Republic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the political ideology, see Republicanism. For other uses, see
Republic (disambiguation).
This article is part of the
Politics series
Forms of government
List of government types
Anarchy
Aristocracy
Communist state
Confederation
Corporatism
Corporatocracy
Consociationalism
Demarchy
Democracy
Direct
Representative
Consensus
Despotism
Dictatorship
Autocracy
Military/Military junta
Right-wing
Authoritarianism
Totalitarianism
Ethnic democracy
Ethnocracy
Exilarchy
Fascism
Federation
Feudalism
Gerontocracy
Kleptocracy
Kratocracy
Kritocracy/Kritarchy
Logocracy
Magocracy
Meritocracy
Geniocracy
Minarchism/Night Watchman
Monarchy
Absolute
Constitutional/Limited
Diarchy/Co-Kingship
Elective
Noocracy
Ochlocracy/Mobocracy
Oligarchy
Panarchism
Parliamentary
Plutocracy
Presidential
Puppet state
Republic
Crowned
Capitalist
Constitutional
Federal
Parliamentary
Dependent head of state
Federal
Socialist state
Sociocracy
Supranational union
Technocracy
Cyberocracy
Netocracy
Thalassocracy
Theocracy
Islamic state
Theodemocracy
Timocracy
Tribal
Chiefdom
Tyranny
Union
Politics portal
v • d • e
A republic is a form of government in which the people or some portion
thereof retain supreme control over the government,[1][2] and in which
the head of government is not a monarch.[3][4] The word "republic" is
derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as
"a public affair".
Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and
composition. The most common definition of a republic is a state
without a monarch.[3][4] In republics such as the United States and
France, the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by
popular suffrage. In the United States, James Madison defined republic
in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct
democracy,[5] and this usage is still employed by many viewing
themselves as "democrats".[6] Montesquieu included both democracies,
where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or
oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms
of government.[7] In modern political science, republicanism refers to
a specific ideology that is based on civic virtue and is considered
distinct from ideologies such as liberalism.[8]
Most often a republic is a sovereign country, but there are also
subnational entities that are referred to as republics, or which have
governments that are described as "republican" in nature. For
instance, Article IV of the Constitution of the United States
"guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of
Government."[9] The Soviet Union was a single nation composed of
distinct and nominally sovereign Soviet Socialist Republics.
Niccolò Machiavelli described the governance and foundation of the
ideal republic in his work Discourses on Livy. These writings, as well
as those of his contemporaries such as Leonardo Bruni, are the
foundation of the ideology political scientists call
republicanism.[10][11]
Contents [hide]
1 Origin of the term
2 History
2.1 Classical republics
2.2 Other ancient republics
2.3 Mercantile republics
2.4 Protestant republics
2.5 Liberal republics
2.6 Socialist republics
2.7 Communist republics
2.8 Decolonization
2.9 Islamic republics
3 Head of state
3.1 Structure
3.2 Election
3.3 Ambiguities
4 Types
4.1 Sub-national republics
5 Other meanings
5.1 Political philosophy
5.2 United States
6 See also
7 Notes and references
8 Further reading
[edit] Origin of the term
The idea of a republic first appeared in the writings of Italian
scholars of the Renaissance, most importantly Machiavelli.[10][12]
Machiavelli divided governments into two types, principalities ruled
by a monarch and republics ruled by the people.[13][14]
In medieval Northern Italy a number of city states had commune or
signoria based governments. In the late Middle Ages, writers, such as
Giovanni Villani, began thinking about the nature of these states and
the differences from the more common monarchies. These early writers
used terms such as libertas populi to describe the states. The
terminology changed in the 15th century as the renewed interest in the
writings of Ancient Greece and Rome caused writers to prefer using
classical terminology. To describe non-monarchial states writers, most
importantly Leonardo Bruni, adopted the Latin word res publica.[15]
While Bruni and Machiavelli used the term to describe the
non-monarchial states of Northern Italy, res publica has a set of
interrelated meanings in the original Latin. The term can quite
literally be translated as "public matter".[16] It was most often used
by Roman writers to refer to the state and government, even during the
period of the Roman Empire.[17] The English word commonwealth derives
from a direct translation of res publica, and its use in English is
closer to how the Romans used the term res publica.[11]
Today the term republic still most commonly means a system of
government which derives its power from the people rather than from
another basis, such as heredity or divine right. This remains the
primary definition of republic in most contexts.
