This can be observed when examining the primary interests and means by which several UK MPs who identified themselves as republicans defined their own version of republicanism. In this context, all but two of the interviewed MPs described republicanism in overly simplistic and restrictive terms, equating it with "opposition to the monarchy" (Norbauer and Studlar, 2011). One of these two considered it to also relate to other institutions that historically had (and to some extent still do) operations in conjunction with the state, yet that should not be considered as designed to hold any political power, such as the State Church and the House of Lords. They believed this to be "a move away from the Middle Ages". They used Philadelphia as an example of a society that collectively decided to abolish these power structures and transition to a republican form of government and a constitution, proving that more societies should be governed in this way. This observation was made despite the UK's lack of interest in transitioning to this form of government. They felt that many fail to recognise the issues posed by a society governed by the monarch, the State Church, and the House of Lords, and do not consider changing this system a significant priority. This has meant that in the UK and much of Europe, the term "republicanism" has appeared to be used merely as an umbrella term for all left-wing and anti-monarchist values.
This sentiment reflects the view that opposition to antidisestablishmentarianism and support for the separation of the church and state are clearly republican concepts, and to some extent, they are. However, antidisestablishmentarianism can also feature opposition to some of these said power structures and the abolition of the monarch as head of state, as long as the Church retains its influence, thus functioning in much the same way as the State, and stripping society of its democratic values through disestablishing other forms of religion and religious freedoms and having a specific form of the State Church dictate these. This can be reflected through observing Jed Rubenfeld's form of antidisestablishmentarianism, in which exactly this means of governance was advocated. Rubenfeld defined antidisestablishmentarianism as being "a prohibition on the acts of Congress which disestablish religion in the several states" (Rubenfeld, 1997), it appearing that he considers the Establishment Clause, of which he disapproves, to not only forbid the establishment of religion by Congress but to oppose the congressional acts which "dictate a position on religion for states" (Hacker, 1998). This essentially functions as a dictatorial form of republicanism, which can be placed within the authoritarian social and economic extremes of the left and right on the political spectrum. However, perhaps ironically, it appears that other political philosophers have interpreted antidisestablishmentarianism as being considerably more moderate and less authoritarian in nature, with it being proposed as a means of providing increased power to the Church as a communitarian organisation, in which the general values and cultural and political diversity of the people are promoted. Their ability to engage in decision-making within their community can thus be increased, as noted by philosopher and director of the Respublica think tank, Phillip Blond. While the State would still appear to be able to function separately from the Church, the overall influence of the Church in politics, whether national or local, would increase, and the core principles of the Protestant Church concerning state leadership would be preserved.
Similarly, on another note, it would also, as noted by British writer Giles Coren, increase the ease of marriage and other practices (Coren, 2012). This would present both forms of antidisestablishmentarianism described as somewhat loosely representing a form of republicanism where the monarchy doesn't have the influence that the Church or State have, or is non-existent altogether, and that a clear distinction would need to be made between the more authoritarian and dictatorial form of antidisestablishmentarianism advocated for by Rubenfeld, and the more pragmatic and socially orientated forms described by Blond and Coren.
Leading on from this, another way in which republicanism can be considered authoritarian and related to achieving absolute power through the exploitation of the population is by examining Machiavelli's perspective on the subject, particularly in his work, Prince (Hankins, 2010). Through this, in which he positioned himself as a "prince", Machiavelli can be seen to justify corruption in government and the exploitation of the masses for personal gain, as this could otherwise only be achieved through fraud and coercion, thereby promoting the development of a stronger society. This "prince" seemingly rejects all standards of conventional private morality. This would result in a society in which, due to the current problematic social and political situation, a ruler being influenced to commit supposedly morally wrong actions can be justified, as this is likely going to be of greater success than, and could potentially be "preferable to liberality, mercy, honesty,
and promise-keeping" (Belliotti, 1978). This would appear to reflect his distaste for many democratic and people-led forms of governance, and his clear support and advocacy for systems of governance which could be classed as oligarchic and autocratic, somewhat akin to kingship, albeit this form of kingship purely consisting of himself in a position of power as a form of king (or "prince" as he refers to himself as. This explains the potential distaste for the constitutional monarchies of his era that he and his Florentine predecessors shared, who had a history of anti-monarchism (Belliotti, 1978).
The broad range of different republican values that exist within global governance and the diverse intentions and means by which they have been put into practice appear to all feature either of the opposing ideals of autocracy, oligarchy and dictatorship, which are evident for both the extreme left and extreme right forms of this system of governance, or alternatively set about with socialist interests in directly serving the people and dismantling rigid power structures. Yet varying degrees of this can be observed as described within this post, and depicting by the political compass I have made shown above to provide an illustration of this. This further clarifies the depiction of republicanism as a highly significant means of encompassing many anti-establishment ideals, and providing a broad term for various international systems of governance, which is not exclusively aligned with the political left, nor is it purely a colloquial term for the right-wing in US politics.
Belliotti, R.A., 1978. Machiavelli and Machiavellianism. Published in Journal of Thought, NOVEMBER 1978. 13(4). pp.
293-300. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42588728
Hacker, J.D., 1998. A Response to Professor Rubenfeld. Published in Michigan Law Review, 96(7) (Jun., 1998), pp. 2129-2139. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1290062
Hankins, J., 2010. Exclusivist Republicanism and the Non-Monarchical Republic. Published in Political Theory, August 2010. 38(4). pp. 452-482. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25704829
Jurdjevic, M., 2007. Machiavelli's Hybrid Republicanism. Published in The English Historical Review, Dec., 2007, 122(499). pp.
1228-1257. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20108303
Norbauer, R. and Studlar, D., 2011. Monarchy and the British Political Elite: Closet Republicans in the House of Commons. Published in Comparative Politics. 43(2) January 2011. pp. 225-242. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23040834
Richardson, B., (1972). The Structure of Machiavelli's Discorsi. Published in Italica, Winter, 1972. 49(4) Winter, 1972. pp. 460-471. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/477825
Rubenfeld, J., (1997). Antidisestablishmentarianism: Why RFRA Really Was Unconstitutional. Published in Michigan Law Review, 95(8) Aug., 1997. pp. 2347-2384. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1290123
No comments:
Post a Comment