:: wikimiki.org ::

Irish Republicanism

Irish Republicanism

Irish Republicanism is the nationalist belief that all of Ireland should be a united independent republic. Between 1169 and 1603 parts of Ireland were ruled by Hiberno-Norman lords or directly from England; after 1603 all Ireland came firmly under English rule as a colony. In 1801, it became part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The development of nationalist and democratic sentiment throughout Europe was reflected in Ireland in the emergence of republicanism. Discrimination against Roman Catholics and a feeling that Ireland was economically disadvantaged in the United Kingdom were among the specific factors leading to opposition to British rule. In Irish history and politics, it is common to draw a distinction between nationalism and republicanism. The term nationalism is used for any manifestation of national sentiment, including cultural manifestations; for movements demanding autonomy from Britain but not complete independence; and sometimes for secessionist movements committed to constitutional methods. The term republicanism denotes movements demanding complete independence under a republican government. It is frequently associated with a willingness to use force to achieve political goals, and often, but not always, with a secular or non-sectarian outlook, whereas Irish nationalism almost always had a strong Catholic tinge.

History

At first, Irish nationalists who advocated renewed independence from England either were in favour of an independent Ireland retaining the British monarchy if they were "moderates" or, if they were "radicals", favoured reviving the Irish monarchy. The republican revolutions in France and America during the late 18th century influenced young Irish men and women, leading to the nationalist movement becoming predominantly republican. The United Irishmen were the first group to advocate an independent Irish republic. With military aid from the republican government in France, they organized the failed Irish Rebellion of 1798. After the Act of Union in 1801 merging Ireland with Britain into the United Kingdom, Irish independence movements were suppressed by the British. Nationalist rebellions against British rule in 1848 (by the Young Irelanders) and 1865 and 1867 (by the Irish Republican Brotherhood) were followed by harsh reprisals by British forces. In 1916 the Easter Rising was launched in Dublin against British rule. Even though the rebellion failed and most of its leaders were executed by the British, it was to be a turning point in history, leading to the end of British rule in most of Ireland. From 1919-1921 a newly organized guerrilla army, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) led by Michael Collins fought against British forces. During the Anglo-Irish War (or War of Irish Independence) the British sent paramilitary police, the "Black and Tans" and the Auxiliary Division, to help the British army and Royal Irish Constabulary. These groups committed atrocities which included killing captured POWs and Irish civilians viewed as being sympathetic to the IRA. The most infamous of all their actions was the burning of half the city of Cork in 1920 and the Bloody Sunday massacre of 1920. These atrocities, together with the popularity of the republican ideal, and British repression of republican political expression, led to widespread support across Ireland for the Irish rebels. In 1921 the British government led by David Lloyd George negotiated the Anglo-Irish Treaty with Collins and the other republican leaders, ending the war.

Irish Republicanism in independent Ireland (the Irish Free State and the Republic of Ireland)

The Irish Free State

Though many across the country were unhappy with the Anglo-Irish Treaty (since, during the Anglo-Irish war, the IRA had fought for independence for all Ireland and for a republic, not a partitioned dominion under the British crown), most republicans were satisfied that the Treaty was the best that could be achieved at the time. However, a substantial minority opposed it. Dáil Éireann, the revolutionary Irish parliament, voted by 64 votes to 57 to ratify it, the majority believing that the treaty created a new base from which to move forward. Éamon de Valera, who had served as President of the Irish Republic during the war, refused to accept the decision of the Dáil and led the opponents of the treaty out of the House. The IRA itself split between pro-Treaty and anti-Treaty elements, with the former forming the nucleus of the new National Army. Michael Collins became Commander-in-Chief of the National Army. Shortly afterwards, some dissidents, apparently without the authorisation of the anti-Treaty IRA Army Executive, occupied the Four Courts in Dublin and kidnapped a pro-Treaty general. The government, responding to this provocation and to intensified British pressure following the assassination by an IRA unit in London of Sir Henry Wilson, ordered the regular army to take the Four Courts, thereby beginning the Irish Civil War. It is believed that Collins continued to fund and supply the IRA in Northern Ireland throughout the civil war but, after his death, W.T. Cosgrave (the new President of the Executive Council) discontinued this support. By May 1923, the war (which had claimed more lives than the War of Independence) had ended in the defeat of the Irregulars. However, the harsh measures adopted by both sides, including assassinations of politicians by the Republicans and executions and atrocities by the Free State side, left a bitter legacy in Irish politics for decades to come. De Valera, who had strongly supported the Republican side in the Civil War, reconsidered his views while in jail, and came to accept the ideas of political activity under the terms of the Free State constitution. However, he and his supporters failed to convince a majority of the anti-treaty Sinn Féin of these views and the movement split again. In 1926, he formed a new party called Fianna Fáil (Soldiers of Destiny). In 1932 he was elected President of the Executive Council of the Free State and began a slow process of turning the country from a constitutional monarchy to a constitutional republic, thus fulfilling Collins' prediction of "the freedom to achieve freedom". By then, the IRA was engaged in confrontations with the Blueshirts, a quasi-fascist group led by a former War of Independence and pro-Treaty leader, General Eoin O'Duffy. O'Duffy looked to Fascist Italy as an example for Ireland to follow. Several hundred supporters of O'Duffy briefly went to Spain to volunteer on the Nationalist side in the Spanish Civil War, and a smaller number of IRA members, communists and others participated on the Republican side. In 1937 the Constitution of Ireland was written by the De Valera government; the Constitution claimed jurisdiction over the whole of Ireland and, with an elected Irish President, diminished the role of the King as Ireland's head of state to the purely ceremonial. Although de Valera claimed Ireland was a republic in every way except in name, legally the country was still a British "dominion" like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa. Furthermore, the claim to the whole of the island did not reflect practical reality and probably further entrenched Unionist opposition. Despite the successive splits of 1922 and 1926, the remainder of the IRA rejected all compromise with political realities and continued to consider themselves to be original and sole Republican Movement.

Republic of Ireland

Ireland finally became a republic in 1948 when the Republic of Ireland Act was passed. This finally severed constitutional connection with Britain or The Commonwealth. In 1955 the Republic joined the United Nations and in 1973 joined the European Economic Community (now the European Union) in a move designed to bring Ireland closer to other European nations and to reduce the extent of its economic ties with Britain. Nowadays there is little more than "tabloid newspaper" interest in the British monarchy in the Republic of Ireland, though there are a handful of Irish monarchists who have argued for replacing the republic with one of the original Irish royal families (the O'Neills, O'Connors or O'Briens). Today all the dominant political parties in the Republic of Ireland support the state's republican constitution.

Republican political parties in Ireland

Parties in favour of the Good Friday Agreement

- Sinn Féin is Northern Ireland's biggest republican party and the fastest growing party in all of Ireland. It represents a mixture of progressive, socialist and conservative political views. It is led by Gerry Adams, and organises in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Previously known as Provisional Sinn Fein, the current organisation has its origins in the 1970 split between that group and Official Sinn Fein. In 1986 it reversed its original policy of not taking seats in Dáil Éireann. By the late 1990s it had replaced the SDLP as Northern Ireland's largest nationalist party. It currently holds a small number of seats in the British parliament, a modest number in the Dáil, and a large number in Northern Ireland's provincial assembly. Sinn Féin members elected to the British parliament refuse to take part in debates or votes, as they would have to take an oath of loyalty to the British monarch to do so.
- Workers' Party of Ireland - After the IRA split in 1970 between the Provisional IRA and the Official IRA, Sinn Féin split as well between those who supported the leadership's Marxist line and more traditional republicans who supported Seán Mac Stiofáin and the Provisional IRA. In 1972 after a two-year armed campaign, the Official IRA called a ceasefire. Official Sinn Fein , in 1977, changed its name to Sinn Féin - The Workers' Party and in 1982 to simply The Workers Party. The Workers Party engaged in a Marxist-Leninist platform stressing "class politics", hoping to attract working-class Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland away from sectarian politics. However their efforts yielded little electoral success in Northern Ireland, where the party has performed very poorly at the polls.

