Talk:Republic/Archive 2

Part V.a A Socratic

Socrates: You recognize that the word is in common mis-usage. Correct?

Man: Yes

Socrates: And it is not possible to re-correct it then, right?

Man: yes

Socrates: Does the military use bad maps?

Man: no, they use the most current update maps.

Socrates: What happens when there is faulty information in directions.

Man: Accidents occur just like Private Jessica's Lynch's convoy took a wrong turn because the direction was not clearly marked.

Socrates: Aren't words like maps--they point to a direction.

Man: Why-yes. Use bad words and we end up like the convoy of Jessica Lynch.

Socrates: Bravo.WHEELER 17:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Solution suggested

Solution suggested. Just like Democracy is a divided into (a) direct and (b) indirect, I suggest Republic is a Mixed Government based on a Constitution defining the parts and their duties. (a) The Spartan Model which has King, Aristocracy, Demos. Britian is the Spartan model. (b) The Roman model which has as an head counsels or tribunes (a Changeable civilian head), Aristocracy (Senate), Demos. The American form of Government is based more on the Roman Model. This definition answers all cases were there is mixed government and excludes all and defines it clearly throughout time. This will give students a clearer road on how to classify and define governments through history and maybe correct misconceptions and misdefinitions and this will utterly help the political discussion because NOW we know what we are talking about. The Republic is the 'genus' and 'The Spartan model' and 'The Roman model' are the species. The species both share in the definition of the genus but there are differentians of characteristics that divide one from another.

WHEELER 16:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Aristotle himself called the Spartans a monarchy numerous times in the Politics. I don't understand why you keep trying to call them a republic. Furthermore, your comments above don't seem any improvement to me on the language in the article now, which is very clear that republics come in many shapes and sizes (in fact, limiting them all to two so-called models seems more restrictive to me than it should be). Use of the words "genus" and "species", as I've remarked to you before, is a misapplication of taxonomy to political science. It may be useful for purposes of casual analogy, but we cannot resort to it in an encyclopedia article, or we will confuse and mislead our readers. You have yet to demonstrate that any authority refers to a government such as that current in the United Kingdom as a republic. As noted in this paragraph, Aristotle himself describes Sparta as a monarchy -- one in which the monarch held weakened powers, yes, but fundamentally part of the "monarchy" category. Your ideas have the merit of being an unusual take on republics which has given all of us cause to consider political terminology, but I am afraid your quotations, though well cited, do not appear to me to compel us to accept your two model theory of republics -- it's original research, something Wikipedia is not. Jwrosenzweig 20:37, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I repeat again: "And the whole constitution is intended, it is true, to be neither a democracy not an oligarchy, but of the form intermediate between them which is termed a republic, for the government is constituted from the class that bears arms." Politcs, II iii 9; 1265b 25; or page 105 LoebWHEELER 15:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Definition of what is oligarchical and Aristocratic. Oligarchical is election by wealth and election by merit is aristocratic. Further down he points out that oligarchical is motivated toward wealth and Aristocracy is by worth, or and virtue. Politics, II, viii 5; 1273 20-25; pg 161 LoebWHEELER 16:01, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As to the point that Aristotle calls Sparta a monarchy is nowhere to be found. Politics II, v 14; 1269a 25-30; pg 133 Loeb "On the subject of the consitution of Sparta" In Greek it reads, "tys Lakedaimonion politeias". Sparta had a Constitution, therefore a Republic.WHEELER 17:20, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, thank you for providing citation information. Sadly, we have a translation issue. In the Jowett translation of the Politics (the one I prefer), the word "republic" appears 7 times, six times referring to the title of Plato's work, and once in reference to the government of Hippodamus. Obviously, our translators are dealing with a word that is difficult, and my translator seems to prefer to avoid the word "republic". Furthermore, the sentence you offer above from "Politics, II iii" -- that is a reference to Book II, Part iii, isn't it? I could not find that sentence anywhere in my translation, nor even a close approximation of it. Could you have mistyped the reference? Obviously this is not easily settled. And as to your final point, I don't see that you've established that Sparta wasn't called a monarchy -- I'll find you references if you want them. Constitutions cannot be said to define a republic because there is such a thing as a "constitutional monarchy" -- or are you arguing that a republic is "any state with a constitution"? Would that include the USSR, for example, as a republic? Please clarify, and do check that first quote. Jwrosenzweig 16:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Point of Interest