This bipartite division of government types differs from the classical
sources, and also the earlier of Machiavelli's own works, which
divided governments into three types: monarchy, aristocracy, and
democracy. As Machiavelli wrote, the distinction between an
aristocracy ruled by a select elite and a democracy ruled by a council
appointed by the people became cumbersome. By the time Machiavelli
began work on The Prince, he had decided to refer to both aristocracy
and democracies as republics.[18]
A further set of meanings for the term comes from the Greek word
politeia. Cicero, among other Latin writers, translated politeia as
res publica and it was in turn translated by Renaissance scholars as
republic. This is not a very accurate translation and the term
politeia is today usually translated as form of government or regime.
One continued use of this archaic translation is the title of Plato's
major work on political science. In Greek it was titled Politeia and
in English is thus known as The Republic. This naming is preserved for
historic reasons, but is not considered accurate. Within the text of
modern translations of The Republic, alternative translations of
politeia are used.[19]
In English the word first came to prominence during The Protectorate
era of Oliver Cromwell.[20] While commonwealth was the most common
term to call the new monarchless state, republic was also in common
use.[20]
[edit] History
Until modern times, the form of government for almost all states was
monarchy.[21][22] During the classical period the Mediterranean region
was home to several states that are now known as the classical
republics.
Several republics also developed during the Middle Ages in the
merchant dominated city states.
[edit] Classical republics
Main article: classical republic
The concept of the "republic" itself was not a meaningful concept in
the classical world.[23] There are number of states of the classical
era that are today by convention called republics. These include the
city states of ancient Greece such as Athens and Sparta[24] and the
Roman Republic. The structure and governance of these states was very
different from that of any modern republic.[25] There is a debate
about whether the classical, medieval, and modern republics form a
historic continuum.[16] JGA Pocock has played a central role,[16]
arguing that there is a distinct republican tradition that stretches
from the classical world to the present.[10] Other scholars
disagree.[16] Paul Rahe, for instance, argues that the classical
republics had a form of government with few links to those in any
modern country.[24]
A map of the Roman EmpireThe political philosophy of the classical
republics has had a central influence on republican thought throughout
the subsequent centuries. A number of classical writers discussed
forms of government alternative to monarchies and later writers have
treated these as foundational works on the nature of republics.
Philosophers and politicians advocating for republics, such as
Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Adams, and Madison, relied heavily on these
sources.
Aristotle's Politics discusses various forms of government. One form
Aristotle named politeia consisted of a mixture of the other forms he
argued this was one of the ideal forms of government. Polybius
expanded on many of these ideas, again focusing on the idea of mixed
government. The most important Roman work in this tradition is
Cicero's De re publica.
Over time the classical republics were either conquered by empires or
became one themselves. Most of the Greek republics were annexed to the
Macedonian Empire of Alexander. The Roman Republic expanded
dramatically conquering the other states of the Mediterranean that
could be considered republics, such as Carthaginian Republic. The
Roman Republic itself then became the Roman Empire.
[edit] Other ancient republics
In the pre-modern period republics are generally considered to have
been a solely European phenomenon, and states in other parts of the
world with similar governments are not generally referred to as
republics.[16] Some early states outside of Europe had governments
that are sometimes today considered similar to republics. In the
ancient Near East, a number of cities of the Eastern Mediterranean
achieved collective rule. Arwad has been cited as one of the earliest
known examples of a republic, in which the people, rather than a
monarch, are described as sovereign.[26] The Israelite confederation
of the era before the United Monarchy has also been considered a type
of republic.[16][18]
One part of the world where much attention has been paid ancient
republics is India. In the early 20th century a number of Indian
scholars, most notably as KP Jayaswal, argued that a number of states
of ancient India had republican forms of government.[27] There are no
surviving constitutions or works of political philosophy from this
period in Indian history. The forms of government thus need to be
deduced, mostly from the surviving religious texts. These texts do
refer to a number of states having Gaṇa sangha, or council-based, as
opposed to monarchial governments.
A second form of evidence comes from Greeks writing about India during
the period of contact following the conquests of Alexander. Greek
writers about India such as Megasthenes and Arrian describe many of
the states there to have republican governments akin to those of
Greece.[28] Beginning around 700 BCE republics developed in a band
running along the Indus Valley in the northwest and along the Ganges
Plain in the northeast. They were mainly small states, though some
confederations of republics seem to have formed that covered large
areas, such as Vajji, which had Vaishali as its capital around 600
BCE.[29]
As in Greece, the republican era came to an end in the 4th century
with the rise of a monarchial empire. The Maurya Empire conquered
almost the entire subcontinent, ending the autonomy of the small
republics. Some did remain republics under Mauryan suzerainty, or
returned to being republics after the fall of the empire. Madra, for
instance, survived as a republic until the 4th century CE. The final
end of republics in India came with the rise of the Gupta Empire, and
an associated philosophy of the divine nature of monarchy.
