Republicanism Reconsidered

In the United States, citizens are led to believe that they live in a politically diverse nation, where each and every political system will be represented equally. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The constant war between Democrats and Republicans has led to these two political systems being the only game in town, with third parties and the like being rendered virtually obsolete. Many in America believe that the system of representation in the country has lost its way from the core values of Republicanism that the founding fathers originally envisioned. However, this is not necessarily true. The founding fathers did not, strictly speaking, believe that diversity is always beneficial, and many, in fact supported a more simplified and unified form of government as seen today. The key concept to understand here is Republicanism, since that is the core value upon which the United States is founded. While Republicanism is supposed to allow for fair and equal representation by and for the people, many times this is simply not the case. At its uttermost core, Republicanism is a political system that believes in bestowing its citizens with certain amounts of power, often via inalienable rights (as is the case in the United States) and/or the ability to choose their own leaders (Pettit, 5). As times have changed, so too have some of the ideals of Republicanism, but originally it was a simple term for any stable government that withstands the tests of time (Yang 4).

The United States' version of Republicanism represents perhaps one of the most successful applications of Republicanism since the ancient Greek and Roman applications of it. In the original Constitution of the United States, the people were guaranteed a "federal republic," which provided for them "a Republican form of government to every state in the union" (Sellers x). Another core tenant of Republicanism in the United States that is not found as often within other countries that practice is the supplying of American citizens with "unalienable" rights, such as the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (Sellers 7). This is significant, because it represents power given by those above the people to the people in order to ensure that either group, the government or the people, does not become too powerful, which has been the downfall of many countries before it that have practiced Republicanism. However, Republicanism has actually been split into two forms in the United States, with one being the old, anti-establishment style created by the founding fathers, and the Republicanism that is well known today. The former is now known as the Democratic-Republican Party, and stresses more the rights of the representatives of the people, rather than the people themselves (Sellers 11). This means that Democratic-Republicans believed in, some would argue, outdated notions such as states' rights, coupled with a strong national government to tie them all together (Sellers 7). However, there was a rift between Republicans in the early 1800's, which caused the creation of the National Republican Party, which came to be the Republican party that is extremely popular in the United States today (Sellers 13).

The two-party system currently in place in the United States has garnered a large amount of criticism for its lack of options, especially in regards to third parties. The two-party system is more of a Democratic form of government than a purely Republican one. Nevertheless, it does serve the same ultimate purpose of allowing for a greater degree of freedom and choice for citizens, although at first glance it would seem that the opposite would be true. One source to use to explain the fears the two-party system helps to ameliorate is George Washington's Farewell Address, which contained some interesting references to Republicanism, such as his statement to the American people that the success or failure of the nation lies within the unity of her individual states (Washington 217). Furthermore, Washington stresses the importance of unity by urging citizens to consider their identities as citizens of the United States above their identities as members of a particular city, state, or area (Washington 218). Many would consider this anti-Republican, since he is urging citizens to give up their individuality, but this is not the case, since Washington recognized the power that people had, both as individuals and en masse, and, thus recommended citizens to use these numbers as an advantage against any power that would attempt to wrestle control of the United States from the people. His Farewell Address, rather eerily, cautions against violent takeovers of the government (which is happening right now via conflicts such as Arab Spring) by the people, instead urging them to vote for change via constitutional amendments (Washington 221). To that end, Washington was speaking mainly in favor of preservation of unity, rather than any lofty personal ideals he held dear. Thus, the idea of Republicanism continued to thrive, in part because of Washington and his priority of sustainability. Interestingly, Washington actually expressed his opposition to political parties in his Farewell Address, citing that political parties are usually looked down upon by governments, who attempt to suppress them (Washington 220). Washington also makes the case that political parties (especially the two-party system, which has been the norm in the United States for many years) creates a sort of never-ending cycle of revenge by one party against the other (Washington 220).

Essentially, Washington believed that Unity breeds prosperity (hence the name of the nation, the United States of America), yet he was also quick to caution against some of the dangers that are inherent with a political system such as this. In fact, Washington's Farewell Address seemed to be most concerned with the preservation of the Union by any means. In that respect, it is likely that he would support the current two-party system in place. The reason for this comes from another main point in his address: factious groups. In his Farewell Address, Washington mentioned that having too many groups would inevitably lead to many of them operating for purely self-serving reasons (purely for monetary gain, for example), and that allowing one of these groups to gain control could break the Union entirely. This does not mean that Washington did not believe in the core tenants of Republicanism. On the contrary, he would likely believe that the two-party system is a simplified and efficient method of allowing citizens to maintain indirect control of government, while also ensuring the Union, generally speaking, will not be threatened by malicious factions.

This brings into question the use of the two-party system within the United States today. Nowadays, of course, there are two primary political parties: Democrats and Republicans. While Republicans continue to support the ideals of power through representation, Democrats favor a more centralized government; a philosophy that frequently finds them at odds with Republicans, both inside and outside of politics. This presents a valid criticism with the two-party system: that it focuses more on competition between these two similar yet different political systems, rather than working together, which, if the results of Congress are any indication, they rarely do. Another common criticism of the two-party system is that third parties are virtually irrelevant. That is to say, it is difficult, if not impossible, for a third political group (such as Libertarians) to make a strong case, and must instead merge themselves with one of the two political groups that their views most align with: either the Republicans or the Democrats, oftentimes making sacrifices in doing so (Sundquist 7). This has created a political dichotomy within the United States the likes of which have never been seen before, and has largely ruled the concept of independent third parties irrelevant. The two-party system represents the ultimate in simplicity, which allows for the citizens to vote on which party best fits their needs, but only supplies two parties, each on differing ends of the political spectrum. This concept would likely worry the founding fathers, who largely believe that more choice is always better as it reduces the risk of one political party establishing a monopoly over the others (Subdquist 8). This system does have its advantages, of course. For one, it forces what would otherwise be many warring political ideologies to find common ground and integrate themselves into one another (Sundquist 3). This means that those who share similar political philosophies with one of these two main political powers will have to change some of their views in order to align completely with one or the other. For example, a citizen who votes democrat yet does not believe in gun control must grin and bear this, since the Democratic party is the one that most closely matches the greatest number of their political ideas.

However, the United States, by definition, is a Democracy. Only allowing for two political parties for voters to choose from when voting, many believe, represents a flagrant violation of these founding values. Thankfully, there are measures that the people can take to change this, if enough of them truly want this change. These are what are referred to as "political realignments" and involve the citizens of a country (in this case, the United States), shuffling the core ideals of each political system and, in this case, fragmenting it into more than two parties (Sundquist 17). This does not mean that a completely new slate is create, but simply that ideals change, as is commonplace with Republicanism. "In every new alignment of the party system, then, there will be large, perhaps dominant, elements carried over from the old. Successive realignments can best be understood as new patterns drawn on transparent overlays. Each overlay defines a new line of party cleavage within the electorate (or re-delineates an old line) and so distributes some elements of the voting population on either side of that line in new arrangements" (Sundquist 17). Essentially, this concept is, in and of itself, a deeply Republican value. It represents the ability, although not always the willingness, of the people to create change within the heart of the highest echelons of government if they feel that the country is not being operated to the best of its ability, or if the current political system is more problematic than helpful (a view that many in the United States share). Thankfully, there was, in the last decade or so, been a sort of convergence of Republicanism and Democracy, as Republicanism does not, strictly speaking, have to be the sole method of rule for a particular nation or country (Sundquist 17).

The views of Republicanism are mirrored somewhat in Federalist Number 10, one of the federalist papers written by James Madison. This document, much like Washington's Farewell Address, warned against the rise of what he called "factions," which represented groups of citizens with interests contrary to the beliefs or interests of the rest of the nation or community (Madison 2). Madison believed that these factions represented a dire threat to the stability of the republic that had been established. To that end, he strongly believed that the unequal distribution of property was one of the strongest factors that led to the formation of factions. "From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results: and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties" (Madison 2). This simply means that wealth, which leads to acquisition of property, ultimately leads to polarization between the haves and have-nots, which, inevitably, leads to unhappy factions that seek to undo the government at large. While the use of the people to achieve their own ends is a core tenant of Republicanism, the people directly protesting on a regular basis just to get what they want is not.

On that note, Madison was a firm believer in representative democracy, rather than direct democracy, for this exact reason. "Society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischief's of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual" (Madison 3). This means that the people cannot be trusted to have direct control of the government because there are too many possible variables within the minds of the citizens that could cause them to destroy the government. For example, if the prevailing notion at one point in time is that government should be abolished altogether, and these citizens, with direct control of the government, opt to simply remove it, they would be able to under the concept of direct democracy. In that sense, representative democracy actually is more sustainable in the long run, and ties in well with republican values, who maintain that citizen control of government, either directly or indirectly, is desirable. Madison also expanded a bit on the concept of factions that Washington discussed at length in his Farewell Address. Most notably, Madison mentions that there will always be friction and disagreements within the world of politics, with numerous factions rising up as a result. Madison, like Washington, also believed actions were detrimental, but he also did not see any viable way of removing them. The two-party system currently in place represents what is probably the best way to allow political factions to exist, but also limit their power so that outlying factions cannot control the government. Because of this, the Federalist 10 continues to suggest that the founding fathers would still advocate the system of government and election that is currently in place.

