Unit 5 Republicanism PDF

Unit 5. Republicanis m Eze Paez (he/him) [email protected] 1st Term - 2024-2025 Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 2.1. The republican tradition  A note on terminology ‘Republicanism’ is an ambiguous term. It can mean: Me...

Unit 5. Republicanis m Eze Paez (he/him) [email protected] 1st Term - 2024-2025 Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 2.1. The republican tradition  A note on terminology ‘Republicanism’ is an ambiguous term. It can mean: Mere opposition to monarchism; The (changing) ideology of the US Republican Party; ‘Civic’ republicanism: a distinctive This is the one that tradition of thought about freedom and government. matters to us  Civic republicanism as distinctive Liberal tradition: Libertarians: the supreme For Nozick only political value is freedom as freedom as non- non-interference. Only interference freedom matters, and one is free matters for justice to the extent that others (including the government) do not interfere with their choices; For Rawls justice is Liberal egalitarians: the supreme not only about political values are freedom as freedom (as non- non-interference and equality. interference), but Thus, state intervention can be also about the distribution of justified to advance equality in other primary  Civic republicanism as distinctive Republican tradition: Communitarian republicans (Franco- Prussian tradition): the supreme political value is freedom as participation in sovereign self- rule. Citizens are free to the extent Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712- 1778) and that they actively politically Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) are exemplars of the Franco-Prussian tradition. participate and contribute to forming the sovereign will of the The ancient Roman tradition, community. found later in Renaissance Italian city-states, the English Commonwealthmen (17th c.) Civic republicans (Mediterranean- and the American Atlantic tradition): the supreme revolutionaries (18th c.) political value is freedom as non-  201 2 199 7 Philip Pettit (b.1945) 2.2. Freedom as nondomination  Choice Examples A has the capacity to choose, in a certain situation, between Lack of resources: you cannot choose to buy chocolates if they are not available in alternatives X and Y if, and only if: a market you can reach and you do not have the money to purchase them. (i) Each of the alternatives, X and Y, is actually open for choice, Lack of capabilities: you cannot choose to become a international master chess given A’s psychological and player if you do not have the necessary physical capabilities, the skills. resources at their disposal, and Natural restriction: you cannot choose to the features of A’s natural and go to your mountain cabin if a snowstorm social environment; has made travel impossible. Social restriction: you cannot choose to run for President of the Republic in a (ii) A knows that each of the constitutional monarchy. alternatives, X and Y, is open for  Interference (i) We say B interferes with A’s choice Examples between alternatives X and Y, in a certain situation if: Removal: A buys some chocolates to self-indulge after work. While A is (i) B removes any of the options, X distracted, their roommate, B, hides or Y, that were open for choice, the chocolates in a locked drawer and making it impossible for A to hides the key. choose them; Worsening: A and B belong to the same research team. After A makes a scientific breakthrough, B tells them (ii) B worsens any of the options, that, unless A allows B to take sole attaching a penalty to it in case A credit for it, they will tell everyone about A’s gambling and drug opts for it (e.g., threat, blackmail); addiction. Manipulation: A has all the raw skills (iii) B manipulates A into believing to become a master chess player, but  Interference (ii) Let’s represent A’s choice in this way: ChA {X, Y} Let’s say that, given A’s aims, their preferred choice would have been X. B interferes by removing X: Ch’A {Y} B interferes by worsening X: Ch’’A {X-with- a-penalty, Y} B interferes by manipulating A: A believes that {X,Y} has become either {Y} or {X- with-a-penalty, Y} Thus, after interference, A’s choice has been replaced (in actuality or in appearance) with a more restricted one, not by impersonal social or natural forces, but by B’s agency.  