Aristotle says, "The constitution resulting must of necessity be another one, so that when men destroy these classes by laws carried to excess they destroy the constitution." Democracy seeks to destroy all classes of heirarchy making them the same. This is opposite of what a Republic is. A Republic keeps all classes and does away with none. All participate. Republics seek not to destroy class.WHEELER 16:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your quotation of Aristotle seems pulled out of context to me, and I cannot find it in my copy of the Politics -- we must have different translators. Will you please provide a reference? Furthermore, if we're going to rely on Aristotle as our chief source on government (he was brilliant, but I'd rather not), don't you have to accept that there are three kinds of government: monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy? So if republics aren't monarchies or democracies, according to you, are they oligarchies? Your terminology, while it is fascinating, leads to very confusing conclusions for me. Will you clarify? Jwrosenzweig 20:42, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The quote comes from Politics, V. vii 18; 1309b 39; or pg 435 in Loeb. As in confusing terminology please read above where I enumerate Aristotle's comment on how sytems of government are defined by the dominant factor. Also look at the socratic. Please read also Aristotle "A collection of persons all alike does not constitute a state". Politics II i 4; 1261a 20; or page 73 LoebWHEELER 15:29, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Despite your reference to Book V, Part vii, I cannot find the sentence to which you refer -- much talk of constitutions, but nothing concerning "destroying" them. Perhaps my eyes are poor -- will you look at http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.5.five.html as a courtesy to me, and point out the sentence by copying it here? I would appreciate it. You and I seem to rely on very divergent translations. I read Book II Part i, and cannot see its relevance to us (though I thank you for returning me to Aristotle -- it is pleasant to read him, even when I am not finding the answers you have sent me in search of). Jwrosenzweig 17:04, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Point of Interest Cicero

Cicero: "When however, instead, a group of men seize the state by exploiting their wealth or noble birth or some other resource, that is a political upheaveal, though they call themselves conservatives. If, on the other hand, the people gain the supremacy, and the whole government is conducted according totheir wishes, a state of affairs has arisen which is hailed as libery, but is, in fact, chaos. But when there is a situation of mutual fear, with one person or on class fearing another, then because nobody has sufficient confidence in his won strength a kind of bargain is struck between the ordinary people and the men who are powerful. The result, in that case, is the mixed constitution which Scipio recommends. (It is footnoted as monarchy, oligarghy and democracy.) Which means that weakness, not nature or good intention, is the mother of justice. On the State 23-4, Cicero On Government, Michael Grant, pg 180

What Montesquie said was nothing new. I assume he copied and quoted and read the Romans. WHEELER 16:27, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First of all, footnotes are simply the introduction of the translator/editor's bias. They are of interest, to be sure, but not authoritative. What Cicero meant by "mixed government" is surely a little more complicated than simply "any combo of at least 2 of these 3 governments". Furthermore, if we follow this comment, it would appear that the only true republics in your eyes are those operating by virtue of mutual fear on the part of the social classes -- certainly many current states that call themselves republics do not operate under this principle. Also, Cicero does not seem to be using the word republic (though surely it was available to him? Unless the translation is faulty) -- why do you insist that his "mixed constitution" is equivalent to a republic? You have not demonstrated any such connection to my knowledge, though I would certainly be open to seeing such a connection. Finally, who said anything at all regarding Montesquieu? You appear to be raising some kind of argument against an appeal that has not been made -- I, at least, cannot see anything in this talk page referring to The Spirit of the Laws or any other work by Montesquieu. Jwrosenzweig 20:48, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As Regards to the word "mixed" I quoted from Cicero, Roman authority and Aristotle, a Greek authority. They seem to agree on the concepts at hand. Two men seperated by time and country can agree on something and the moderns are still muddled.

Aristotle’s definition of how systems of politics are defined: Politics, III iv 1; 1278b 5-10; pg 201 Loeb; “Now a constitution (Politeia) is the ordering of a state (Poleos) in respect of its various magistracies, and expecially the magistracy that is supreme over all matters. For the government is everywhere supreme over the state and the constitution is the government.

Politics III v 2f; 1279a 30-35; pg 207 Loeb, “Our customary designation for a monarchy that aims at the common advantage is ‘kingship’; for a government of more than one yet only a few ‘aristocracy’, …while when the multitude govern the state with a view to the common advantage, it is called by the name common to all the forms of constitution, ‘constitutional government’. The Greek here is Politeia. Constitution by itself in Greek is Politeion. On page 204, Politeia is Constitution and Politeuma is government.