[edit] Mercantile republics
Giovan Battista Tiepolo, Neptune offers the wealth of the sea to
Venice, 1748–50. This painting is an allegory of the power of the
Republic of Venice.In Europe new republics appeared in the late Middle
Ages when a number of small states embraced republican systems of
government. These were generally small, but wealthy, trading states in
which the merchant class had risen to prominence. Haakonssen notes
that, by the Renaissance, Europe was divided with those states
controlled by a landed elite being monarchies and those controlled by
a commercial elite being republics.[11]
Across Europe a wealthy merchant class developed in the important
trading cities. Despite their wealth they had little power in the
feudal system dominated by the rural land owners, and across Europe
began to advocate for their own privileges and powers. The more
centralized states, such as France and England, granted limited city
charters.
In the more loosely governed Holy Roman Empire, 51 of the largest
towns became free imperial cities. While still under the dominion of
the Holy Roman Emperor most power was held locally and many adopted
republican forms of government.[30] The same rights to imperial
immediacy were secured by the major trading cities of Switzerland. The
towns and villages of alpine Switzerland had, courtesy of geography,
also been largely excluded from central control. Unlike Italy and
Germany, much of the rural area was thus not controlled by feudal
barons, but by independent farmers who also used communal forms of
government. When the Habsburgs tried to reassert control over the
region both rural farmers and town merchants joined the rebellion. The
Swiss were victorious, and the Swiss Confederacy was proclaimed, and
Switzerland has retained a republican form of government to the
present.[31]
Italy was the most densely populated area of Europe, and also one with
the weakest central government. Many of the towns thus gained
considerable independence and adopted commune forms of government.
Completely free of feudal control, the Italian city-states expanded,
gaining control of the rural hinterland.[30] The two most powerful
were the Republic of Venice and its rival the Republic of Genoa. Each
were large trading ports, and further expanded by using naval power to
control large parts of the Mediterranean. It was in Italy that an
ideology advocating for republics first developed. Writers such as
Bartholomew of Lucca, Brunetto Latini, Marsilius of Padua, and
Leonardo Bruni saw the medieval city-states as heirs to the legacy of
Greece and Rome.
Two Northern Russian cities with powerful merchant class — Novgorod
and Pskov — also adopted republican forms of government in 12th and
13th centuries, respectively, which ended when the republics were
conquered by Moscow in the 20th[citation needed] century.
The dominant form of government for these early republics was control
by a limited council of elite patricians. In those areas that held
elections, property qualifications or guild membership limited both
who could vote and who could run. In many states no direct elections
were held and council members were hereditary or appointed by the
existing council. This left the great majority of the population
without political power, and riots and revolts by the lower classes
were common. The late Middle Ages saw more than 200 such risings in
the towns of the Holy Roman Empire.[32] Similar revolts occurred in
Italy, notably the Ciompi Revolt in Florence.
[edit] Protestant republics
While the classical writers had been the primary ideological source
for the republics of Italy, in Northern Europe, the Protestant
Reformation would be used as justification for establishing new
republics.[33] Most important was Calvinist theology, which developed
in the Swiss Confederacy, one of the largest and most powerful of the
medieval republics. John Calvin did not call for the abolition of
monarchy, but he advanced the doctrine that the faithful had the right
to overthrow irreligious monarchs.[34] Calvinism also espoused a
fierce egalitarianism and an opposition to hierarchy. Advocacy for
republics appeared in the writings of the Huguenots during the French
Wars of Religion.[35]
Calvinism played an important role in the republican revolts in
Britain and the Netherlands. Like the city-states of Italy and the
Hanseatic League, both were important trading centres, with a large
merchant class prospering from the trade with the New World. Large
parts of the population of both areas also embraced Calvinism. The
Dutch Revolt, beginning in 1568, saw the Dutch Republic reject the
rule of Habsburg Spain in a conflict that lasted until 1648.
In 1641 the English Civil War began. Spearheaded by the Puritans and
funded by the merchants of London, the revolt was a success, and King
Charles I was executed. In England James Harrington, Algernon Sydney,
and John Milton became some of the first writers to argue for
rejecting monarchy and embracing a republican form of government. The
English Commonwealth was short lived, and the monarchy soon restored.
The Dutch Republic continued in name until 1795, but by the mid 18th
century the stadholder had become a de facto monarch. Calvinists were
also some of the earliest settlers of the British and Dutch colonies
of North America.