Parties opposed to the Good Friday Agreement

- Republican Sinn Féin Does not take part in parliamentary elections in either the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland because it views both as illegitimate. It is linked to the Continuity IRA, whose goals are the overthrow of British rule in Northern Ireland and the reunification of the country. They are led by former Sinn Fein leader Ruairí Ó Brádaigh who led radicals in a break with Sinn Féin in 1986 to create the party.
- Irish Republican Socialist Party The IRSP was founded by Seamus Costello in 1974, who possibly had an eye towards James Connolly's Irish Socialist Republican Party of the late 19th/early 20th century when coining the party's name. Costello led other former Official IRA members dissatisfied with Goulding's policies and tactics.
- The party quickly organized a paramilitary wing called the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) which is still operating today, though on a "no first strike" ceasefire. It claims to follow the principles of republican socialism as set out by the 1916 rebellion leader James Connolly and radical 20th-century trade unionist James Larkin.

Republican political parties unique to the Republic of Ireland

- Fianna Fáil - Translation: Soldiers of Destiny. A socially conservative, economically centrist party, it is Ireland's largest party and is currently the main partner in the Republic's coalition government. Its origins are in the 1926 split of the anti-treaty fraction of the original Sinn Féin.
- Fine Gael - Translation: tribe of Irishmen. Currently the second largest party in Ireland, created by a merger of Cumann na nGaedheal with other pro-Treaty groups in 1933. Its origins are in the pro-Treaty fraction of the original Sinn Féin. In Government in 1948, it enacted the Republic of Ireland Act, that finally removed the state from UK Dominion and from the Commonwealth.

Republican political parties unique to Northern Ireland

- SDLP - Irish Social Democratic and Labour Party. Formed in the 1960s, it associated itself entirely with the Civil Rights movement and was strongly opposed to the tactics of the IRA even in response to loyalist paramilitary and British army actions. The party is today led by Mark Durkan and is linked to other social-democratic parties (like those in the Republic of Ireland, Sweden, France, and Germany). The SDLP, unlike Sinn Féin, does not organise in the Republic of Ireland, but is strongly allied to the Irish Labour Party.

Republicanism in Northern Ireland

1921 - 1966

In 1921, Ireland was partitioned. Most of the country became part of the independent Irish Free State. However, six out of the nine counties of Ulster, those with a safe loyalist majority and a substantial republican Catholic minority, remained part of the United Kingdom. This territory of Northern Ireland, as established by the Government of Ireland Act 1920, had its own provincial government which was controlled for 50 years until 1972 by the conservative Ulster Unionist Party (UUP). The tendency to vote on sectarian lines and the proportions of each religious denomination ensured that there would never be a change of government. In local government, constituency boundaries were drawn to divide nationalist communities into two or even three constituencies and so weaken their effect (see Gerrymandering). The Catholic population in Northern Ireland, besides feeling politically alienated, was also economically alienated, often with worse living standards compared to their Protestant neighbours, with fewer job opportunities and living in ghettos in Belfast, Derry, Armagh and other places. Most Catholics considered the Unionist government was undemocratic, bigoted and favoured Protestants. Emigration for economic reasons kept the nationalist population from growing, despite its higher birth rate. During the 1930s the IRA launched minor attacks against the Unionist Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and British army in Northern Ireland. The IRA began another armed campaign against Britain in 1939. During World War II the IRA leadership hoped for support from Germany, and chief of staff Seán Russell travelled there in 1940; he died later that year after falling ill on a U-boat that was bringing him back to Ireland. Suspected republicans were interned on both sides of the border, for different reasons. The Border Campaign in the mid-50s was the last attempt at traditional military action and was an abject failure. The Movement needed to reconsider its strategy.

1966 - 1969

In the late 1960's, Irish political activists groups found parallels with their struggle against religious discrimination in the civil rights campaign of Afro-Americans the U.S. against racial discrimination. Student leaders such a Bernadette Devlin and Nationalist politicians such as Austin Currie tried to use non-violent direct action to draw attention to the blatant discrimination. By 1968, Europe as a whole was engulfed in a struggle between radicalism and coservativism. In Sinn Féin, the same debate raged. The dominant analysis was that Protestant Irishmen and women would never be bombed into a united Ireland. The only way forward was to have both sides embrace socialism and forget their sectarian hatreds. They resolved to no longer to be drawn into inter-communal violence. As a response to the civil rights campaign militant loyalist paramilitary groups started to emerge in the Protestant community. The Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) was the first. The UVF had originally existed among loyalist Ulster Protestants before World War I to oppose Home Rule, but was absorbed into the Ulster Special Constabulary after 1921. In the 1960's it was relaunched by militant loyalists, encouraged by certain politicians, to oppose any attempt to reunite Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland, which is how they saw any change in their status vis-a-vis Catholics. By mid 1969 the violence in Northern Ireland exploded. Consistent with their new political ideology, the IRA declined to intervene. By late August, the British government had to intervene and declare a state of emergency, sending a large number of troops into Northern Ireland to stop the intercommunal violence. This made British forces at first popular with Catholic residents. However, the British Army's mandate was to "aid the civil power": they appeared to have little concept of how one-sided that civil power was, or how unlike the (say) Surrey Constabulary was the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

1970 - 1985

Divisions began to emerge in the Republican movement between leftists and conservatives. The leader of the IRA, Cathal Goulding believed that the IRA could not beat the British with military tactics and should turn into a workers' revolutionary movement that would overthrow both governments to achieve a 32-county socialist republic through the will of the people (after WWII the IRA no longer engaged in any actions against the Republic). Goulding also drove the IRA into an ideologically Marxist-Leninist direction which attracted idealistic young supporters in the Republic, but alienated and angered many of the IRA's core supporters in the North. In particular, his decision to regard the UVF as deluded rather than as the enemy, was anathema to traditionalists and those who were its potential victims. The argument led to a split in 1970, between the Official IRA (supporters of Goulding's Marxist line) and the Provisional IRA (also called Provos, traditional nationalist republicans). The Provos were led by Seán Mac Stiofáin and immediately began a large scale campaign against the unionist paramilitaries and British forces in Northern Ireland, while the Official IRA also initially maintained an armed campaign. In 1972, the Official IRA declared a cease-fire, which, apart from feuds with other republican groups, has been maintained to date. Nowadays the term 'Irish Republican Army' almost always denotes the Provisional IRA. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s the conflict continued claiming thousands of lives, with the UVF (and other loyalist groups) extending attacks into the Republic of Ireland and the IRA launching attacks on targets in England. However some things slowly began to change. In the 1980's Provisional Sinn Féin (the Provisional IRA's political wing) began contesting elections and by the mid 1990's was representing the republican position at peace negotiations. In the loyalist movement splits occurred, the Ulster Unionist Party made tentative attempts to reform itself and attract Catholics into supporting the union with Britain, while the radical Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) led by Rev. Ian Paisley began attracting working class Protestant loyalists who felt alienated by the UUP's overtures towards Catholics.

1986 - 2005

At the 1986 Sinn Féin Ard Fheis, a motion declaring the end of the policy of abstentionism (refusing to take seats in the Republic of Ireland's parliament), was passed. This motion caused a split in the movement creating Republican Sinn Fein, a party committed to the 1970s Provisional Sinn Fein vision of a federal republic. It was led by former Sinn Féin President Ruairí Ó Brádaigh (who had previously led Provisional Sinn Féin to split from the Officials). The policy of participation in Dáil elections became known as "the Armalite and the ballot box". In 1994 the leaders of Northern Ireland's two largest nationalist parties, Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Féin and John Hume, the leader of the SDLP (Irish Social-Democratic Labour Party) entered into peace negotiations with Unionist leaders like David Trimble of the UUP and the British government. At the table most of the paramilitary groups (including the IRA and UVF) had representatives. In 1998 when the IRA endorsed the Good Friday Agreement between nationalist and unionist parties and both governments, another small group split from the Provisional IRA to form the Real IRA (RIRA). The Continuity and Real IRA have both engaged in attacks not only against the British and loyalists, but even against their fellow nationalists (members of Sinn Féin, the SDLP and IRA). Since 1998, the IRA and UVF have adhered to a ceasefire. However on the loyalist side the UDA and radical splinter groups that left the UVF after it endorsed the Good Friday Agreement (like the Ulster Loyalist Front - ULF) have continued attacking Catholics and each other. Today the republican movement can be divided into moderates who wish to reunite with the Republic through peaceful means and radicals who wish to continue an armed campaign. In late July 2005, the Provisional IRA announced that the war was over and that their weapons were to be put out of use.

Nationalist

Nationalism is an ideology which holds that the nation, ethnicity or national identity is a "fundamental unit" of human social life, and makes certain political claims based upon that belief; above all, the claim that the nation is "the only legitimate basis for the state", and that "each nation is entitled to its own state". In this form, nationalism is a universal ideology; but the term also refers to the specific ideology of nationalist movements, which make political claims on behalf of specific nations. Nationalism is also defined as a "specific conceptual perspective," born in 16th century England and eventually spread to other communities, that forms "the constitutive element of modernity." These movements may dispute each others specific claims; nevertheless, they share the same general nationalist ideology. Two of the standard (and methodologically dissimilar) works in nationalism are Benedict Anderson's "Imagined Communities" and Liah Greenfeld's "Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity." Nationalists define individual nations on the basis of certain criteria, which distinguish one nation from another; and also determine "who is a member of each nation". These criteria might include a shared language, a shared culture, and/or shared values; but the most important is probably now ethnicity, the belonging to or membership of an ethnic group. National identity refers both to these defining criteria, and to the "sense of belonging" to that group. Nationalists see membership of nation as exclusive and involuntary, meaning that you can not simply "join it", like any other association. Nationalism sees most human activity as national in character. Nations have national symbols, a national character, a national culture, a national music and national literature; national folklore, a national mythology and - in some cases - even a national religion. Individuals share national values and a national identity; admire the national hero, eat the national dish and play the national sport. Nationalism has had an enormous influence upon world history and geopolitics, since the nation-state has become the dominant form of state. Most of the world's population now lives in states which are, at least nominally, nation-states. The word 'nation' is often inaccurately used as a synonym for these states. The nation state is intended to guarantee the existence of a nation, to preserve its distinct identity, and to provide a territory where the national culture and ethos are dominant. Most nation-states appeal to a cultural and historical mythos to justify their existence, and to give them "legitimacy". Nationalists recognise that 'non-national' states exist; indeed, the struggles of early nationalist movements were often directed against empires, such as Austria-Hungary. The Vatican City exists to provide a sovereign state for the leadership of the Catholic Church; not for a nation. The global Caliphate sought by some Islamists is another example of a non-national state. Anyone who identifies with a nation, and sees nation-states as legitimate, can be described as a "nationalist". In this sense, most adults are "passive nationalists". However, the modern vernacular use of nationalism refers to political (and sometimes military) action, in support of nationalist demands. That action may include separatism, irredentism, militarism and in extreme cases "ethnic cleansing". Political scientists (and the media) usually tend to focus on these more extreme forms of nationalism.

Background and problems

Nationalism is a long controversial term, as its most general definition is broad, and has been controversial throughout history; and specific examples of nationalism are extremely diverse. Extreme emotions are aroused, when discussing nationalism, and that makes it difficult to describe and define nationalism. A recurring problem is that people define nationalism on the basis of their local experience. To a Breton nationalist, the central issue is state nationalism versus cultural nationalism; elsewhere that distinction may be irrelevant. Often supporters of nationalism fear that the negative consequences of conflicting nationalisms, ethnic tension, war, and political conflicts within states, are taken for nationalism itself, leading some to view the general concept of nationalism negatively. They argue that viewing nationalism through its most negative consequences distorts the meaning of the term. The emphasis upon specific conflicts has certainly diverted attention from general issues; for instance, the characteristics of nation-states. Nationalist movements may or may not claim that their nation is better than others. They may simply claim that the population of a given nation is better off when it is permitted to govern themselves; which is the principle of self-determination. However, conflicts often result in ideological attacks upon the identity and legitimacy of the 'enemy'. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both sides claim that the other is not a real nation; and therefore has no right to a state. "Jingoism" and "chauvinism" make exaggerated claims about the superiority of one nation over another. National stereotypes are also common, and are usually insulting. These are nationalist phenomena; and are worthy of attention, but they are not a sufficient basis for a general theory of nationalism.

Issues in nationalism theory

The first studies of nationalism were generally historical accounts of nationalist movements. At the end of the 19th century, Marxists and socialists produced political analyses of the nationalist movements, then active in central and eastern Europe. Most sociological theories of nationalism date from after the Second World War. Some nationalism theory is about issues which concern nationalists themselves, such as who belongs to the nation and who does not, and what belonging to a nation means. Recent general theory has looked at underlying issues, and above all with the question of which came first, nations or nationalism. Nationalist activists see themselves as representing a pre-existing nation, and the primordialist theory of nationalism agrees. It sees nations, or at least ethnic groups, as a social reality dating back 20 thousand years. The modernist theories imply that until around 1800, no-one had more than local loyalties. National identity and unity were imposed from above, by European states, because they were necessary to modernise economy and society. In this theory, nationalist conflicts are an unintended side-effect. The more recent theorists of nationalism are influenced by postmodernism and emphasise that nations are a socially constructed phenomenon. Benedict Anderson, for example, described nations as "imagined communities". Ernest Gellner comments: "Nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-consciousness: it invents nations where they do not exist." (Anderson and Gellner deploy terms such as 'imagined' and 'invent' in a neutral, descriptive manner. The use of these terms in this context is not intended to imply that nations are fictional or fantastic.) Modernisation theorists see such things as the printing press and capitalism as necessary conditions for nationalism. Anthony Smith proposes a synthesis of 'post-modernist' and traditional views. According to Smith, the preconditions for the formation of a nation are a fixed homeland (current or historical), high autonomy, hostile surroundings, memories of battles, sacred centres, languages and scripts, special customs, historical records and thinking. Smith considers that nations are formed through the inclusion of the whole populace (not just elites), constitution of legal and political institutions, nationalist ideology, international recognition and drawing up of borders.

Historical evolution of nationalism

Prior to 1900

Most theories of nationalism assume a European origin of the nation-state. The modern state is often seen as emerging with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. This treaty created the Westphalian system of states, which recognised each others sovereignty and territory. Some of the signatories, such as the Dutch United Provinces, could be seen as a nation state, but there was no German equivalent, notwithstanding that the Holy Roman Empire consisted of almost entirely German-speaking states. In 1648 most states in Europe were still non-national. The theory of the Westphalian origin of the modern state system is disputed. The major transition to nation-states is often seen as originating in the late 18th and 19th centuries, although this is disputed. Beginning with romantic nationalism, nationalist movements arose throughout Europe. Some of them were separatist, directed against large empires, others sought to unify a divided or fragmented territory, most notably in Germany and Italy. These movements promoted a national identity and culture, and they were successful. By the end of the 19th century most people accepted that Europe was divided into nations, and personally identified with one of these nations. The collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire after the First World War accelerated the formation of nation-states. According to the standard view, before the 19th century people had local, regional, or religious loyalties, but no idea of nationhood. The typical state in Europe was a dynastic state, ruled by a royal house: if there were any loyalties above regional level, then they were owed to the king and the ruling house. Dynastic states could acquire territory by royal marriage, and lose it by division of inheritance - which is now seen as absurd. Going further back, the ancient Greeks called everyone who was not Greek a barbarian (because their different language sounded like 'bar-bar' to Greek speaking people), but the Greek city states often fought amongst themselves for dominance. Nationalism introduced the idea that each nation has a specific territory, and that beyond this point the claims of other nations apply.
- Nation-states, in principle, do not seek to conquer territory.
- However, nationalist movements rarely agreed on where the border should be. As the nationalist movements grew, they introduced new territorial disputes in Europe. Nationalism also determined the political life of 19th century Europe. Where the nation was part of an empire, the national liberation struggle was also a struggle against older autocratic regimes, and nationalism was allied with liberal anti-monarchical movements. Where the nation-state was a consolidation of an older monarchy, as in Spain, nationalism was itself conservative and monarchical. Most nationalist movements began in opposition to the existing order, but by the 20th century, there were regimes which primarily identified themselves as nationalist. The standard theory of the 19th-century origin of nation-states is disputed. One problem with it is that the South American independence struggles, and the American Revolution (American War of Independence), predate most European nationalist movements. Some countries, such as the Netherlands and England, seem to have had a clear national identity well before the 19th century. Italy's unification, however, is a good example of a 19th-century nationalist movement based upon ethnicity and/or language.