Politics III v 7; 1279b 35-40; 211 Loeb “…wherever the rulers owe their power to wealth, whether they be a minority or a majority, this is an oligarchy, and when the poor rule, it is a democracy.” Clearly Aristotle and the rest were not confused about Republic and democracy. They are two seperate entities and mean very different things.198.108.150.2 16:55, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have to assume that something is wrong with your edition of the Politics, or else with mine. Jowett's III iv ( http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.3.three.html ) talks about the virtue of good man vs. good citizens. A noble passage, to be sure, but one which does not use anything like the phrase "the government is everywhere supreme over the state". WHEELER, your quotes frequently sound like Aristotle, and may well be from him, but I am not finding them. Please check your references. Until we can successfully look at the same passages, I don't think there's much hope of understanding each other. Thank you, Jwrosenzweig 17:10, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC).

Mr. Jowett of your reference is not using the same reference points in the Loeb Classical edition. The Loeb provides three referencing systems. Obviously, Mr. Jowett first system doesn't match the Loeb. Spend Twenty Dollars on the Loeb. I couldn't find the section I referenced at all in Book III of the internet. What a mystery.WHEELER 18:11, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Book Three of your reference has 18 chapters. My Book three has 12 chapters. My Loeb states "The traditional order of the works of Aristotle as they appear since the edition of Immanuel Bekker (Berlin l831) and their division into volumes in this edition." Mr. Jowett used another work to base his translation on. Loeb is an authority of text. Loeb would be better than internet which can be manipulated. Books can be but one must wait for the edition to come out.WHEELER 18:24, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Jowett translation was published in the late 1800s, and is very authoritative also -- see http://www.bartleby.com/65/jo/Jowett-B.html or Benjamin Jowett to learn more about him, if you doubt his credentials. I refer to the online version for our mutual convenience: when studying Aristotle in university, I used the Jowett translation in book form, and still own the book. I simply assumed referring to page numbers would not be helpful to you when there was a more accessible copy on the web. At any rate, you have seen what my translation looks like -- if our divisions are different, would you assist me by telling me roughly where to look in my divisions? You aren't obligated to do so, but I would appreciate it. I am surprised that you have a different set of divisions: in my university seminar, we used three different translations (for comparative purposes) and they all used the divisions that are present in Jowett's translation. Jwrosenzweig 18:36, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So you know, the translator for the Loeb edition is Harris Rackham. You probably did know, but you hadn't mentioned it previously that I saw, figured it was worth noting. The text is online and searchable (to some extent) at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Aabo%3Atlg%2C0086%2C035&query=1252a where, through difficult back-and-forth, I can track down some of the passages to which you refer in Jowett's translation. Jowett prefers the word "polity" to "republic" using it almost exclusively (except, as I noted above, in the case of Hippodamus) -- this indicates, I think, that Jowett saw Aristotle's concept of mixed government as being distinct from the idea of "republic" in some meaningful way, though what that was, I cannot say. This would appear to indicate, though, that at the very least we must say that there is dispute among scholars concerning whether or not Aristotle meant "republic" when he was speaking of the politeia. I will have to look at other translations to get a larger picture, and will see what conclusions I can derive. This is most interesting. Jwrosenzweig 18:54, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Source of Problem

The problem can be seen in the Oxford Companion to Classical Literature. (see page 485) The Latins translated Plato and gave the title Respublica, thus leading to centuries of misleading. It states, "The original meaning is closer to 'society' or 'the state'.

The word 'Polites' in the Greek means citizen. But because the Latins translated Plato's Politea as Republic, the French Revolution and the Spanish Civil war wanting to be citizens called themselves "Republicans" thinking that the term of the Republic would mean that Republicans are citizens.

Republic Roman

"The Latin words res publica mean ‘affairs affecting the state’, ‘the state’ itself, or ‘the constitution’ of the state. The Roman Constitution was a republic in the modern sense of the word, in that the supreme power rested with the people; arbitrary rule by an individual (monarchy or tyranny) or by a small group (oligarchy) was renounced, and the right to take part in political life was given to all adult male citizens (but not the right to take equal part; compare DEMOCRACY). For the beginnings of the republic at Rome see ROME 3. Under the republic, in the constitutional sense, lasted from the expulsion of the kings in 510 BC to the death of Mark Anthony in 30 BC.

Nominally a democracy in that all laws had to be approved by an assembly of citizens, the republic was in fact organized as an aristocracy or broad-based oligarchy, governed by a fairly small group of about fifty noble families (see NOBILES) who regularly held all the magistracies. Pg 485 of the Oxford Companion to Classical Literature."

We need to archive and I don't know how.WHEELER 00:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To archive, edit the page; cut a large section of the page from top down. The create an archive page by typing "talk: xxx/archive# in double brackets. Save the edited talk page, open the new page you just created, and paste the archived material, Slrubenstein

Anti-democratic character of the Constitution of US

"For the anti-democratic character and intentions of the Constitution of the United States cf. William E. H. Lecky, Democracy and Liberty (New York: Longmans Green, 1896), pg 66-67. It is well known that Alexander Hamilton regretted the strictly republican character of the United States. Efforts were made by N. Gorham and Von Steuben to induce Prince Henry of Prussia (a brother of Fredrick II) to become a hereditary sovereign of the United States. The old Dutch Constitution would have served as a pattern. But these efforts failed; cf. Chester V. Easum, 'Prince Henry of Prussia, Brother of Frederick the Great (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1942), pg 339." Liberty or Equality, pg 317.WHEELER 00:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have created a page to talk of something I have seen on this site Wikipedia:Revisionism.WHEELER 23:45, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Russia <=> Republic

Hmmm, okay well, most federations are also run as republics at the top level. (see USA, the (Federal Republic Of) Germany, etc). I also noticed that in the recent past Russia *was* literally called a federal republic by the russians themselves. Okay well, that was sufficient for me to put it on the list at the time. Is there a particular reason to think Russia is *not* a republic, according to the definition here? Kim Bruning 08:11, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It looks like you're actually a Russian or a Russia expert, so I'm probably going to loose this one, but well, let's hear why I'm wrong in any case :-) Kim Bruning 08:15, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Kim. According to the definition given in the article, one could pretty much list every country in the world as a republic, unless such a country is run by a monarch — it is probably easier just to give a list of countries that are not republics :) Which, to me, defeats the purpose of such a list.

I think it makes much more sense to separate pure republics from federations and confederations. Granted, the difference would be more administrative and territorial, than academical, but it would at least make the list look less convoluted and confusing. This goes for Russia as well as for the USA and other countries that are comprised of a combination of entities with some degree of autonomy (theoretical or real).

I think the confusion came from the fact that Russia used to be one of the 15 republics when it was a part of the USSR (and it was called accordingly - RSFSR - a republic). After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, however, Russia was described more as a federation (which, of course, does not mean it cannot be considered a republic in the classical sense). Have I confused you yet? :)

Anyway, I am still against including Russia in the list unless the article is rewritten in such a way as to implicitly distinguish between republics, federations, confederations and similar entities, and an explanation of the definition duality is given.

Thanks for your attention!-Ezhiki 18:04, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

The definition given in the first line of the article seems needlessly simplistic. To my mind the essential characteristic of a republic is that sovereignty derives from the people, rather than another person or group. Is a nation a republic if the head of state is purely ceremonial? Is another nation not a republic if the elected HoS is titled King?

Australia has long been described as "a crowned republic". The postion of Head of State is not defined in any constitutional documents or High Court judgements and over the century or more since Federation, the monarch has become more remote and powerless. The Queen's only remaining role is to formally appoint the Governor-General on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister (she has no discretion in the matter) and it is the Governor-General who holds the powers of head of state, exercised by a President in British Commonwealth republics such as India. These powers are laid down by the Australian Constitution, which may only be changed with the approval of the people in a special majority.

I think that there is room for other definitions and other points of view. Skyring 20:14, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The United States is also a federation, and is frequently called a (or more frequently, the) republic. See also the Federal Republic of Germany. The distinction you are making is between unitary and federal republics, not between republics and some other form of government. (And, yeah, by that standard, every country other than monarchies is a republic...which leads me to suggest that we not list current republics at all) john k 18:24, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

UK election?

I removed Perhaps the most significant exception among the forms of today's monarchies is the oligarchical form of election used in the United Kingdom (described under Privy Council) since there is no description, and as far as I know the Act of Settlement means there is no election of the head of state: the proclamation is for information only. --Henrygb 15:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Example?

The page says: "In recent times there have been a large number of not-so-democratic republics, and the definition of the word has become more constrained."

Can you give an example of such a republic?

(I'm not doubting they exist -- I really want to learn more about this. Where do I read? By itself, this sounds like a dead-end fact: here's a fact, accept it, move on.)

Peoples Republic of China any of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, especially under Stalin, and famously of course, Nazi Germany, too many to name! Kim Bruning 10:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)