[edit] Liberal republics
An allegory of the Republic in ParisAlong with these initial
republican revolts, early modern Europe also saw a great increase in
monarchial power. The era of absolute monarchy replaced the limited
and decentralized monarchies that had existed in most of the Middle
Ages. It also saw a reaction against the total control of the monarch
as a series of writers created the ideology known as liberalism.
Most of these Enlightenment thinkers were far more interested in ideas
of constitutional monarchy than in republics. The Cromwell regime had
discredited republicanism, and most thinkers felt that republics ended
in either anarchy or tyranny.[36] Thus philosophers like Voltaire
opposed absolutism while at the same time being strongly pro-monarchy.
Septinsular Republic flag from the early 1800s
A revolutionary Republican hand-written bill from the Stockholm riots
during the Revolutions of 1848, reading: "Dethrone Oscar he is not fit
to be a king rather the Republic! The Reform! down with the Royal
house, long live Aftonbladet! death to the king / Republic Republic
the people. Brunkeberg this evening". The writer's identity is
unknown.Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Montesquieu praised republics, and
looked on the city-states of Greece as a model. However, both also
felt that a nation-state like France, with 20 million people, would be
impossible to govern as a republic. Rousseau described his ideal
political structure of small self-governing communes. Montesquieu felt
that a city-state should ideally be a republic, but maintained that a
limited monarchy was better suited to a large nation.
The American Revolution thus began as a rejection only of the
authority of British parliament over the colonies. The failure of the
British monarch to protect the colonies from what they considered the
infringement of their rights to representative government, and the
monarch's branding of those requesting redress as traitors compounded
by sending combat troops to demonstrate authority resulted in
widespread perception of the British monarchy as tyrannical. With the
Declaration of Independence the leaders of the revolt firmly rejected
the monarchy and embraced republicanism. The leaders of the revolution
were well versed in the writings of the French liberal thinkers, and
also in history of the classical republics. John Adams had notably
written a book on republics throughout history. In addition, the
widely distributed and popularly read-aloud tract Common Sense, by
Thomas Paine, succinctly and eloquently laid out the case for
republican ideals and independence to the larger public. The
Constitution of the United States ratified in 1789 created a
relatively strong federal republic to replace the relatively weak
confederation under the first attempt at a national government with
the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union ratified in 1783.
The first ten amendments to the Constitution, called the United States
Bill of Rights, guaranteed certain natural rights fundamental to
republican ideals that justified the Revolution.
The French Revolution was also not republican at its outset. Only
after the Flight to Varennes removed most of the remaining sympathy
for the king was a republic declared and Louis XVI sent to the
guillotine. The stunning success of France in the French Revolutionary
Wars saw republics spread by force of arms across much of Europe as a
series of client republics were set up across the continent. The rise
of Napoleon saw the end of the First French Republic, and his eventual
defeat allowed the victorious monarchies to put an end to many of the
oldest republics on the continent, including Venice, Genoa, and the
Dutch.
Outside of Europe another group of republics was created as the
Napoleonic Wars allowed the states of Latin America to gain their
independence. Liberal ideology had only a limited impact on these new
republics. The main impetus was the local European descended Creole
population in conflict with the Peninsulares governors sent from
overseas. The majority of the population in most of Latin America was
of either African or Amerindian decent, and the Creole elite had
little interest in giving these groups power and broad-based popular
sovereignty. Simón Bolívar was both the main instigator of the revolts
and one of its most important theorists was sympathetic to liberal
ideals, but felt that Latin America lacked the social cohesion for
such a system to function and advocated autocracy as necessary.
In Mexico this autocracy briefly took the form of a monarchy in the
First Mexican Empire. Due to the Peninsular War, the Portuguese court
was relocated to Brazil in 1808. Brazil gained independence as a
monarchy in September 7, 1822, and the Empire of Brazil lasted until
1889. In the other states various forms of autocratic republic existed
until most were liberalized at the end of the 20th century.[37]
The Second French Republic was created in 1848, and the Third French
Republic in 1871. Spain briefly became the First Spanish Republic, but
the monarchy was soon restored. By the start of the 20th century
France and Switzerland remained the only republics in Europe. Before
World War I, the Portuguese Republic, established by the revolution of
October 5, 1910, was the first of the 20th century. This would
encourage new republics in the aftermath of the war, when several of
the largest European empires collapsed. The German Empire,
Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russian Empire, and Ottoman Empire were then
replaced by republics. New states gained independence during this
turmoil, and many of these, such as Ireland, Poland[disambiguation
needed], Finland and Czechoslovakia, chose republican forms of
government. In 1931, the Second Spanish Republic (1931–1939) turned
into a civil war would be the prelude of World War II.
Republican ideas were spreading, especially in Asia. The United States
began to have considerable influence in East Asia in the later part of
the 19th century, with Protestant missionaries playing a central role.
The liberal and republican writers of the west also exerted influence.
These combined with native Confucian inspired political philosophy
that had long argued that the populace had the right to reject unjust
government that had lost the Mandate of Heaven.
Two short lived republics were proclaimed in East Asia, the Republic
of Formosa and the First Philippine Republic. China had seen
considerable anti-Qing sentiment, and a number of protest movements
developed calling for constitutional monarchy. The most important
leader of these efforts was Sun Yat-sen, whose Three Principles of the
People combined American, European, and Chinese ideas. The Republic of
China was proclaimed on January 1, 1912.
[edit] Socialist republics
See also Socialist state
Strictly speaking, any real or hypothetical state organized along the
principles of socialism may be called a socialist state. The term
"socialist republic" is used by those socialists who wish to emphasize
that they favour a republican form of government. Furthermore, since
socialism purports to represent the interests of the working class,
many socialists refer to a state organized according to their
principles as a workers' state.
[edit] Communist republics
See also People's Republic
Communist states such as Vietnam require that their leaders adhere to
that ideology and to the line of the Communist party.[citation needed]
However, most of these states allow independent politicians
(non-affiliated).[citation needed]
A poster that commemorates the permanent President of the Republic of
China Yuan Shikai and the provisional President of the Republic[edit]
Decolonization
A map of the Commonwealth republicsIn the years following World War
II, most of the remaining European colonies gained their independence,
and most became republics. The two largest colonial powers were France
and the United Kingdom. Republican France encouraged the establishment
of republics in its former colonies. Great Britain attempted to follow
the model it had for its earlier settler colonies of creating
independent commonwealth realms still linked under the same monarchy.
While most of the settler colonies and the smaller states of the
Caribbean retained this system, it was rejected by the newly
independent countries in Africa and Asia, which revised their
constitutions and became republics.
Britain followed a different model in the Middle East; it installed
local monarchies in several colonies and mandates including Iraq,
Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen and Libya. In subsequent decades
revolutions and coups overthrew a number of monarchs and installed
republics. Several monarchies remain, and the Middle East is the only
part of the world where several large states are ruled by monarchs
with almost complete political control.[38]
[edit] Islamic republics
Main article: Islamic republic
Islamic political philosophy has a long history of opposition to
absolute monarchy, notably in the work of Al-Farabi. Sharia law took
precedence over the will of the ruler, and electing rulers by means of
the Shura was an important doctrine. While the early caliphate
maintained the principles of an elected ruler, later states became
hereditary or military dictatorships though many maintained some
pretense of a consultative shura.
None of these states are typically referred to as republics. The
current usage of republic in Muslim countries is borrowed from the
western meaning, adopted into the language in the late 19th
century.[39] The 20th century saw republicanism become an important
idea in much of the Middle East, as monarchies were removed in many
states of the region. Some such as Iraq and Turkey became secular
republics. Some nations, such as Indonesia and Azerbaijan, began as
secular. In Iran, the 1979 revolution overthrew the monarchy and
created an Islamic Republic based the ideas of Islamic democracy.
[edit] Head of state
[edit] Structure
With no monarch, most modern republics use the title president for the
head of state. Originally used to refer to the presiding officer of a
committee or governing body in Great Britain the usage was also
applied to political leaders, including the leaders of some of the
Thirteen Colonies (originally Virginia in 1608); in full, the
"President of the Council."[40] The first republic to adopt the title
was the United States of America. Keeping its usage as the head of a
committee the President of the Continental Congress was the leader of
the original congress. When the new constitution was written the title
of President of the United States was conferred on the head of the new
executive branch. Today almost all republics use the title president
for the head of state.
If the head of state of a republic is also the head of government,
this is called a presidential system. There are a number of forms of
presidential government. A full-presidential system has a president
with substantial authority and a central political role. The United
States was the first example of such a system, and the basis for the
model adopted elsewhere. In other states the legislature is dominant
and the president's role is almost purely ceremonial and apolitical,
such as in Germany and India.
These states are parliamentary republics and operate similarly to
constitutional monarchies with parliamentary systems where the power
of the monarch is also greatly circumscribed. In parliamentary systems
the head of government, most often titled prime minister, exercises
the most real political power. Semi-presidential systems have a
president as an active head of state, but also have a head of
government with important powers.
