A Primer on Republican Theory
by Alexandra Hoerl, Faculty Contributor
Republic. Res publica [the things of the people]. A word with a long and seductive history—but what does it actually mean?
The difficulty with writing about republicanism is that the republican tradition began in the classical period and held a position of some prominence until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, so it is impossible to do justice to the entire tradition in one short article. However, it is possible to highlight some of the major thinkers in the tradition and to highlight some of the major claims associated with republicanism. I also want to reiterate that I am writing about republicanism from the perspective of a political theorist, not a historian or a philosopher or a classicist or a scholar of literature. Scholars in these disciplines would understand republicanism through a different lens.
Republican Theory in (Incomplete!) Historical Perspective
When considering major thinkers in the republican tradition, some scholars begin with Aristotle while others turn to Cicero. While the example of Sparta is important, Spartan theory does not loom very large in republican political theory because little of it is extant. After the fall of the Roman Republic there were few, if any, serious developments in republican theory for quite some time. However, republican institutions began to re-emerge on the Italian peninsula as Venice, Florence and a number of other Italian cities experimented with various forms.
Given these developments it is not surprising that an Italian author sparked the next wave of major revolutionary developments in republican theory. (Those of you who know me know what’s coming!) In the early 16th century the Florentine Niccolo Machiavelli finished his Discourses, which reinterpreted the principles of Roman republicanism in radical ways by suggesting that division between the orders of people in the republic could actually protect liberty. Machiavelli was not the only 16th century author writing about republicanism; his friend Francesco Guicciardini was among many others writing about republican principles, albeit in the older way that emphasized the importance of unity in the republic.
Republicanism emerged as a form of government in northern Europe in the late 16th century with the creation of the Dutch Republic. English authors were also increasingly interested in republicanism, at least as a literary device—William Shakespeare used republican principles in his plays. However, as the 17th century progressed and discontent with Charles I’s policies grew, English republicanism morphed from literary plaything to concrete political desire. Republicanism in northern Europe also grew because the increased liberty of republicanism became connected to central concepts of Protestant theology like liberty of conscience. The prominent English republican theorists of this period were contributing directly to a passionate and frantic discourse about how to manifest political and religious liberty. John Milton wrote about the need for freedom of speech in Areopagitica, Algernon Sidney defended republicanism in Discourses Concerning Government (a book that was used as a “witness” against him in the treason trial that led to his execution), and John Harrington developed the most sophisticated treatment of republicanism since Machiavelli in his Oceana.
Classical liberal thought emerged as a competitor to republican theory in the long 18th century, but the mantle of republicanism in the English speaking world was ably carried by many authors such as Trenchard and Gordon (authors of the Cato letters). However, two of the most important republican authors of the 18th century were French. Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws praised the British system, while Rousseau’s work channeled the spirit of early republican works by defining the res publica as the general will and focusing on the total development of the individual citizen.
The Federalist and anti-Federalist authors continued to develop various perspectives on republicanism in the late 18th and 19th centuries. Madison and Hamilton drew upon Montesquieu, Machiavelli and other English republicans, in addition to classical liberal authors, in developing arguments for faction in Federalist 10 and the energetic executive in Federalist 70. Thomas Jefferson, among others, was identified with a tradition of agrarian republicanism that emphasized the self-sufficient citizen-farmer. Other anti-Federal authors emphasized citizen virtue and warned of the dangers of luxury. With the exception of the Federalist, American republican thought was characterized by contributions from many minor authors on a few key themes, not by revolutionary work from major figures that redefined the tradition.
Republican Theory in Conceptual Perspective
Given the long history of this tradition it is difficult to say that any one set of concepts absolutely defines republican political theory. However, most republican theorists are or were sympathetic to the following concepts:
Existence of a common good: Republican theorists believed that there was a res publica, or common business of the people. However, there was little agreement across the republican tradition on what the res publica actually was. Roman republican writers focused on the glory of the city of Rome, whatever that meant; Rousseau focused on attaining the general will, whatever that meant; writers in the English-speaking republican tradition focused on attaining various liberties of conscience, whatever those meant; Machiavelli focused on attaining a stable republic that could satisfy reasonable ambition while still protecting liberty, whatever that meant; and so on.