20th Century nationalism

By the end of the 19th century, nationalist ideas had begun to spread to Asia. In India, nationalism began to encourage calls for the end of British rule. The 20th century nationalist movement in India is generally thought to have been led by Mahatma Gandhi, although many other leaders were involved as well. In China, nationalism created a justification for the Chinese state that was at odds with the idea of the universal empire. In Japan, nationalism combined with Japanese "exceptionalism" to form Japanese imperialism, as extreme nationalism often leads to imperialism. World War I led to new nation-states in Europe being encouraged by the United States, who were opposed to the old Imperial Empires, and by France, who wished to isolate Germany and Austria by a series of client states. The result of this pressure was that several multi-nation empires (Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire) disintegrated. The Russian Empire also lost territory. The Versailles Treaty, based upon US President Wilson's 14 Points, was an attempt to recognize the principle of nationalism, as most of Europe was divided into nation-states in what was euphemistically called an "attempt to keep the peace". However, multi-nation and multi-ethnic states survived; and two new ones emerged, Czechoslovakia (where Czechs took control even though they only made up 43% of the population), and Yugoslavia, (which became dominated by the Serbs). World War II initiated a new wave of nation-state formation, by the emergence of fascism and Nazism ("national socialism") before the War, and by independence from European colonial Empires, which declined after the War. The most dramatic decolonisation was in Africa, which was transformed from a collection of European colonies into a continent of nation-states. Few of them corresponded to the European ideal of "a single people, with one language" and a clear territory. Ironically, the one that best met those criteria, Somalia, disintegrated. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to an unexpected revival of national movements in Europe around 1990. Its constituent states became independent, for the second time (in modern history) in the case of the Baltic states. In the second half of the 20th century, some trends emerged which might indicate a weakening of the nation-state and nationalism. The European Union is widely seen transferring power from the national level to both sub-national and supra-national levels. Critics of globalization almost always see it as a threat to national identity, culture, and sovereignty. Free trade agreements, such as NAFTA and the GATT, and the increasing internationalisation of trade markets, are seen as damaging to the national economy, and have led to a revival of economic nationalism. Protest movements vehemently oppose these negative aspects of globalization, (see Anti-globalisation). Not all anti-globalists are nationalists, but nationalism continues to assert itself in response to those trends. Nationalist parties continue to do well in elections, and most people continue to have a strong sense of attachment to their nationality. Moreover, globalism and European federalism are not always opposed to nationalism. For example, theorists of Chinese nationalism within the People's Republic of China have articulated the idea that China's national power is substantially enhanced, rather than being reduced, by engaging in international trade and multinational organizations. For a time sub-national groups such as Catalonian autonomists and Welsh nationalists supported a stronger European Union in the hope that a Europe of the regions would limit the power of the present nation-states. However, with Euroscepticism now widespread in the EU, this transformation is no longer on its political agenda.

Language and nationalism

A common language has been a defining characteristic of the nation, and an ideal for nationalists. For example, in France before the French Revolution, regional languages such as Breton and Occitan were spoken, which were mutually incomprehensible. Standard French was also spoken in large parts of the country and had always been the language of administration, but after the Revolution it was imposed as the national language in non-French-speaking regions. For instance, in Brittany, Celtic names were forbidden. The formation of nation-states, and their consolidation after independence, was generally accompanied by policies to restrict, replace, or abandon minority languages. That accelerates the tendency noted in sociolinguistic research, that high-status languages displace low-status languages. See also: Language policy in France. Some theorists believe that nationalism became pronounced in the 19th century simply because language became a more important unifier due to increased literacy. With more people reading newspapers, books, pamphlets and so on, which were increasingly widely available to read since the spread of the printing press, it became possible for the first time to develop a broader cultural attachment beyond the local community. At the same time, differences in language solidified, breaking down old dialects, and excluding those from completely different language groups. Nationalist movements from Ireland to India promote the teaching, preservation, and use of traditional languages, such as Celtic languages, Hebrew, and Hindi. (See also: Language revival.) The United States, a country which historically welcomes immigrants of varying nationality, has what can be seen as a pattern of discrimination against languages other than English. Prominent examples are the German language, which was nearly eradicated during World War I, and French and Italian, which have nearly disappeared from everyday life. Today Spanish is a large second language across large portion of the country. Some politicians, such as Pat Buchanan have consciously opposed the rise of Spanish as a second American language, for fear that it would undermine traditional institutions. In the Arab World during the colonial period, the Turkish language, French language, Spanish language and English language were often imposed, although the intensity of imposition varied widely. When the colonial period ended (mostly after World War Two), a process of "Arabisation" began; reviving Arabic to unify their states and to facilitate a broader Arab identity, motivated by Pan-Arabism. Countries such as Algeria and Western Sahara underwent large scale Arabisations, changing from French and Spanish to Arabic respectively. However within the Arab World, some nationalistic attempts were made to emancipate a domestic vernacular and treat classical Arabic as a formal foreign language. It was often incomprehensible to the non-literate population of nominally Arab countries, which were politically - but not necessarily linguistically, culturally or ethnically, Arabized. These policies were first promoted in Egypt in the mid 20th century by the Egyptian scholar and nationalist Ahmad Lutfi al-Sayyid, who called for the formalization of the Egyptian Vernacular as the native language of the Egyptian people. More recently Bayoumi Andil, an Egyptian Linguist and Egyptologist, did research in what he nationalistically defines as the "Modern Egyptian Language", which led him to declare it "irrelevant" to Arabic. He claimed that it was the fourth phase of the ancient Egyptian language descended from Coptic, with which it is intimately related, syntactically, morphological, and phonologicaly. Similar attempts to emphasise minority languages completely independent of Arabic were made by the Nubians who are split between Egypt and Sudan, and relatively more successfully by the Amazigh (also known as Imazighen or Berber) in Morocco.

Prominent figures

See the List of prominent figures in nationalism.

Types of nationalism

Nationalism may manifest itself as part of official state ideology or as a popular (non-state) movement and may be expressed along civic, ethnic, cultural, religious or ideological lines. These self-definitions of the nation are used to classify types of nationalism. However such categories are not mutually exclusive and many nationalist movements combine some or all of these elements to varying degrees. Nationalist movements can also be classified by other criteria, such as scale and location. Some political theorists make the case that any distinction between forms of nationalism is false. In all forms of nationalism, the populations believe that they share some kind of common culture, and culture can never be wholly separated from ethnicity. The United States, for example, has "God" on its coinage and in its Pledge of Allegiance, and designates official holidays, which are seen by some to promote cultural biases. The United States has an ethnic theory of being American (nativism), and had a committee to investigate Un-American Activities. Civic nationalism (also civil nationalism) is the form of nationalism in which the state derives political legitimacy from the active participation of its citizenry, from the degree to which it represents the "will of the people". It is often seen as originating with Jean-Jacques Rousseau and especially the Social contract theories which take their name from his 1762 book The Social Contract. Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism. Membership of the civic nation is considered voluntary. Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy in countries such as the United States and France. Ethnic nationalism defines the nation in terms of ethnicity, which always includes some element of descent from previous generations. It also includes ideas of a shared culture, shared between members of the group and with their ancestors, and usually a shared language. Membership of the nation is hereditary. The state derives political legitimacy from its status as homeland of the ethnic group, and from its function to protect the national group and facilitate its cultural and social life, as a group. Ideas of ethnicity are very old, but modern ethnic nationalism was heavily influenced by Johann Gottfried von Herder, who promoted the concept of the Volk, and Johann Gottlieb Fichte. Ethnic nationalism is now the dominant form, and is often simply referred to as "nationalism". Note that the theorist Anthony Smith uses the term 'ethnic nationalism' for non-western concepts of nationalism, as opposed to western views of a nation defined by its geographical territory. Romantic nationalism (also organic nationalism, identity nationalism) is the form of ethnic nationalism in which the state derives political legitimacy as a natural ("organic") consequence and expression of the nation, or race. It reflected the ideals of Romanticism and was opposed to Enlightenment rationalism. Romantic nationalism emphasised a historical ethnic culture which meets the Romantic Ideal; folklore developed as a Romantic nationalist concept. The Brothers Grimm were inspired by Herder's writings to create an idealised collection of tales which they labeled as ethnic German. Historian Jules Michelet exemplifies French romantic-nationalist history. Cultural nationalism defines the nation by shared culture. Membership of the nation is neither voluntary (you cannot instantly acquire a culture), nor hereditary (children of members may be considered foreigners if they grew up in another culture). Chinese nationalism is said to be a good example of cultural nationalism, partly because of the many national minorities in China. (The 'Chinese nationalists' include those on Taiwan who reject the mainland Chinese government but claim the mainland Chinese state). State nationalism is a variant on civic nationalism, very often combined with ethnic nationalism. It implies that the nation is a community of those who contribute to the maintenance and strength of the state, and that the individual exists to contribute to this goal. Italian fascism is the best example, epitomised in this slogan of Mussolini: "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato." ("Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State"). It is no surprise that this conflicts with liberal ideals of individual liberty, and with liberal-democratic principles. The Jacobin creation of a unitary and centralist French state, is often seen as the original version of state nationalism. Franquist Spain, and contemporary Turkish nationalism are later examples of state nationalism. However, the term state nationalism is often used in conflicts between nationalisms, and especially where a secessionist movement confronts an established nation state. The secessionists speak of state nationalism, to discredit the legitimacy of the larger state, since state nationalism is perceived as less authentic and less democratic. Flemish separatists speak of Belgian nationalism as a state nationalism. Basque separatists (ETA) and Corsican separatists refer to Spain, and France in this way. In return, the larger state calls them terrorists. There are no external criteria to assess which side is right, and the result is usually that the population is divided by conflicting appeals to its loyalty and patriotism. Religious nationalism defines the nation in terms of shared religion. If the state derives political legitimacy from adherence to religious doctrines, then it is may be more of a theocracy than a nation-state. In practice, many ethnic and cultural nationalisms are in some ways religious in character. The religion is a marker of group identity, rather than the motivation for nationalist claims. Irish nationalism is associated with Catholicism, and most Irish nationalist leaders of the last 100 years were Catholic, but many of the early (18th century) nationalists were Protestant. Irish nationalism never centred on theological distinctions like transubstantiation, the status of the Virgin Mary, or the primacy of the Pope, but for some Protestants in Northern Ireland, these pre-Reformation doctrines are indeed part of Irish culture. Similarly, although Religious Zionism exists, the mainstream of Zionism is more secular in nature, and based on culture and ethnicity. Since the partition of British India, Indian nationalism is associated with Hinduism. In modern India, a contemporary form of Hindu nationalism, or Hindutva has been prominent among many followers of the Bharatiya Janata Party and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Diaspora nationalism (or, as Benedict Anderson terms it "long-distance nationalism") generally refers to nationalist feeling among a Diaspora such as the Irish in the United States, or the Lebanese in the Americas and Africa[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2501/is_1_26/ai_n6145318]. Benedict Anderson states that this sort of nationalism acts as a "phantom bedrock" for people who want to experience a national connection, but who do not actually want to leave their Diaspora community.

Nationalism within nations

With the establishment of a nation-state, the primary goal of any nationalist movement has been achieved. However, nationalism does not disappear but remains a political force within each nation, and inspires political parties and movements. The terms nationalist and 'nationalist politician’ are often used to describe these movements, nationalistic would be more accurate. Nationalists in this sense typically campaign for:
- strengthening national unity, including campaigns for national salvation in times of crisis.
- emphasising the national identity and rejecting foreign influences, influenced by cultural conservatism and xenophobia.
- limiting non-national populations on the national territory, especially by limiting immigration and in extreme cases, by ethnic cleansing.
- annexing territory which is considered part of the national homeland. This is called irredentism, from the Italian movement Italia irredenta.
- economic nationalism, which is the promotion of the national interest in economic policy, especially through protectionism and in opposition to free trade policies. Nationalist parties and nationalist politicians, in this sense, usually place great emphasis on national symbols, such as the national flag. The term 'nationalism' is also used by extension, or as a metaphor, to describe movements which promote a group identity of some kind. This use is especially common in the United States, and includes black nationalism and white nationalism in a cultural sense. They may overlap with nationalism in the classic sense, including black secessionist movements and pan-Africanists. Nationalists obviously have a positive attitude to their own nation, although this is not a definition of nationalism. The emotional appeal of nationalism is visible even in established and stable nation-states. The social psychology of nations includes national identity (the individual’s sense of belonging to a group), and national pride (self-association with the success of the group). National pride is related to the cultural influence of the nation, and its economic and political strength - although they may be exaggerated. However the most important factor is that the emotions are shared: nationalism in sport includes the shared disappointment if the national team loses. The emotions can be purely negative: a shared sense of threat can unify the nation. However, dramatic events, such as defeat in war, can qualitatively affect national identity and attitudes to non-national groups. The defeat of Germany in World War I, and the perceived humiliation by the Treaty of Versailles, economic crisis and hyperinflation, created a climate for xenophobia, revanchism, and the rise of Nazism. The solid bourgeois patriotism of the pre-1914 years, with the Kaiser as national father-figure, was no longer relevant.

Post-2001 nationalism in the United States

Kaiser]] The September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States led to a wave of nationalist expression. While there was a groundswell of international outrage over the attacks and support for the American public after the attacks, the United States nationalism has been difficult for some outside of the United States. Modern Western Europeans, particularly in the United Kingdom and Germany, have tended to view any ostentatious display of flags and national symbols as excessive. Many believe that the surge in nationalism enabled a number of major changes in national policy. The USA PATRIOT Act, which was signed into law on October 26, 2001, was designed to combat terrorism, but is considered by many to constitute a harmful assault on civil liberties. It is also possible that the nationalist surge created a political climate favorable for the George W. Bush administration in the lead up to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Like almost all wars, the conflicts themselves appear to have increased nationalist feeling. As casualties have mounted and opposition to the war has increased, a pattern seen earlier in the Vietnam War has reemerged: those in favor of war consider that those who oppose it are unpatriotic, or even outright traitors. Several commentators supportive of the war have indicated they feel that news that paints the US in a negative light is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Since war opponents tend to resent such accusations, the political debate has taken place in an atmosphere of increasing anger.

Patriotism and extremism

Vietnam War Although nationalism influences many aspects of life in stable nation-states, its presence is often invisible, since the nation-state is taken for granted. Michael Billig speaks of Banal nationalism, the everyday, less visible forms of nationalism, which shape the minds of a nation's inhabitants, on a day to day basis. Attention concentrates on extreme aspects, and on nationalism in unstable regions. Nationalism may be used as a derogatory label, for groups which may be no more nationalist than the rest of the population. In western democracies, xenophobic and anti-immigrant groups often refer to themselves as nationalist, to avoid the even more pejorative term racist. These parties may have a large electorate, and be represented in parliament. Smaller but highly visible groups, such as nationalist skinheads, also self-identify in this way, although it may be a euphemism for national-socialist or white supremacist. Activists in other countries are often referred to as ultra-nationalists, with a clearly pejorative meaning. In Continental Europe, nationalism refers more to an ethnic group or nation, while patriotism connotes a state or country, and sometimes its government. See also chauvinism and jingoism. jingoism Nationalism is a component of other political ideologies, and above all fascism, and the term extremism is often used in this context. However it is not accurate to simply describe fascism as a more extreme form of nationalism. Fascism in the general sense, and the Italian original, were marked by a strong combination of ethnic nationalism and state nationalism. That was certainly evident in Nazism. However the geopolitical aspirations of Adolf Hitler are probably better described as imperialist, and Nazi Germany ultimately ruled over vast areas where there was no historic German presence. The Nazi state was so different from the typical European nation-state, that it was sui generis (requires a category of its own). That could be said of Stalinism as well. Josef Stalin was an expert on nationalism, and his definition of a nation is quoted in all theoretical works. Under his regime, the Soviet Union pursued a policy of defining and encouraging national identities in the Soviet Republics and autonomous regions. Nevertheless, they were denied sovereignty, and in many cases there was a contradictory Russification policy. A similar approach was taken to the countries in Eastern Europe occupied by Soviet troops in 1945. The regime also encouraged an ambiguous 'Soviet' (in reality Russian) identity, with a strong nationalist character, especially during World War II (the Great Patriotic War).

Racism

Nationalism does not necessarily imply a belief in the superiority of one nation over others, but in practice many nationalists think that way about their own nation. Occasionally they believe another nation can serve as an example for their own nation, see Anglophilia. There is a specific racial nationalism which can be considered an ethnic nationalism, but some form of racism can be found within almost all nationalist movements. It is usually directed at neighbouring nations and ethnic groups. Racism was also a feature of colonialist ideologies, which were especially strong at the end of the 19th century. Strictly speaking, overseas colonies conflict with the principles of the nation-state, since they are not part of the historic homeland of the nation, and their inhabitants clearly do not belong to the same ethnic group, speak its language, or share its culture. In practice, nationalists sometimes combined a belief in self-determination in Europe, with colonisation in Africa or Asia. Explicit biological race theory was influential from the end of the 19th century. Nationalist and fascist movements in the first half of the 20th century often appealed to these theories. The Nazi ideology was probably the most comprehensively racial ideology in history, and race influenced all aspects of policy in Nazi Germany. The defeat of Nazi Germany, and above all the Holocaust, discredited race theories and racial nationalism after 1945. Nevertheless racism continues to be an influence on nationalism. Ethnic cleansing is often seen as both a nationalist and racist phenomenon. It is part of nationalist logic that the state is reserved for one nation, but not all nation-states expel their minorities. The best known recent examples of ethnic cleansing are those during the Yugoslav secession war in the 1990s. Other examples seen related to racism include the removal of Germans from the Volga Republic during the 1950s, and the extermination of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915.

Opposition and critique

Nationalism is an extremely assertive ideology, which makes far-reaching demands, including the disappearance of entire states. It is not surprising that it has attracted vehement opposition. Much of the early opposition to nationalism was related to its geopolitical ideal, of a separate state for every nation. The classic nationalist movements of the 19th century rejected the very existence of the multi-ethnic empires in Europe. This resulted in severe repression by the, generally autocratic, governments of those empires. That tradition of secessionism, repression, and violence continues, although by now a large nation typically confronts a smaller nation. (No states currently describe themselves as an empire). Even in that early stage, however, there was an ideological critique of nationalism. That has developed into several forms of anti-nationalism in the western world. The Islamic revival of the 20th century also produced an Islamic critique of the nation-state. In the liberal political tradition there is widespread criticism of ‘nationalism’ as a dangerous force and a cause of conflict and war between nation-states. Liberals do not generally dispute the existence of the nation-states. The liberal critique also emphasises individual freedom as opposed to national identity, which is by definition collective, see communitarianism. The pacifist critique of nationalism also concentrates on the violence of nationalist movements, the associated militarism, and on conflicts between nations inspired by jingoism or chauvinism. National symbols and patriotic assertiveness are in some countries discredited by their historical link with past wars, especially in Germany. The anti-racist critique of nationalism concentrates on the attitudes to other nations, and especially on the doctrine that the nation-state exists for one national group, to the exclusion of others. It emphasises the chauvinism and xenophobia of most nationalisms. Some authors, for example, Klitou in his book "The Friends and Foes of Human Rights," argue that nationalism is greatly responsible for most human rights violations and as a result weakens the human rights movement. For Klitou, nationalism is a major foe of human rights, while its opposite, cosmopolitanism, is an important friend. Political movements of the left have often been suspicious of nationalism, again without necessarily seeking the disappearance of the existing nation-states. Marxism has been ambiguous towards the nation-state, and in the late 19th century some Marxist theorists rejected it completely. For some Marxists the world revolution implied a global state (or global absence of state), for others it meant that each nation-state had its own revolution. A significant event in this context was the failure of the social-democratic and socialist movements in Europe, to mobilise a cross-border workers opposition to World War I. At present most, but certainly not all, left-wing groups accept the nation-state, and see it as the political arena for their activities. In the Western world the most comprehensive ideological alternative for nationalism is cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitanism is often inaccurately labelled internationalism, and vice versa. (Inter-nationalism, by definition, implies cooperation among nations, and therefore the existence of nations). Ethical cosmopolitanism rejects one of the basic ethical principles of nationalism: that humans owe more duties to a fellow member of the nation, than to a non-member. It rejects such important nationalist values as national identity and national loyalty. In turn, nationalists are deeply suspicious of cosmopolitan attitudes, which they equate with treason and betrayal. However there is also a political cosmopolitanism, which has a geopolitical programme to match that of nationalism: it seeks some form of world state, with a world government. Very few people openly and explicitly support the establishment of a global state, but political cosmopolitanism has influenced the development of international criminal law, and the erosion of the status of national sovereignty. One of the most far-reaching alternatives to nationalism and the nation-state comes from some radical Islamists, who reject the existence of any state on any basis other than Islam. For them, the unity of Islam means that there can be only one government on earth, in the form which is usually titled caliphate (khilafa). It is not a state in the usual western sense, but all existing states are incompatible with this ideal, including the Islamic nation-states with Islam as official religion. Only a minority of Islamists take this view, but insofar as Al-Qaeda has an ideology, it includes the goal of the caliphate. As a universal religion, Islam is nominally opposed to any categorisation of people not based on one's beliefs. Islam promotes a strong feeling of community among all Muslims, who collectively constitute the Ummah. There is no doubt that many Muslims do strongly identify with the religious community, probably more so than Christians. Shared observances such as the holy month of Ramadan and the Hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca), contribute to this identification. The word "Ummah" is often incorrectly translated into English as "Islamic nation" but it is not a nation in this sense. The Nation of Islam in the United States has been criticised by some Muslims, who find the comparison between Islam and an earthly nation offensive. 'Ummah' is not a synonym of 'caliphate', but the idea is associated with the historic caliphates. Similarly, since anarchism rejects nation-states, anarchists reject nationalism. Instead of nations, anarchists usually advocate for the creation of cooperative societies based on free association and mutual aid without regard to ethnicity or race.

Historical effect of nationalism

Historical events (not just wars) in which nationalism played an essential role included:
- The Indian independence movement of the 20th Century and the rise of Mahatma Gandhi.
- The French Revolution between 1789 and 1799.
- The Rebellions of 1837 in Upper and Lower Canada.
- The 1848 Revolutions in Europe.
- The Italian unification under the rule of Piedmont and Sardinia
- The Anglo-Irish War and the partition of Ireland into the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
- The Balkan Wars in 1912-1913.
- The Arab Revolt of 1916-1918.
- The rise of Reza Shah in 1921.
- The establishment of the apartheid state in South Africa by the National Party of South Africa, the Afrikaner nationalists.
- The unification of Syria and Egypt under the United Arab Republic and its demise.
- The Indonesian Nationalism Movement 1905-1949.
- Nationalism and resistance in Algeria as a prelude to the Algerian War of Independence.
- The decolonisation of Africa during the 1960s and 1970s.
- The anti-colonial opposition to white rule in Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia during the 1960s and 1970s.
- The conflict between the Canadian nationalism and Quebecois nationalism in Canada, and the violence of the FLQ.
- The Fiji coups of 1987 and 2000.
- The rise in white nationalist or anti-immigrant violence in western countries since the 1970s.

Republic

:This article concentrates on the several forms of government of real states and countries that have been termed republic, for all other uses see: republic (disambiguation) In a broad definition, a republic is a state whose political organization rests on the principle that the citizens or electorate constitute the ultimate root of legitimacy and sovereignty. Several definitions, including that of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, stress the importance of autonomy and the 'rule of law' as part of the requirements for a Republic. The detailed organization of republics' governments can vary widely in practice. The first section of this article gives an overview of the distinctions that characterise different types of non-fictional republics. In addition, many forms of national governments that call themselves "republics" are actually some other form of government, such as oligarchies, hereditary monarchies or socialist states or simple dictatorships. The second section of the article gives short profiles of some of the most influential republics, by way of illustration. A more comprehensive List of republics appears in a separate article. The third section is about how republics are approached as state organisations in political science: in political theory and political science, the term "republic" is generally applied to a state where the government's political power depends solely on the consent, however nominal, of the people governed, along with some form of written constitution, limitations against absolute power by a single individual or a combination of individuals, and other characteristic mechanisms of freedom, such as economic freedom, or a "commonwealth".

Characteristics of republics

Heads of state

In most modern republics the head of state is termed president. Other titles that have been used are consul, doge, knyazs, archon, and many others. In republics that are also democracies the head of state is appointed as the result of an election. This election can be indirect: a council of some sort is elected by the people, and this council then elects the head of state. In these kinds of republics the usual term for a president is in the range of four to six years. In some countries the constitution limits the number of terms the same person can be elected as president. If the head of state of a republic is at the same time the head of government, this is called a presidential system (example: United States). In Semi-presidential systems the head of state is not the same person as the head of government, in that case he is usually termed prime minister or premier. Depending on whether the president has any specific tasks (for example, advisory role in the formation of a government after an election) this can leave the president with little more than a ceremonial function. The Prime Minister is responsible for managing the policies and the central government. Depending on the rules for appointing the president and the leader of the government, it is possible for some of these countries to have a situation where the president and the prime minister have opposing political convictions: in France, when the members of the ruling cabinet and the president come from opposing political factions, this situation is called cohabitation. In countries such as Germany and India, however, the president needs to be strictly non-partisan. In some countries, like Switzerland and San Marino, the head of state is not a single person but a committee (council) of several persons holding that office. The Roman Republic had two consuls, appointed for a year by the senate. During the year of their consulship each consul would in turn be head of state for a month at a time, thus alternating the office of consul maior (the consul in power) and of consul suffectus (not-ruling consul, however with some supervision on the work of the consul maior) for their joint term. Republics can be led by a head of state that has many of the characteristics of a monarch: not only do some republics install a president for life, and invest such president with powers beyond what is usual in a representative democracy, examples such as the post-1970 Syrian Arab Republic show that such a presidency can apparently be made hereditary. Historians disagree when the Roman Republic turned into Imperial Rome: the reason is that the first Emperors were given their head of state powers gradually in a government system that in appearance did not originally much differ from the Roman Republic. Similarly, if taking the broad definition of republic above ("In a broad definition a republic is a state or country that is led by people that don't base their political power on any principle beyond the control of the people living in that state or country."), countries usually qualified as monarchies can have many traits of a republic in terms of form of government. The political power of monarchs can be non-existent, limited to a purely ceremonial function or the "control of the people" can be exerted to the extent that they appear to have the power to have their monarch replaced by another one. The often assumed "mutual exclusiveness" of monarchies and republics as forms of government is thus not to be taken too literally, and largely depends on circumstances:
- Autocrats might try to give themselves a democratic tenure by calling themselves president (or princeps or princeps senatus in the case of Ancient Rome), and the form of government of their country "republic", instead of using a monarchic based terminology.
- For full-fledged representative democracies ultimately it generally does not make all that much difference whether the head of state is a monarch or a president, nor, in fact, whether these countries call themselves a monarchy or a republic. Other factors, for instance, religious matters (see next section) can often make a greater distinguishing mark when comparing the forms of government of actual countries. For this reason, in political science the several definitions of "republic", which in such a context invariably indicate an "ideal" form of government, do not always exclude monarchy: the evolution of such definitions of "republic" in a context of political philosophy is treated in republicanism. However, such theoretical approaches appear to have had no real influence on the everyday use (that is: apart from a scholar or "insider" context) of the terminology regarding republics and monarchies. The least that can be said is that Anti-Monarchism, the opposition to monarchy as such, did not always play a critical role in the creation and/or management of republics. For some republics, not choosing a monarch as head of state, could as well be a practical rather than an ideological consideration. For example where there was no monarchial candidate readily available. However, for the states created during or shortly after the Enlightenment the choice was always deliberate: republics created in that period inevitably had anti-monarchial characteristics. For the United States the opposition to the British Monarchy played an important role, as did the overthrow of the French Monarchy in the creation of the first French Republic. By the time of the creation of the Fifth Republic in that country "anti-monarchist" tendencies were barely felt. The relations of that country to other countries made no distinctions whether these other countries were "monarchies" or not.

Role of religion

Before several Reformation movements established themselves in Europe, changes in the religious landscape rarely had any relation to the form of government adopted by a country. For instance the transition from polytheism to Christianity in Ancient Rome maybe had brought new rulers, but no change in the idea that monarchy was the obvious way to rule a country. Similarly, late Middle Age republics, like Venice, emerged without questioning the religious standards set by the Roman Catholic church. This would change, for instance, by the cuius regio, eius religio from the Treaty of Augsburg (1555): this treaty, applicable in the Holy Roman Empire and affecting the numerous (city-)states of Germany, ordained citizens to follow the religion of their ruler, whatever Christian religion that ruler chose - apart from Calvinism (which remained forbidden by the same treaty). In France the king abolished the relative tolerance towards non-Catholic religions resulting from the Edict of Nantes (1598), by the Edict of Fontainebleau (1685). In the United Kingdom and in Spain the respective monarchs had each established their favourite brand of Christianity, so that by the time of the Enlightenment in Europe (including the depending colonies) there was not a single absolute monarchy that tolerated another religion than the official one of the state.

