Szilárd János Tóth

Over the past decade, there has been much debate on whether republican theory lends support to maintaining the state system, or to creating stronger global political integration instead. In this paper, I argue that parties to the debate put too much emphasis on the implications of the key republican ideal, non-domination, and grossly underappreciate the inherent status quo bias of republican thought, taken more holistically. Republicans have traditionally believed—and many continue to believe—that the sustainability of free institutions depends on how virtuous and patriotic citizens are. The idea produces (unconsidered) status quo bias for three reasons. First, it necessitates a preference for institutions that fare well at virtue cultivation over others that have no such pedigree yet. Secondly, it necessitates a preference for the locally dominant form of community solidarity in the given historical context. Traditionally, it was believed that the only form of community solidarity that lives up to republican criteria is allegiance to cities; I submit that today, it is allegiance to states. Thirdly, the idea has the further effect of making republicanism a poor theory for cosmopolitan transition. Republicans need cosmopolitan identification to at least begin to outweigh allegiance to states before they can coherently support stronger global political integration.

A number of recent articles have invoked the republican ideal of non-domination to justify either open borders, and/or the reduction of states’ discretionary powers to unilaterally determine immigration policy. In this paper, I show that such arguments are one-sided, as they fail to fully account for the deep ambiguity of the very ideal which they invoke. In fact, non-domination lends just as powerful support to maintaining state border controls as it does to dismantling them. There are only two exceptions to the rule. It is well established that promoting non-domination demands, one the one hand, that refugees be admitted, and second, that all migrants have a right to contest decisions concerning their own admission. But aside from these things, the policy implications of the ideal are unclear. In itself, therefore, it is insufficient to justify either open borders, or the reduction of states said discretionary powers. Such arguments will have to rely on other, additional moral criteria.

This article is a review of the contemporary ‘leftist’ republican project. The project stands on two legs, and we examine them both in turn. The first leg is a novel reading of history. This reading suggests, on the one hand that, contrary to some popular assumptions, republicanism does have a leftist, even a radical stream. But on the other hand, it also suggests that several authors and movements that did not self-identify as republicans actually did, in fact, employ a characteristically republican thinking. The second leg of the project is a normative one. It is essentially an attempt by political philosophers to demonstrate that there is something in republican theory from which all these leftist, even radical streams spring forth. Primarily, it is suggested that it is republicanism’s sensitivity to the freedom-restricting role of great inequalities of power that provides the normative resource for the development of a characteristically republican critique of capital and capitalism. We briefly review the main arguments in favor of these claims, and also, as a conclusion, raise a few challenges that the ‘leftist’ republican project potentially faces.

Az alábbi tanulmány a Jugoszláv Kommunisták Szövetségének (JKSZ) nemzetiségi doktrínájáról és politikájáról, valamint a JKSZ egyik prominens vajdasági magyar teoretikusának, Rehák Lászlónak az idevágó írásairól szól. Rehák Lenin és Kardelj nyomán magyarázza a nemzetiségi kérdés összefüggését a gazdasággal. Habár a munkáiban nincs nyílt kritika az alkotmányos renddel és a politikával szemben, amellett érvelek, hogy ha összeszedjük az elszórt és valamicskét burkolt kritikai megjegyzéseit, világos, hogy elég jól látta a rezsim hibáit és igazságtalanságait.

My paper is on the republican version of patriotism and its justification, as developed most systematically by Philip Pettit and Maurizio Viroli. The essence of the justification is as follows: patriotism is to be viewed as valuable insofar as it is an indispensable instrument for the upholding of the central republican ideal, namely freedom understood as non-domination. My primary aim is to evaluate the normative force of this justification. In the first section, I introduce minimal descriptive definitions of the concepts of patriotism and the patria. Second, I reconstruct the republican patria-ideal to which patriotism is linked to. In the third section, I reconstruct the republican justification of patriotism. Finally, I ask what we justify when we justify republican patriotism. Two views are prevalent in this regard. According to the first, republican patriotic motivation, similarly to its justification, ought to be instrumental itself too. I argue that this view is untenable, since it is in tension with the minimal definition of patriotism. The conclusion is that the other view – according to which the patriotic motivation ought to be of intrinsic character – possesses greater normative force.