The rules for appointing the president and the leader of the
government, in some republics permit the appointment of a president
and a prime minister who have opposing political convictions: in
France, when the members of the ruling cabinet and the president come
from opposing political factions, this situation is called
cohabitation.
In some countries, like Switzerland and San Marino, the head of state
is not a single person but a committee (council) of several persons
holding that office. The Roman Republic had two consuls, appointed for
a year.
[edit] Election
In liberal democracies presidents are elected, either directly by the
people or indirectly by a parliament or council. Typically in
presidential and semi-presidential systems the president is directly
elected by the people, or is indirectly elected as done in the United
States. In that country the president is officially elected by an
electoral college, chosen by the States, all of which do so by direct
election of the electors. The indirect election of the president
through the electoral college conforms to the concept of republic as
one with a system of indirect election. In the opinion of some, direct
election confers legitimacy upon the president and gives the office
much of its political power.[41] However, this concept of legitimacy
differs from that expressed in the United States Constitution which
established the legitimacy of the United States president as resulting
from the signing of the Constitution by 9 states.[42] The idea that
direct election is required for legitimacy also contradicts the spirit
of the Great Compromise, whose actual result was manifest in the
clause[43] that provides voters in smaller states with slightly more
representation in presidential selection than those in large states.
In states with a parliamentary system the president is usually elected
by the parliament. This indirect elections subordinates the president
to the parliament, and also gives the president limited legitimacy and
turns most presidential powers into reserve powers that can only be
exercised under rare circumstance. There are exceptions where elected
presidents have only ceremonial powers, such as in the Republic of
Ireland.
[edit] Ambiguities
The distinction between a republic and a monarchy are not always
clear. The constitutional monarchies of the former British Empire and
Western Europe today have almost all real political power vested in
the elected representatives, with the monarchs only holding
theoretical and rarely used reserve powers. Real legitimacy for
political decisions comes from the elected representatives and is
derived from the will of the people. While hereditary monarchies
remain in place, political power is derived from the people as in a
republic. These states are thus sometimes referred to as crowned
republics.[44]
Terms such as liberal republic are also used to describe all of the
modern liberal democracies.[45]
There are also self proclaimed republics that act similarly to
monarchies with absolute power vested in the leader and passed down
from father to son. North Korea and Syria are two notable examples
where a son has inherited political control. Neither of these states
are officially monarchies. There is no constitutional requirement that
power be passed down within one family, but it has occurred in
practice.
There are also elective monarchy where ultimate power is vested in a
monarch, but the monarch is chosen by some manner of election. A
current example of such a state is Malaysia where the Yang di-Pertuan
Agong is elected every five years by the Conference of Rulers composed
of the nine hereditary rulers of the Malay states. While rare today,
elective monarchs were common in the past. The Holy Roman Empire is an
important example, where each new emperor was chosen by a group of
electors. Islamic states also rarely employed primogeniture instead
relying on various forms of election to chose a monarchs successor.
The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth had an elective monarchy, with a
wide suffrage of some 500,000 nobles. The system, known as the Golden
Liberty, had developed as a method for powerful landowners to control
the crown. The proponents of this system looked to classical examples,
and the writings of the Italian Renaissance, and called their elective
monarchy a rzeczpospolita, based on res publica.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
On 10/20/10, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, then in other words,
> Republicans, whose purpose is to control, are like Facists. Their
> purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others
> among the people.
>
> Democrats, whose purpose is to rule In a fair Democracy, and any group
> of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the
> unlimited power of The Majority, and therefore must keep the
> Republicans from taking control of the government again in order to
> protect themselves from unlimited power of facist Republicans.
>
> Corporate greed, absolute control, and absoulute power is Republican.
>
> Justice, well being, liberty, the persuit of happiness, and fair
> representation by and for individuals is Democratic.
>
> Gotta love it.
>
> On 10/20/10, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashleyii@lavabit.com> wrote:
>> Anyone following this thread can see you are dodging the question.
>>
>> You have spent a considerable amount of time doing so.
>>
>> So based on your refusal to answer the question, and, based on your
>> assertion that it was a baited question, I can only conclude that you
>> are a closet socialist.
>>
>> On 10/20/2010 10:47 AM, Tommy News wrote:
>>> No, I am not.
>>>
>>> On 10/20/10, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashleyii@lavabit.com> wrote:
>>>> Of course you're dodging the question.
>>>>
>>>> It's not like I was asking you for a 15-page dissertation on your
>>>> beliefs. I simply asked you to chose between two brief descriptions of
>>>> two types of governments.