Veneration of the law/rule of law: Most republican theorists were concerned with the founding moment and founding laws. Those founding laws determined the character of the republic and had to be carefully constructed to ensure the stability of the republic while allowing the citizens to flourish. Cicero, Machiavelli, and Rousseau were just three of the major republican theorists who talked about the importance of laws and the lawgiver.
Representative institutions: Republican political theorists embraced representative institutions, from the Roman tribunate to the House of Commons to the United States Congress. Republican theorists generally believed that representative institutions are a good protection from the unreflective will of the mob or tyranny of the majority. Rousseau is an outlier here; he was more skeptical about the dangers of representation. Naturally, there was disagreement on how to implement this principle. Older republican thinkers preferred aristocratic representation, since the aristocracy was supposed to be the bastion of wisdom and political virtue. Relatively modern republican thinkers like Madison defended more open representation. Madison contributed greatly to thinking about representation with his argument in Federalist 10 defending faction and large republics. He argued that we could use representation to mitigate the problems of large territory and citizen disunity, while maintaining the benefits of citizen energy and diversity of opinions that citizen disunity and large territory permitted.
Development of citizen liberty: All republican thinkers believed that the citizens of a republic should be free. Once again, what that actually meant differed from thinker to thinker. For Milton, a free citizen was someone who could speak freely and practice religion (within certain reasonable bounds—no one was suggesting the practice of Catholicism or similar absurdities!). For Machiavelli, the truly free person was able to practice virtu and live in a republic with well-formed laws. For Aristotle and Rousseau, the free person was one who had been highly educated and developed his fullest sense of humanity. As a general rule, more modern conceptions of republicanism adopted a less ambitious conception of citizen liberty, while older republican theorists were more likely to believe that citizen liberty required the republic to help form the citizen through education, civil religion and other practices.
Development of citizen virtue: Most republican theorists believed that citizen liberty could be attained via citizen virtue. However (stop me if you’ve heard this before), there were many competing definitions of citizen virtue. Most definitions of republican virtue included duty toward the republic as a key component. The classic description of republican duty—that the citizen must contribute to the republic instead of merely engaging in the contemplative life—is found in Cicero’s On Duties, a book that was widely printed in the early modern period and influenced many important political theorists. Another key component of republican virtue was the rejection of luxury. As Roman sumptuary laws indicate, the rejection of luxury happened more often in theory than in practice, but republican theorists across the tradition argued that luxury created wide class distinctions that were not healthy for republics and created slothful citizens who would not strive for liberty or independence.
Independence of the citizen: One could argue that most republican theorists saw the “independent citizen” as the ultimate product of the best republics. The independent citizen was a citizen who owned property and used the proceeds from that property to sustain himself and his family. Thus the ideal citizen-farmer of the agrarian tradition. Since the independent citizen was not in thrall to others, and since he had a vested interest in the republic (his property), he would be willing to train as a soldier and fight for the republic when necessary. This citizen-soldier is a very powerful figure in Roman republicanism, as well as Machiavellian republicanism. Machiavelli consistently argued against the use of mercenary troops and firmly believed that any republic whose citizens were unable or unwilling to defend it was a weak one. George Washington, who admired the Roman dictator Cincinnatus and had Joseph Addison’s Cato performed for troops, also admired the citizen-soldier. However, American republicanism is more generally identified with the citizen-farmer.
There are still contemporary theorists of republicanism, but republicanism does not hold the pride of place that it once did. Despite this, it is essential to understand republicanism, as this venerable tradition has profoundly influenced other varieties of political thought, including the now-dominant paradigm of democratic political theory.
Any student who has questions about this article or would like to discuss the issue further can find me in Baxter 127.
Related posts:
