Time to Rediscover Real Republicanism

The proposed flag of an English Republic by William James Linton.

This weekend the eyes of the world are on London for the Coronation of King Charles III. The Coronation has shown that Britain as a nation excels at delivering pomp and ceremony. This is despite the fact that the ancient tradition of coronating a King, steeped in feudal symbolism and the Protestant religion, looks increasingly out of place in a modern, secular and multicultural liberal democracy. It is also an important moment to reflect upon the republican political tradition, as dozens of republican protesters have been arrested for protesting against the Coronation and for exercising their democratic rights and freedoms.

 

What is most striking at first glance is the great poverty of republicanism in today’s Britain. By this, I do not mean that only 27% in a survey last year would support Britain becoming a republic. I mean that real republicanism has largely been forgotten. Today, republicanism is seen by most, including by most republicans, as simply meaning support for an elected head of state. This is a great philosophical injustice. This is republicanism at its most banal, its most vapid and its most politically vacuous.

 

Republicanism as a political theory is not solely, or even mostly, about having an elected head of state. In fact, throughout history many republics have not had direct elections for the head of state. A contemporary example of this is that of Germany. In Germany, the President is elected by a national Federal Convention. The Convention is comprised of elected members of the German Parliament, the Bundestag, as well as elected delegates from each of the German states. Even the American President is, strictly speaking, not directly elected. Voters in America do not vote directly to elect the President, they vote to elect delegates to the Electoral College. It is the Electoral College that elects the President, not the American people directly.

 

For most republics throughout history, having an elected head of state has merely just been the cherry on top of the republican cake. Republicanism is about much more than the political nature of the head of state, it is about the political nature of the structure of government, its elected representatives and the citizens who vote for them. It is about the values, the principles, the attitudes and the political culture that informs a political society as a whole. Real republicanism is not just about a head of state, it is about the whole nature of government, citizenship and political society.

 

Republicanism as a political theory centres upon building a political society that values citizenship, virtue, democratic participation and the common good. These principles inform all the political actors (citizens, voters, activists and politicians) and all the political institutions (councils, devolved assemblies, the national parliament and the head of state) of a society. It should recognise the common citizenship of all within society, as well as believing that all citizens have a right to democratically participate in the running of the society, and that in all things, the common good must be advanced. Activists and politicians must be driven by a sense of virtue and responsibility to the people. They must recognise what is in the common good of society and always defend the principles of democratic participation for all, while respecting their political opponents and treating them with virtue.

 

Liberty is also of great importance to republicans. In his 1997 work Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, the Irish political philosopher Philip Pettit revived the concept of republican liberty. This being liberty as non-domination. The freedom of citizens to be free of the arbitrary interference of another to make certain decisions on their behalf. In other words, the liberty that comes from not being deprived of the agency and autonomy to make important decisions, that you are able to make for yourself, without your prior consent.

 

Pettit contrasts republican freedom with negative liberty, the freedom from physical restraint and coercion. However, I would argue that republican liberty is the truest expression of classical liberal negative liberty. You cannot have true freedom from coercion, unless you have liberty in the absence of domination. Not to mention, that there are aspects of republican liberty that can be identified in the works of great liberals, such as John Locke, Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill.

 

Today, excellent examples of republican political societies can be seen in modern republics, such as Ireland, Germany, Portugal, Finland, Iceland and Taiwan. However, I would argue that Norway, Sweden and Denmark are more republican in terms of their political societies than the modern United States. This may seem like a controversial statement considering that Norway, Sweden and Denmark are constitutional monarchies and not republics. These Scandinavian countries with strong political traditions centred around community and social democracy are far more in keeping with the values and principles of a republican political society than the US. Especially those parts of modern America that are gripped by divisive right-wing politics, conspiracy theories, the rejection of democratic principles and the post-truth fascistic politics of Donald Trump. The modern US Republican Party is far removed from advocating for real republicanism. It truly is “Republican” in name only.

 

The first step towards Britain becoming a Republic is to build a republican political society. Individual republicans can start to do this right now by embodying the republican principles of public service, virtue, mutual citizenship and the common good in all of their actions. Republics are built by citizens, not just by political institutions and national titles. Regardless of Britain’s constitutional monarchy, there is nothing to stop republican principles from being advanced throughout British society and British politics. We can start to lay the foundations for a future British Republic by embodying republican principles in our personal political conduct. In time, if practiced widely enough, this would foster a political society that centres around a richly republican political culture of citizenship, virtue, democratic participation, republican freedom and the common good.

 

It would help in the development of a popular republican imaginary, if republicans in Britain today had a symbol behind which they could rally behind. Republican movements throughout the ages have used flags to symbolise the republican rebirth of their nations. The best example of this is the blue–white-red vertical striped French tricolour that originated in the first French Revolution of 1789. In The English Republic, published in 1851, William James Linton proposed a blue–white–green horizontal striped tricolour (see above) to be the flag of his English Republic. British republicans previously used a red-white-green horizontal tricolour from the early 19^th century until the early 20^th century. However, this flag is identical to the modern flag of Hungary. Therefore, it is imperative that British republicans create a modern flag to represent the republican movement and the republican political society and government they hope to build.

 

This Coronation weekend, we must remember that republicanism is a deep and rich political philosophy that amounts to far more than just the nature of a country’s head of state. To build a Republic without republicanism is a fruitless task. If Britain was today to start having an elected head of state, without the formation of a republican political society, it would be a “Republic” in name only. Let us begin to build a liberal democratic Commonwealth by fostering a new republican form of politics in our society. The time has come for British republicans to rediscover real republicanism.