Republics reducing state religion impact

An important reason why people could choose their society to be organised as a republic is the prospect of staying free of state religion: in this approach living under a monarch is seen as more easily inducing a uniform religion. All great monarchies had their state religion, in the case of pharaohs and some emperors this could even lead to a religion where the monarch (or his dynasty) were endowed with a god-like status (see for example imperial cult). On a different scale kingdoms can be entangled in a specific flavour of religion: Catholicism in Belgium, Church of England in the United Kingdom, Orthodoxy in Tsaristic Russia and many more examples. In absence of a monarchy, there can be no monarch pushing towards a single religion. As this had been the general perception by the time of the Enlightenment, it is not so surprising that republics were at that time seen as the preferable form of state organisation, if one wanted to avoid the downsides of living under a too influential state religion:
- United States: the Founding Fathers, seeing that no single religion would do for all Americans, adopted the principle that the federal government would not support any established religion. At first the states were free to establish religion, but they disestablished it instead, and apparently lost the right to set up state religions as a result of 20th century Supreme Court decisions.
- Besides being anti-monarchial, the French Revolution, leading to the first French Republic, was at least as much anti-religious, and led to the confiscation, pillage and/or destruction of many abbeys, beguinages, churches and other religious buildings and/or communities. Up to the Fifth Republic, laïcité can be seen to have a much more profound meaning in republican France than in its neighbouring countries ruled as a monarchy. Several states that called themselves republics have been fiercely anti-religious. This is particularly true for communist republics like the (former) Soviet Republics, North Vietnam, North Korea, and China.

Republics highlighting state religion impact

Some countries or states prefer or preferred to organise themselves as a republic, precisely because it allows them to inscribe a more or less obligatory state religion in their constitution: Islamic republics generally take this approach, but the same is also true (in varying degrees) for example in the Jewish state of Israel, in the Protestant republic that originated in the Netherlands during the Renaissance, and in the Catholic Irish Republic, among others. In this case the advantage that is sought is that no broad-thinking monarch could push his citizens towards a less strict application of religious prescriptions (like for instance the Millet system had done in the Ottoman Empire) or change to another religion altogether (like the swapping of religions under the Henry VIII/Edward VI/Mary I/Elizabeth I succession of monarchs in England). Such approach of an ideal republic based on a consolidated religious foundation played an important role for example in the overthrow of the regime of the Shah in Iran, to be replaced by a republic with influential ayatollahs (which is the term for religious leaders in that country), the most influential of which is called "supreme leader".

Concepts of democracy

Republics are often associated with democracy, which seems natural if one acknowledges the meaning of the expression from which the word "republic" derives (see: res publica). This association between "republic" and "democracy" is however far from a general understanding, even if acknowledging that there are several forms of democracy. This section tries to give an outline of which concepts of democracy are associated with which types of republics. As a preliminary remark it should be noted that the concept of "one equal vote per adult" did not become a genererally-accepted principle in democracies until around the middle of the 20th century: before that in all democracies the valour of ones vote (or the right to vote) depended on financial situation, sex, race, or a combination of these and other factors. Many forms of government in previous times termed "democracy", including for instance the Athenian democracy, would, when transplanted to the early 21st century be classified as plutocracy or a broad oligarchy, because of the rules on how votes were counted. In a Western approach, warned by the possible dangers and impracticality of direct democracy described since antiquity, there was a convergence towards representative democracy, for republics as well as monarchies, from the Enlightenment on. A direct democracy instrument like referendums is still basically mistrusted in many of the countries that adopted representative democracy. Nonetheless, some republics like Switzerland have a great deal of direct democracy in their state organisation, with usually several issues put before the people by referendum every year. Marxism inspired state organisations that, at the height of the Cold War, had barely more than a few external appearances in common with Western types of democracies. That is, notwithstanding that on an ideological level Marxism and communism sought to empower proletarians. A Communist republic like Fidel Castro's Cuba has many "popular committees" to allow participation from citizens on a very basic level, without much of a far-reaching political power resulting from that. This approach to democracy is sometimes termed Basic democracy, but the term is contentious: the intended result is often something in between direct democracy and grassroots democracy, but connotations may vary. Some of the hardline totalitarianism lived on in the East, even after the Iron Curtain fell. Sometimes the full name of such republics can be deceptive: having "people's" or "democratic" in the name of a country can, in some cases bear no relation with the concepts of democracy (neither "representative" nor "direct") that grew in the West. It also should be clear that many of these "Eastern" type of republics fall outside a definition of a republic that supposes control over who is in power by the people at large – unless it is accepted that the preference the people displays for their leader is in all cases authentic.

Influence of republicanism

Like Anti-monarchism and religious differences, republicanism played no equal role in the emergence of the many actual republics. Up to the republics that originated in the late middle ages, even if, from what we know about them, they also can be qualified "republics" in a modern understanding of the word, establishing the kind and amount of "republicanism" that led to their emergence is often limited to educated guesswork, based on sources that are generally recognised to be partly fictitious reconstruction. Republicanism was the founding ideology of the United States of America and remains the core of American political values. See Republicanism in the U.S. Over time there were various mixtures of republicanism along with democratic theories of the rights of individuals, which (for instance in the Age of Enlightenment) would find expression in the formation of "liberal" and "socialist" parties. What both liberalism and socialism shared was the belief in the self-determination of peoples, and in individual human dignity. But they disagreed and continue to disagree on whether this required a republic, what is the "exact" use of the term republic, and to what degree economic liberties should be regulated. This conflict is often described in terms of capitalism versus socialism, and the compromise between democracy and having an herditary head of state would be called constitutional monarchy.

In antiquity

A number of cities of the Levant achieved collective rule. Arwad has been cited as the first known example of a republic, in which the people, rather than a monarch, are described as sovereign. The important politico-philosophical writings of Antiquity that survived the middle ages rarely had any influence on the emergence or strengthening of republics in the time they were written. When Plato wrote the dialogue that later, in English speaking countries, became know as The Republic (a faulty translation from several points of view), Athenian democracy had already been established, and was not influenced by the treatise (if it had, it would have become less republican in a modern understanding). Plato's own experiment with his political principles in Syracuse were a failure. Cicero's De re publica, far from being able to redirect the Roman state to reinforce its republican form of governement, rather reads as a prelude to the Imperial form of government that indeed emerged soon after Cicero's death.

In the renaissance

The emergence of the Renaissance, on the other hand, was marked by the adoption of many of these writings from Antiquity, which led to a more or less coherent view, retroactively termed "classical republicanism". Differences however remained regarding which kind of "mix" in a mixed government type of ideal state would be the most inherently republican. For those republics that emerged after the publication of the Renaissance philosophies regarding republics, like the United Provinces in the Netherlands, it is not always all that clear what role exactly was played by republicanism - among a host of other reasons - that led to the choice for "republic" as form of state ("other reasons" indicated elsewhere in this article: e.g., not finding a suitable candidate as monarch; anti-Catholicism; a middle class striving for political influence).

Enlightenment republicanism

The Enlightenment had brought a new generation of political thinkers, showing that, among other things, political philosophy was in the process of refocussing to political science. This time the influence of the political thinkers, like Locke, on the emergence of republics in America and France soon thereafter was unmistakable: Separation of powers, Separation of church and state, etc were introduced with a certain degree of success in the new republics, along the lines of the major political thinkers of the day. In fact, the Enlightenment had set the standard for republics, as well as in many cases for monarchies, in the next century. The most important principles established by the close of the Enlightenment were the rule of law, the requirement that governments reflect the self-interest of the people that were subject to that law, that governments act in the national interest, in ways which are understandable to the public at large, and that there be some means of self-determination.

Proletarian republicanism

The next major branch in political thinking was pushed forward by Karl Marx, who argued that classes, rather than nationalities, had interests. He argued that governments represented the interests of the dominant class, and that, eventually, the states of his era would be overthrown by those dominated by the rising class of the proletariat. Here again the formation of republics along the line of the new political philosophies followed quickly after the emergence of the philosophies: from the early 20th century on communist type of republics were set up (communist monarchies were at least by name excluded), many of them standing for about a century - but in increasing tension with the states that were more direct heirs of the ideas of the Enlightenment.

Islamic republicanism?

Following decolonialization in the second half of 20th century, the political dimension of the Islam knew a new impulse, leading to several Islamic republics. As far as "Enlightenment" and "communist" principles were sometimes up to a limited level incorporated in these republics, s