For Machiavelli the governments or principalities (monarchies) or republics. The republic is therefore the opposite of the monarchy. Republicans opposed to the government in which one takes power by right of birth or divine (the king) or the law of force (despot, tyrant). They want a government instead produced with the participation of many people, a government that emerges from the bottom and is governed by laws that reflect the will of the people. That's it.
But if the Republic is the opposite of autocratic rule, this does not mean it is necessarily a democratic government. So what exactly the Republic? We can distinguish at least two ways of understanding: one is that of the ancients, from Cicero, the other that of the modern, from the proclamation of independence of the United States of America. In any case, it is a political model that does not fit the classical tripartite division of forms of government (monarchy, oligarchy, democracy), but it represents a "fourth way", which is "the merger and moderate temperament of the first three" ( Rep . I, 29). Republic today to mean a non-monarchical government, which provides varying degrees of freedom, equality and participation, albeit indirect, of a large number of citizens to political power.
9.1. The Republic of the ancient
According to some, the oldest dating back to the confederation of republics Israelite tribes in the thirteenth century. BC. Republics are also Greek poleis, Carthage in the three centuries before its fall, Rome for five centuries, cities and maritime republics in the Middle Ages, and Switzerland since 1291. However, the ideologue of the first r. Plato is, even if it is to Rome that this idea is totally fulfilled. The Romans called 'republic' the state that is established after the expulsion of the Kings, a state that belongs to the people and is a "thing of society ', a public res note. But what are the people? According to Cicero, only people you need to understand the community of men who share the same idea of \u200b\u200bjustice and the same interests ( Rep . I, 25), who speak the same language, that respect the same traditions, who practice the same religions, who observe the same laws. Who's in charge in a Republic? The best answers Cicero, according to the instructions of the people. "A free people will choose the men in self reliance, and, if you want salvation, his selection of the Best" ( Rep . I, 34) "because nature does this, not only the chief virtue and mind govern the weak, but that they want to obey the chief "( Rep . I, 34). The best will govern according to law, not create them. The picture is that of an aristocracy to popular election. Cicero sees the r. overcoming the three classical forms of government described by Aristotle. And indeed:
monarchies in the mass of citizens is excluded from the exercise of political rights by the government and public affairs; aristocratic governments, on the other hand, almost completely suppress freedom because it deprives the people of effective participation in public deliberations and political power in democracies, finally, where all powers are exercised by the people, the same equality of political rights is in itself unjust, because it does not allow distinctions according to individual merit ( Rep. I, 27).
More recently, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe Republic Cicero is shared by Marsilius of Padua, Machiavelli, Montesquieu and Rousseau, although with important differences. In particular, Rousseau draws attention to the law: "I call each of the republic ruled by laws, whatever its form of government" ( Social Contract, II, 6), while in DD indicates the ideal (but not feasible) government.
9.2. The Republic of contemporary
until the time of the great modern revolutions, the Republic mean for a state ruled by a man and / or assembly of citizens subject to laws passed with the consent of many, and this is the a more "democratic" Government conceivable, though still the word 'democracy' is not in current use.
Now, in the period following the Revolution it should uphold the principles of popular sovereignty and we are rediscovering the values \u200b\u200bof democracy, but, since the shareholders' participation and the expression of consent are unimaginable in a great state, here we start think of 'representation'. Representative democracy is considered more appropriate than seeking to administer a large state, as the French one, or several States, as the American Federation. In fact, depending on whether one is to exercise the power elite elected by census suffrage, or a larger body of representatives elected by universal suffrage, the Republic stands in aristocratic or democratic, popular or oligarchic, authoritarian or libertarian. Thanks to modern republicanism
have waned many monarchies have been abolished feudal rights and slavery, established the principles of religious tolerance, freedom of worship, political representation, universal suffrage, popular sovereignty, and so on.
9.3. The republican idea
Today, the idea is associated with the Democratic Republic of the freedoms, rights, law, constitution, separation of powers, suffrage, referendum, popular sovereignty, equality, self-government, federalism and all major democratic values. In its ideal form the Republic should be a DD. In practice, this ideal form is usually dismissed as if it were a utopia. "The republic is an ideal form of state that is founded on the virtue of citizens and love of country [...] is an ideal state that does not exist anywhere" (Bobbio, Viroli 2001: 5).
Even the Republicans held in high regard the principles of freedom and equality, but on the whole dominates the law. Unlike the Liberals, Republicans do not see the law as an impediment, but as the only guarantee of other rights. The constraints of the law freed the city from the domain of other staff and provide a bulwark in defense of individual freedom. The importance of the laws had been cultivated by the ancient Greeks, which we have spoken, but also by the Romans. If Livy, in fact, note that after the expulsion of the kings in Rome laws have become more powerful than men ( Ab urbe seasoned II 1.1), according to Cicero the Roman people may say free because it does not follow that other to read: "We are all servants of the laws then in order to be free" ( Pro Cluentio , 146). In a republican system, laws are therefore necessary, as is necessary to brake they pose to citizens, and exert their function even if they were unjust. The Republicans, however, insist that only a just law can safeguard the rights of citizens. "For Republicans the common good is more important than justice, because only in the right city people are not forced to serve the will of other men and can live free" (Virola 1999: 53).
The Republicans also differ from liberals to the idea of \u200b\u200bequality. "The republican equality includes not only the equality of civil and political rights, but states the need to ensure all citizens the social, economic and cultural conditions that enable everyone to live their lives with dignity and self respect which are typical of civilian life "(Virola 1999: 54). In order to safeguard these rights, according to Republicans is good for the State to intervene whenever certain physiological conditions, such as childhood or old age, hereditary diseases, injuries or simple cases are presented as obstacles to freedom of ' individual. According to Republicans, the purpose of the State is to guarantee the dignity of citizens, even the least favored by fortune. Even the unfortunate, then, must be allowed to enjoy their full rights to live within the limits of human dignity, and that is why you need the active intervention of the state.
As Rousseau warns, in a republic worthy of the name no one should be so poor as to be forced to sell themselves and no one so rich that you can buy one of her like that, and it is for this reason that Republicans, opposed the welfarism. "The public charity (and private), however laudable, is incompatible with civilized life because it offends the dignity of the recipient" (Virola 1999: 56).
0 comments:
Post a Comment