Remembering the Republican Liberal Political Tradition

Liberalism and Republicanism have been in the vanguard of advancing political liberty, socioeconomic justice and democracy over the last few centuries. Both philosophies are at the heart of the turbulent changes that happened in European and American nations in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The history of liberalism stretches back to the writings of John Locke in the late seventeenth century. Although liberalism did not emerge as a self-conscious political project until the early nineteenth century, where it emerged in Spain as a political movement for radical constitutional reform during the Peninsular War. Republicanism has a much longer history stretching back as far as the Roman Republic and even further to Ancient Athens and its classical philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle.

 

            Liberalism was born out of republican philosophy. The root of liberalism comes from the republican virtue of liberality (liberalitas). This was the virtue which concerned generosity (both personal and societal) and open-mindedness. The New York academic Helena Rosenblatt has charted the history of liberalism as a form of liberality in her 2018 book, The Lost History of Liberalism.

 

The two political philosophies have been closely linked together. Both were at the heart of the American Revolution in the eighteenth century and the European Spring of 1848. It is in the French Revolution that we can see the biggest contrast between the two philosophies. Initially, the French Revolution was very much a liberal revolution committed to liberty, individual rights, constitutionalism, government by consent and limited monarchy. The liberal revolution of 1789 gradually becomes more republican with France being declared a Republic in 1792. France’s republican experiment becomes most radical in 1793 with the rise of Maximilian Robespierre and the clearly illiberal ‘Reign of Terror’.

 

In recent decades within the academy, both liberalism and republicanism have seen a revival in the western political philosophical tradition. Starting with the publication of John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice in 1971 which gave a philosophical contractarian basis to American social liberalism, which itself has been built on by successive authors most notably by Amartya Sen in The Idea of Justice. Republicanism has also witnessed a substantial revival with the neo-republicanism of Philip Pettit. Pettit’s Republicanism (published in 1997) successfully re-conceptualises freedom as republican liberty, that is liberty as non-domination.

 

            Looking back at history it is often difficult to distinguish two distinct political projects. Many leading liberals were also republicans and vice versa. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal political thinker who was a founding father of the American Republic. Additionally, Thomas Paine was a radical republican writer, who also drew heavily on the classical liberal political culture of his time. The great French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu was one of the leading liberal thinkers of the eighteenth century who provided the main inspiration for the republican system of government in the United States. Even John Locke’s writings have clear elements of republicanism within them. There are examples of republicans who were clearly not liberal, such as Oliver Cromwell and Robespierre; as well as liberals who were not republicans, such as the original Spanish liberals (Liberales) who strove to establish a constitutional monarchy.

 

            The republican liberal political tradition has a long intellectual lineage in British history and politics. It stretches back long into the seventeenth century, not just to Locke’s Second Treatises of Government, but prior to that with the period of the English Civil War, or more accurately the English Revolution. The work of the republican poet John Milton is of note in this regard, as is the democratic radicalism of the Levellers, who agitated for individual liberties, equality before the law, popular sovereignty and inalienable rights.

 

            Republican liberalism was present within the British Liberal Party. The late Victorian MP, Charles Dilke is a good example of this, as is the party’s twentieth century economic platform of ‘ownership for all’. The party of Jo Grimond advocated for the spread of wealth, asset ownership and industrial democracy throughout society, advancing a republican conception of economic citizenship. This notion would be developed further with James Meade’s concept of property-owning democracy, which itself became Rawls’ ideal version of a just society. Aspects of republican liberalism can be seen as late as 1989 in Citizens’ Britain, written by the first leader of the (Social and) Liberal Democrats, Paddy Ashdown.

 

            A brief note on why I am referring to republican liberalism and not liberal republicanism. This is because the main object of my personal political focus are the rights and liberties of the individual within a political and economic system based on republican principles. As opposed to the object being a republican society itself (complete with commitments to virtue, the common good and liberty as non-domination), which also respects individual rights and liberties. This may be an epistemological point, but nevertheless an important one to clarify.

 

            Liberalism and republicanism have been central to the development of progressive politics and contemporary liberal democracy. Their ideas have transformed the world. Together their ideas hold out the prospect for a radical, free and egalitarian society. In particular, they would add greater intellectual weight to contemporary calls for a universal basic income in the wake of the coronavirus crisis. In a world where the progressive left is scrambling to find a viable alternative to neoliberal hegemony, they could do far worse than rediscovering the radicalism of the republican liberal political tradition.

 

Bibliography

Ashdown, Paddy (1989) Citizens’ Britain: A Radical Agenda for the 1990s. London: Fourth Estate Limited.

Locke, John (1980) Second Treatise of Government. Indianapolis; Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.

O’ Neill, Martin and Williamson Thad (2012) Property-Owning Democracy: Rawls and Beyond. Chichester and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

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

Rawls, John (1999) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts; The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Rees, John (2017) The Leveller Revolution. London: Verso.

            Rosenblatt, Helen (2018) The Lost History of Liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

            Sen, Amartya (2010) The Idea of Justice. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

            White, Stuart (2014) “Alternative liberal solutions to economic inequality”: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/alternative-liberal-solutions-to-economic-inequality/. Accessed: 23/05/2020.