>>>>
>>>> On 10/20/2010 10:24 AM, Tommy News wrote:
>>>>> I am not dodging the question.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I said that it is a dumb and baited question and I stand buy that
>>>>> statement.
>>>>> I believe in Democracy. I am an American.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/20/10, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashleyii@lavabit.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Why are you dodging the question, Tommy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are subscribed to a political forum. How is asking which of two
>>>>>> systems of government you think we should follow being silly?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that you understand it is a baited question leads me to
>>>>>> believe
>>>>>> you know you are a socialist. You're just afraid to admit it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or, perhaps - since you push all the collectivism crap on us - you
>>>>>> prefer being called a collectivist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Collectivist*, n. An advocate of collectivism. -- a. Relating
>>>>>> to,
>>>>>> or characteristic of, collectivism.*
>>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Collectivism*, n. The doctrine that land and capital should be
>>>>>> owned by society collectively or as a whole; communism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/20/2010 10:07 AM, Tommy News wrote:
>>>>>>> Why would you even ask such a silly, baited, and officiously
>>>>>>> offensive
>>>>>>> question?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not a Marxist, Socialist, or Communist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Centrist Liberals, Democrats, and President Obama are not either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/20/10, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashleyii@lavabit.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Should have read:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tommy,
>>>>>>>>> Which one of the following systems of government do you believe we
>>>>>>>>> should follow?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. A system in which the means of production and
>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> privately or corporately owned and development is
>>>>>>>>> proportionate
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a
>>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>> market.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. A system of social organization in which the means of
>>>>>>>>> producing
>>>>>>>>> and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a
>>>>>>>>> centralized
>>>>>>>>> government that often plans and controls the economy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2010 9:36 AM, Tommy News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It appears that you do not know what Marxism is, Keith, as you
>>>>>>>>>> continually and falsely call Democrats, Centrist liberals,
>>>>>>>>>> Progressives, and President Obama Marxists, which they are not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is why I sent this piece, to enlighten you, if that is
>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Liberals and Democrats are NOT Marxists, Socialists, or
>>>>>>>>>> Communists.
>>>>>>>>>> Using these false slurs over and over again is offensive and
>>>>>>>>>> repetitive.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I believe that those who slander and disrespect the President are
>>>>>>>>>> anti-American.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/10, Keith In Tampa<keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Those who don't comprehend or understand what Marxism,
>>>>>>>>>>> Socialism,
>>>>>>>>>>> Capitalism, etc., mean, and somehow believe that it is "hate
>>>>>>>>>>> speech"
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> calling an individual a "Socialist"; because he advocates a
>>>>>>>>>>> socialistic
>>>>>>>>>>> political and economic system over a capitalistic, free market
>>>>>>>>>>> economy,
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> ignorant.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't mean to say that they are stupid....Far from it.
>>>>>>>>>>> Actually,
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>> lot of respect for these that are ignorant, or Anti-American.
>>>>>>>>>>> They
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> dangerous to our Nation. I have come to the conclusion that
>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>> folks
>>>>>>>>>>> fall into one of two categories:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (A) *e.g.;* Most of them are ill informed and not well read.
>>>>>>>>>>> They
>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>> keep up with current events, other than to watch liberal, biased
>>>>>>>>>>> mainstream
>>>>>>>>>>> media, or read and follow far left slanted web sites, never
>>>>>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>> to comprehend why or how any specific situation or came to be,
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> root
>>>>>>>>>>> cause, genesis or motivation of any particular issue. They tend
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>> that they are the only ones that are compassionate, failing to
>>>>>>>>>>> realize
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> it is statistically proven in fact, that those who are
>>>>>>>>>>> conservative
>>>>>>>>>>> contribute far more money& resources to charitable causes.
>>>>>>>>>>> Further,
>>>>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>>>>> just as important!) these same individuals don't have a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> our history; they fail to understand or comprehend the
>>>>>>>>>>> principals
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> tenets
>>>>>>>>>>> that made the United States the greatest Nation-State in the
>>>>>>>>>>> World,
>>>>>>>>>>> bar
>>>>>>>>>>> none. In general, these people reject the notion that our
>>>>>>>>>>> founding
>>>>>>>>>>> fathers
>>>>>>>>>>> were influenced by Christian principals and tenets, but they do
>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>> enough history that they would very much like to revise this one
>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>> aspect. Thus their lack of understanding and reasoning; or,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (B) They are literally Anti-Americans, and they want to see the
>>>>>>>>>>> United
>>>>>>>>>>> States become equal to or consistent with a third world or
>>>>>>>>>>> fourth
>>>>>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>>>>>> Nation-State.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is literally no other option.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The point being, is that ALL of these folks are hypocritical,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> filled
>>>>>>>>>>> with hate. When confronted with truth, logic, or just basic
>>>>>>>>>>> facts,
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> can resort to is slinging out hate filled smear, and the typical
>>>>>>>>>>> far
>>>>>>>>>>> left,
>>>>>>>>>>> Socialist-Elitist talking points that have been generated by the
>>>>>>>>>>> George
>>>>>>>>>>> Soros' funded foundations, media organizations and social
>>>>>>>>>>> networks.