Freedom of choice as non-interference A is free to choose, in a certain situation, between alternatives X and Y if, and only if: (i) A has the capacity to choose, in that situation, between X and Y ; (ii) No other agent, B, interferes with A’s choice, whether Possible World 1: A opts B does not interfere it is X or Y. A enjoys for X with A freedom as non- interference in ChA {X, Y} Possible World 2: A opts B does not interfere for Y with A  Freedom of choice as non-interference Possible World 1: A opts B interferes A lacks for X with A freedom as non- interference in ChA {X, Y} Possible World 2: A opts B does not interferes for Y with A Possible World 1: A opts B does not interfere for X with A A lacks freedom as non- interference in ChA {X, Y} Possible World 2: A opts B interferes for Y with A  The main republican idea According to freedom as non-interference your are free in a choice if nobody will actually interfere with that choice, no matter what you choose. Republicans believe this does not capture the ideal of freedom: being masters of our choices, not being subjected to another’s arbitrary will. Consider: Unfreedom without interference Freedom with interference Nora is married to Thorvald, who, according Alba is particularly obsessed with a to Danish law, can exercise complete videogame. She knows she has to study for control over her life. Nevertheless, Thorvald her finals, but she is worried she might happens to be a very loving and caring binge play instead. She asks her flatmate husband and gives Nora free rein to do as Neva to hide the controllers under lock and she pleases (from A Doll’s House by Henrik key until after her finals.  Domination (i) Domination: A is dominated by B over a choice to the extent that B has the capacity of uncontrolled interference with that choice. B has the capacity of uncontrolled interference with A’s choice to the extent that, (i) B has the capacity to interfere with A’s choice; (ii) B can interfere at will, that is, with little or no cost ex ante (no expectation of effective restrictions, including A’s resistance); (iii) B can interfere with impunity, that is with little or no  Domination (ii) Domination is being subjected to another’s arbitrary will: even when they let you choose as you decide, it is only because they happen to wish so. The master-slave relationship is the classic instance of domination. There are others: The relation between the ruling class and the governed in a non-democratic society; The subjection of women to men in a patriarchal society; The subjection of illegal migrants to the whims of the police and employers; The relationship between workers and their employers in companies not organised as workers’ cooperatives;  Domination (iii) B’s capacity of uncontrolled interference with A’s choice, between X or Examples Y, can manifest as: (i) Interference: B actually interferes Interference: B’s preferred choice for A is Y. To that end, he proceeds to with A’s choice, X or Y, by removing or remove X, worsen X or manipulate A worsening an option, or through into choosing Y. manipulation; Intimidation: B’s preferred choice for A is Y. She tells A that much, and (ii) Intimidation: B makes A aware of promptly reminds them that they are their capacity to interfere at will and with under B’s control. However A impunity with A’s choice between X and chooses, it will only be because B allows it. Y; Invigilation: B’s preferred choice for A is Y. If that happens to be A’s choice, (iii) Invigilation: B monitors A’s choice B will do nothing. Otherwise, B will  Freedom of choice as nondomination A is free to choose, in a certain situation, between alternatives X and Y if, and only if: (i) A has the capacity to choose, in that situation, between X and Y ; (ii) No other agent, B, has the capacity of uncontrolled interference with A’s choice, whether itB is wants X ortoY. interfere with A, but Possible World 1: A opts B cannot A enjoys for X B does not want to to interfere freedom as with A, and B cannot nondomination in ChA {X, Y} B wants to interfere with A, but Possible World 2: A opts B cannot for Y B does not want to to interfere with A, and B cannot  Freedom of choice as non-domination B can interfere, wants to, and Possible World 1: A opts does for X A lacks B can interfere, but does not freedom as want to nondomination in ChA {X, Y} Possible World 2: A opts B can interfere, but does not for Y want to Possible World 1: A opts B can interfere, but does not for X want to A lacks freedom as nondomination B can interfere, wants to, in ChA {X, Y} and does Possible World 2: A opts for Y B can interfere, but does not  Freedom as nondomination (i) Freedom as nondomination (in a choice): an agent is free in a choice to the extent that she is immune from domination by other agents in that choice. This entails that: (a) Uncontrolled non-interference is insufficient for freedom: we suffer domination over a choice by another agent if that agent has the power to interfere with our choice, even if they decide not to; (b) Controlled interference is compatible with freedom: we do not suffer domination over a choice, even if another agent interferes with that choice, in case that interference  Freedom as nondomination (ii) Two evils of domination: (a) Primary evil – Lack of control: it is inherent to the fact of being subject to an alien will. Dominated choices proceed according to the terms set up by another, not on our terms; (b) Secondary evil – Psychological effects of the awareness of domination: it is contingent on the fact of being aware that one is subject to another agent’s will: We censure ourselves, choosing as we predict the agent with mastery over us would like us to choose; We try to ingratiate our master, keep them sweet, in the hope that they will allow us to choose as we please.  