Today, Republicanism in the United States is seen as the more "old-fashioned" side of the political coin. Indeed, many of the values of Republicanism in America are things like self-sufficiency, preservation of wildlife, low government involvement in domestic affairs, low taxation, large military presence, anti-gun control, and anti-immigration, among other beliefs (Hacker and Pierson 224). Republicanism actually led to the American Revolution, after Americans saw the British as an overbearing monarchy, and that the United States deserved independence (Sellers 14). As a result, Christianity became inexorably linked with Republicanism during this revolution, as many citizens believed that God was favoring America for some sort of special purpose (Sellers 15). This trend continues today, with Republicanism being the favored political system for Christians by a large margin. In fact, Republicanism appears to be the political vehicle of choice for those who believe in "old-fashioned" values. For example, Gallup polls show that states with more farmland, and, thus, farmers, such as Nevada, Wyoming, Utah, Alabama, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas, are much more conservative and thus, more likely to vote Republican (Jones 1). Furthermore, Republicans nowadays continue the trend of strength through representation, and will fight, oftentimes literally, in order to protect what they perceive to be violations of their freedom. To that end, constitutional rights are another core issue for Republicans today. While many other countries practicing Republicanism do not have such stark documentation to follow, the Constitution does represent a list of core, unalienable rights that gives the citizens the power to indirectly control government as they see fit.

There are many who believe that Republicanism is dying, particularly in the United States, where people are becoming more "educated" and know to avoid it. However, nothing could be further from the truth. While many of the beliefs within Republicanism in the United States are highly debatable, one thing that cannot be debated is that the political system continues to live strong, despite polarization by groups such as the Tea Party. In fact, between the years of 2008 and 2011, the number of those who said they leaned Republican or were Solid Republican increased by 6 percentage points each (Jones 1). Furthermore, the percentage of people who identified as Solid Democratic decreased by a whopping 18 percentage points during that same time frame: down to 12 percent from 30 percent in 2008 (Jones 1). While the veracity or accuracy of these studies is, of course, debatable, the main point they aim to state is that Republicanism is certainly not going anywhere, especially within the United States. The two-party system that is firmly in place (whether people like it or not) ensures that both Democrats and Republicans rely on one another for the survival of their particular political system. However. more and more Americans are ditching the handle of Democrat or Republican altogether and are instead opting to identify as Independents, which allows them to mix and match their own political ideas into one political philosophy that fits them best. While this concept could certainly be threatening for Democrats and Republicans alike, it has not gained enough traction to truly become a force to be reckoned with at the voting booths. However, if and when that days come, Republicans will likely rejoice as it represents a fundamental shift in the way government is operated thanks to indirect actions by the citizens of the United States.

Considering the United States' relative success with the concepts of Republicanism, the question at hand is "why is Republicanism failing in so many countries today?" The answer lies in the fact that the core values of Republicanism that were so successful and influential in ancient times have become muddled and overcomplicated, leading to twisted perversions of Republicanism. One of the primary problems with Republicanism is that it does not supply ample power to the people in most of the countries that practice it. Much of these problems stem from dissatisfaction from voters that their elected representatives, which are supposed to be ambassador's of a particular (small) area's population, do not represent their beliefs and, in fact, are scarcely even elected by the people he or she represents. One example of this can be seen with the Arab Spring rioting. Much of the rioting is in place because citizens of countries such as Egypt, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia did not feel that they were being properly represented, and opted to take matters into their own hands, often via force (Anderson 2). While both Egypt and Yemen are both technically Republics, they represent a prime example of a Republic that has lost its way (Anderson 2). That is to say, their power is too consolidated on the upper echelons, so that the rich and powerful continue to get rich and powerful, and the people get neglected. This brings into focus yet another aspect of Republicanism that has allowed it to survive for so long: the people still have power. As the Arab Spring riots have show, the people, en masse, still have tremendous power over the government, even if that power comes from sheer force. While rebellion is certainly not a concept limited solely to Republicanism, Republicanism does instill within its people a certain mindset that likely would not have manifested in such a way in most other political systems (Pettit 5).

