (1959)</ref> In the United States, the solution was the creation of [[First Party System|political parties]] that reflected the votes of the people and controlled the government (see [[Republicanism in the United States]]). In [[Federalist No. 10]], [[James Madison]] rejected "pure democracy" in favour of representative democracy, which he called "a republic".<ref name="Federalist10">{{cite web |date=29 December 1998 |title=The Federalist Papers : No. 10 |url=https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp |access-date=April 22, 2022 |work=[[Avalon Project]] |quote=a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person … A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place}}</ref> There were similar debates in many other [[Democratization|democratizing]] nations.<ref>Robert E. Shalhope, "Republicanism and Early American Historiography", ''William and Mary Quarterly'', 39 (Apr. 1982), pp. 334–356</ref>

In contemporary usage, the term ''democracy'' refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is [[Direct democracy|direct]] or [[Representative democracy|representative]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/democracy |title=democracy – Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary |publisher=M-w.com |access-date=2013-02-03}}</ref> Today the term ''[[republic]]'' usually refers to representative democracy with an elected [[head of state]], such as a [[President (government title)|president]], who serves for a limited term; in contrast to states with a hereditary [[monarch]] as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies, with an elected or appointed [[head of government]] such as a [[Prime Minister|prime minister]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/republic |title=republic – Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary |publisher=M-w.com |date=2012-08-31 |access-date=2013-02-03}}</ref>

The [[Founding Fathers of the United States]] rarely praised and often criticized (direct) democracy, which they equated with [[Ochlocracy|mob rule]]; [[James Madison]] argued that what distinguished a ''democracy'' from a ''republic'' was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combatted faction by its very structure.<ref>''See, e.g''., [[Federalist No. 10|''The Federalist'' No. 10]]</ref> What was critical to American values, [[John Adams]] insisted, was that the government should be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend."<ref>Novanglus, no. 7, 6 Mar. 1775</ref> [[Thomas Jefferson]] warned that "an elective despotism is not the government we fought for."<ref>David Tucker, ''Enlightened republicanism: a study of Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia'' (2008) p. 109</ref> Professors Richard Ellis of [[Willamette University]] and Michael Nelson of [[Rhodes College]] argue that much constitutional thought, from Madison to Lincoln and beyond, has focused on "the problem of majority tyranny." They conclude, "The principles of republican government embedded in the Constitution represent an effort by the framers to ensure that the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would not be trampled by majorities."<ref>Richard J. Ellis and Michael Nelson, ''Debating the presidency'' (2009) p. 211</ref>

===Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers===
Some countries (such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Scandinavian countries, and Japan) turned powerful monarchs into constitutional ones with limited, or eventually merely symbolic, powers. Often the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system, whether or not they were replaced with democratic institutions (such as in France, China, Iran, Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece, Turkey and Egypt). In Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Papua New Guinea, and some other countries the monarch, or its representative, is given supreme executive power, but by convention acts only on the advice of his or her ministers. Many nations had elite upper houses of legislatures, the members of which often had lifetime tenure, but eventually these houses lost much power (as the UK [[House of Lords]]), or else became elective and remained powerful.<ref>[[Mark McKenna (historian)|Mark McKenna]], ''The Traditions of Australian Republicanism'' (1996) [https://web.archive.org/web/20000818204057/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1995-96/96rp31.htm online version]</ref><ref>John W. Maynor, ''Republicanism in the Modern World''. (2003).</ref>