The free person What does it take to be free (immune to domination) not in a single choice, but over all our lives, as a person, as a status we enjoy? Freedom as nondomination (as a status): Being a free person consists in Enjoying immunity from both private and public domination Over a set of choices known as the fundamental liberties  The fundamental liberties These are the basic capabilities that a member of a society needs to be able to exercise in order to successfully navigate society on equal terms with others. The specificity of the set of choices will vary with technological, social and cultural differences, but will at least include: Freedom of speech Freedom of conscience Freedom of association Property rights Freedom to change employment Freedom to move location  The fundamental liberties To stand on equal terms with others, individuals must be immune from domination in these basic capabilities. That requires: Public resourcing: the resources necessary for the exercise of these capabilities are guaranteed by the community, and do not depend on any particular individual’s will; Public protection: their exercise is protected by The iron hand of the law: the objective safeguards of law, with the common awareness by all that you enjoy these safeguards; 2.2. Justice: the remedy to private domination  Republican Justice Justice consists in the eradication of all sources of private domination (dominium). Republican approach: the establishment of public institutions (the state) that have the goal of ensuring equal freedom as nondomination for all citizens. In particular the state must: - Define the set of fundamental liberties; - Provide citizens with the resources necessary for their exercise; - Furnish citizens with the protections necessary for exercising them.  Justice: Resourcing (i) First, the state must provide the material and institutional infrastructure necessary to sustain the exercise of the fundamental liberties. Material infrastructure: secure borders, good means of transport and communication, adequate public spaces, suitable environmental regulation, etc. Institutional infrastructure: sound legal order, accessible education and training, rules necessary for a flourishing economy. Thus, state regulation and taxation is essential for (not inimical to) the creation of the right civic and economic order.  Justice: Resourcing (ii) Second, the state must provide social insurance (safety net) to protect individuals and communities against various forms of vulnerability, including poverty and illness. What does this require? It can be arranged as a public health care system and a system of public insurances; but it can also consist in guaranteeing equal access to private insurance for all; It must guarantee that vulnerable individuals never depend on private philanthropy, since it is a  Justice: Protecting (i) The state must equally immunise all citizens against the interference of others in their fundamental liberties. Special protections for those in a social position that renders them vulnerable to others, like: their spouses; employers; creditors; the sexual, cultural, or religious mainstream; powerful corporations. General protection of all against crime. Crime must be defined and punished so as to protect the fundamental liberties; the police and the courts must be designed to prevent them from becoming a source of domination.  Justice: How demanding is it? What is the degree of resourcing and protection that republican justice requires? Answer: The Eyeball Test: the level of resourcing and protection required is the one that, according to the most demanding criteria of that society, enables people to look one another in the eye, without reason for the fear or deference that a power of interference might inspire. Justice requires equal immunity to private domination. This may allow some inequalities of resources and protection, but never the extreme inequalities of wealth that grant uncontrolled power over others. We cannot be free while there are private individuals as rich as Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos. 2.3. Democracy: the remedy to public domination But we cannot be free either under authoritarian institutions and leaders such as Xi Jinping & the CCP, Vladimir Putin, or Donald Trump.  Republican Democracy We set up the state to protect us against private domination (dominium). How do we protect ourselves against the public domination (imperium) of the state itself? Democracy: the remedy against public domination consists in that all citizens (the demos) share equally in their control over (kratos) the sate. In a democracy state interference does not constitute domination, because it is under the shared control of the citizenry. A system of popular influence (i) In republican terms, a democracy - Is not a system that allows for the occasional influence of people’s interests through elections; - Is not a system that allows for the influence of one group or another at different times, depending on who comes out on top in the electoral competition; - It is a system that guarantees that the publicly avowable interests of citizens exercise long- A system of popular influence (ii) Publicly avowable interests: the considerations and standards that individuals cannot discard as irrelevant to deciding about the common good, if they are ready to treat others as equal. Thus, in the system of equally shared control envisaged, institutions must guarantee that Citizens have equal chance to present what they see as publicly avowable interest in the decision- making process, as well as to contest policy on the basis of those interests So that the considerations that survive this process effectively direct, over time, in the long run, the  A mixed constitution The system of equally shared control will have the features of a mixed Electoral constitution. institutions: institutions with representatives responsive to the interests of all citizens thanks to the electoral system. Three problems: Permanent social majorities that may oppress permanent minorities Party interest determining state policy Lobbing by the rich and powerful that dictate state policy Regulatory & contestatory institutions: nonelectoral institutions that guard against the three aforementioned problems Nonelected agencies like the judicial system, public attorneys, electoral commission, statistical agency, central bank, etc; Rule of law, separation of powers, entrenched constitutional and legal protections of minorities An engaged citizenry: individual citizens and social movements engaged in politics, exercising eternal vigilance over all the above institutions. Democracy: How demanding is it? What degree of equally shared control is sufficient for republican freedom? Answer: The Tough Luck Test: the level of equally shared control required is the one that would allow you to think with any public initiative or policy, however unwelcome, that it was just tough luck that the decision reached was against your interests; it was not the Thus, imposition we recogniseofthat, an alien, evenmalign thoughwill. the policy was bad for us, there were good reasons for it as presented in an acceptable decision-making process. 2.4. The civic virtues  The role of virtue Consider: Public institutions are the remedy to private domination; Democracy is the remedy to the threat of public domination posed by public institutions; An engaged citizenry is necessary for a functioning democracy. Unlike libertarianism or liberal-egalitarianism, Virtue: by republicanism ‘virtue’ insists that we simply mean a virtuous a is citizenry disposition essential to act freedom. for sustaining in certain ways, even in difficult circumstances, that we consider to be valuable or good.  Th civic virtues (i) The civic virtues are, then, citizens’ dispositions to engage politically, even in difficult circumstances, for the sake of justice (against private domination) and democracy (against public domination). For civic republicanism (Mediterranean-Atlantic tradition), political participation (and the virtues) is simply an instrument to secure freedom. For communitarian republicanism (Franco-Prussian tradition), political participation (and the virtues) are the essence of freedom.  The civic virtues (ii) Some examples of civic virtues: Having an interest in politics and staying informed; Acknowledging the value of formal and informal democratic standards and rules, and internalising them; Recognising politics as a noble enterprise, in which all must share, in pursuit of the common good; Willingness to engage in institutional politics; Willingness to pursue the common good by other means, participating in social movements; Embracing the main republican values of freedom as nondomination, justice, and democracy, as well as the derived values of the rule of law, rigorous and honest debate, or civic respect.  The civic virtues (iii) Given that it is necessary for citizens to develop civic virtues, the question is then whether the state should promote them, and, if so, how. Possibilities: Education in civic values: strengthen public education, more intervention in private education; Promote associationism and participation in social movements; Compulsory vote; Mechanisms for virtue signalling: adequate selection procedures for public officials and penalties for corrupt ones;  Unit 5. Republicanis m Eze Paez (he/him) [email protected] 1st Term - 2024-2025 Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43