This helps to put into focus some of the problems that come with majority rule; a crucial part of Republicanism. Namely, that even with the best of majority rule systems, there will always be groups of people, large or small, who fail to be represented. To be sure, the most ideal political systems involve absolute control by the largest group of people, but of course, political systems are rarely that simple, and there will always be problems with the system. The first major problem with majority rule is that if every representative has equal power, then, in a way, no one has power. Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately) power is not equal, even within Republicanism. For example, cabinets that do not have enough representatives to be influential in the slightest are referred to a minority cabinets, and are essentially completely inconsequential in the realm of Republicanism (Strom 6). Another general problem with Republicanism is that it frequently leads to radicalism. Radicalism is a political concept that developed in the 1800's, mainly in Europe, and opted for universal suffrage and anti-monarchy policies (Wood 98). Essentially, this is a problem because it devolved Republicanism into a sort of reactionary anti-authoritarian political philosophy. Those who were dissatisfied with the constitutional monarchies that were popular in many European nations at the time, such as France and Great Britain, adopted a view of extreme Republicanism that came to be known as Radicalism (Wood 98). Republicanism in those countries became a tool of the people to give them the power to do what they wanted, regardless of whether or not what they wanted was in the best interests of everybody or not (Wood 99). This harmed the reputation of Republicanism somewhat, and caused it to lose the pure "power of the people" reputation it held so dearly before.

As for the rest of the world, Republicanism's outlook is much foggier, and depends largely on the ability of the countries that practice it to utilize it responsibly, without allowing the people to get out of control, as was one of the worries of the founding fathers. Many countries actually refer to themselves are Republics, or, sometimes, Democratic Republics, yet exhibit few, if any, characteristics of either political ideology. For example, East Germany referred to itself as the German Democratic Republic, yet the ruling party in East Germany was actually the Sozialistische Einheirspartei Deutschlands, or Socialist Unity Party of Germany (Wollmann 5). This type of deception is not uncommon in many nations. Giving the people the illusion of power and influence and actually allowing them to shape the process of government are two entirely different things, and many countries are simply too entrenched in their own monarchy, socialism, or communism to allow its citizens any real say in the process of government. Another country that touts Republicanism yet fails to properly utilize it is China, also known as the People's Republic of China. While China does indeed contain a large number of "states," same as the United States, these states are, for the most part, not autonomous as they generally are within the United States, and China itself is actually referred to as a Socialist state, which means there is much more government interference in almost all affairs than Republicanism (Yang 67). This philosophy has caused a great deal of friction between the Chinese government and some states who claim independence, such as Taiwan and Hong Kong, and goes to show how the simple act of claiming complete and total ownership of states can cause political upheaval in and of itself (Yang 66). These scenarios are not unique to just China, as many countries in the Middle East are suffering from oppression from countries that claimed, or once claimed, to be either Republics or Democratic Republics, yet, due to either incompetence, greed, or the simple fracturing of the country, are no longer.

After reviewing the goals and intentions of the founding father in regards to their ambitions and reservations regarding the political systems within the United States, it seems logical to assume they would approve of the current system in place, as it represents the best parts of Republicanism. Republicanism is the political philosophy that the United States was founded on, and it is likely that the nation would not be the same were it not for Republicanism. The concept of Republicanism is simple: provide people with the means to change government, directly or indirectly, if they are unsatisfied with it. On the whole, Republicanism is a sound political concept, and it has been proven to be extremely effective when utilized correctly: giving the people power but limiting that power so that government overthrows are not an everyday occurrence. The key is to strike a balance between power to the people and centralized power, and Republicanism manages to find that balance. The two-party system allows for a great deal of control while also allowing citizens with some degree of freedom.

Works Cited

Anderson, Lisa. "Demystifying the Arab spring: parsing the differences between Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya." Foreign Aff., vol. 90, 2011

Hacker, Jacob S., and Paul Pierson. Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy; With a New Afterword. Yale University Press, 2005.

Jones, Jeffrey. "More States Move to GOP in 2011." More States Move to GOP in 2011. N.p., 2 Feb. 2012.

Madison, James. "The federalist no. 10." The federalist papers, vol. 78, 1787.

Pettit, Philip. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford University Press, 1997.

Sellers, Mortimer NS. American Republicanism: Roman Ideology in the United States Constitution. NYU Press, 1994.

Strom, Kaare. Minority government and majority rule. Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Sundquist, J. L. Dynamics of the party system: Alignment and realignment of political parties in the United States. Brookings Institution Press, 1983.

Wood, Gordon S. The radicalism of the American Revolution. Random House Digital, Inc., 2011.

Washington, G., & Bell, E. 1964. Farewell address. Enrichment Records, 1964.

Wollmann, Hellmut. "Institution building and decentralization in formerly socialist countries: the  cases of Poland, Hungary, and East Germany." Environment and Planning C, vol. 15, 1997.

Yang, H. U. A. N. G. "Republicanism in the Ancient World." Collected Papers of History Studies, vol. 3, 2010.