>>>>>>>>>>> All
>>>>>>>>>>> they can do, is attack the messenger.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Tommy
>>>>>>>>>>> News<tommysnews@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Thiose who use words as clubs are misguided bullies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>>>>>>>>>> For options& help
>>>>>>>>>>> seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>>>>>>>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>>>>>>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> *Your Remedy Is In The Courts Jurisdictionary®
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.jurisdictionary.com?refercode=CG0004>*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The
>>>>>>>>> Federal
>>>>>>>>> Government*
>>>>>>>>> http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Government is only as strong as those who allow themselves to be
>>>>>>>>> governed are weak.*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *"The 'art' of politics is diverting attention from what's really
>>>>>>>>> happening. What
>>>>>>>>> separates politicians from other criminal organizations is
>>>>>>>>> superior
>>>>>>>>> public relations."
>>>>>>>>> - Marc Stevens
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it expects something
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> cannot be."
>>>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson****
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>>>>>>>> For options& help see
>>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>>>>>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>>>>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>>>>>>> Your personal email. Anytime, anywhere.
>>>>>>>>> Ridiculously affordable at $19.95. No contracts.
>>>>>>>>> http://www.getpeek.com/lavabit.html
>>>>>>>>> <%20http://www.getpeek.com/lavabit.html>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> *Your Remedy Is In The Courts Jurisdictionary®
>>>>>>>> <http://www.jurisdictionary.com?refercode=CG0004>*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The
>>>>>>>> Federal
>>>>>>>> Government*
>>>>>>>> http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Government is only as strong as those who allow themselves to be
>>>>>>>> governed are weak.*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *"The 'art' of politics is diverting attention from what's really
>>>>>>>> happening. What
>>>>>>>> separates politicians from other criminal organizations is superior
>>>>>>>> public relations."
>>>>>>>> - Marc Stevens
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it expects something
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> cannot be."
>>>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson****
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>>>>>>> For options& help see
>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>>>>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>>>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> *Your Remedy Is In The Courts Jurisdictionary®
>>>>>> <http://www.jurisdictionary.com?refercode=CG0004>*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal
>>>>>> Government*
>>>>>> http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Government is only as strong as those who allow themselves to be
>>>>>> governed are weak.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *"The 'art' of politics is diverting attention from what's really
>>>>>> happening. What
>>>>>> separates politicians from other criminal organizations is superior
>>>>>> public relations."
>>>>>> - Marc Stevens
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it expects something
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> cannot be."
>>>>>> - Thomas Jefferson****
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>>>>> For options& help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>> --
>>>> *Your Remedy Is In The Courts Jurisdictionary®
>>>> <http://www.jurisdictionary.com?refercode=CG0004>*
>>>>
>>>> *I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal
>>>> Government*
>>>> http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
>>>>
>>>> *Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.
>>>>
>>>> *Government is only as strong as those who allow themselves to be
>>>> governed are weak.*
>>>>
>>>> *"The 'art' of politics is diverting attention from what's really
>>>> happening. What
>>>> separates politicians from other criminal organizations is superior
>>>> public relations."
>>>> - Marc Stevens
>>>>
>>>> "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it expects something that
>>>> cannot be."
>>>> - Thomas Jefferson****
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>>> For options& help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>>
>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> *Your Remedy Is In The Courts Jurisdictionary®
>> <http://www.jurisdictionary.com?refercode=CG0004>*
>>
>> *I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal
>> Government*
>> http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
>>
>> *Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.
>>
>> *Government is only as strong as those who allow themselves to be
>> governed are weak.*
>>
>> *"The 'art' of politics is diverting attention from what's really
>> happening. What
>> separates politicians from other criminal organizations is superior
>> public relations."
>> - Marc Stevens
>>
>> "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it expects something that
>> cannot be."
>> - Thomas Jefferson****
>>
>> --
>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>
>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>
> --
> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> Have a great day,
> Tommy
>
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment