Towards a republic
“But suppose you are preaching from a text that says nothing about Christ? … Then I will go over hedge and ditch until I get to Him” – Anonymous
Ancient Greek thought has shaped much of our thinking and the area of politics is no exception. Much of the confusion surrounding the concept of republicanism can be traced to the writings of Plato and Aristotle. In “The Republic”, Plato’s ideal republic consisted of three distinct groups: a commercial class formed by those dominated by their appetites; a spirited class, administrators and soldiers, responsible for the execution of the laws; and the guardians or philosopher-kings, who would be the lawmakers. Because Plato entrusted the guardians with the responsibility for maintaining a harmonious state, republicanism is often associated with goals established by a small segment of the community presumed to have a special insight into what constitutes the common good.
In “Politics”, Aristotle provided another republican concept, one that is prevalent in most of the Western world. Aristotle categorized governments on the basis of who rules: the one, the few, or the many. Most relevant to republicanism in the West, is Aristotle’s distinction between democracy: the perverted form of rule by the many, and its opposite “polity”, the good form. He believed that democracies were bound to experience turbulence and instability because the poor, who he assumed would be the majority in democracies, would seek an economic and social equality that would stifle individual initiative and enterprise. In contrast, “polity”, with a middle class capable of justly adjudicating conflicts between the rich and poor, would allow for rule by the many without the problems and chaos associated with democratic regimes.
Fast forward to the Russian Revolutions of 1917 when a new chapter in the history of republicanism was beginning. The development of the Soviet Union into a one-party totalitarian state once again demonstrated that republic and democracy are not necessarily synonymous. This became even more obvious after World War II, when all the republics of Eastern Europe were similarly fashioned after the Soviet Union’s model of one-party “people’s republics”.
Of the new republics that have come into being since World War II, most have displayed an unmistakable trend away from democratic ideals and instead assumed the nature of oligarchies, single-party states, or military dictatorships (pick your poison). In the last quarter of the 20th century, about three-fourths of the nations in the world deemed themselves republics, yet very few could be described as democracies.
Ancient Greek thought has shaped much of our thinking and the area of politics is no exception. Much of the confusion surrounding the concept of republicanism can be traced to the writings of Plato and Aristotle. In “The Republic”, Plato’s ideal republic consisted of three distinct groups: a commercial class formed by those dominated by their appetites; a spirited class, administrators and soldiers, responsible for the execution of the laws; and the guardians or philosopher-kings, who would be the lawmakers. Because Plato entrusted the guardians with the responsibility for maintaining a harmonious state, republicanism is often associated with goals established by a small segment of the community presumed to have a special insight into what constitutes the common good.
In “Politics”, Aristotle provided another republican concept, one that is prevalent in most of the Western world. Aristotle categorized governments on the basis of who rules: the one, the few, or the many. Most relevant to republicanism in the West, is Aristotle’s distinction between democracy: the perverted form of rule by the many, and its opposite “polity”, the good form. He believed that democracies were bound to experience turbulence and instability because the poor, who he assumed would be the majority in democracies, would seek an economic and social equality that would stifle individual initiative and enterprise. In contrast, “polity”, with a middle class capable of justly adjudicating conflicts between the rich and poor, would allow for rule by the many without the problems and chaos associated with democratic regimes.
Fast forward to the Russian Revolutions of 1917 when a new chapter in the history of republicanism was beginning. The development of the Soviet Union into a one-party totalitarian state once again demonstrated that republic and democracy are not necessarily synonymous. This became even more obvious after World War II, when all the republics of Eastern Europe were similarly fashioned after the Soviet Union’s model of one-party “people’s republics”.
Of the new republics that have come into being since World War II, most have displayed an unmistakable trend away from democratic ideals and instead assumed the nature of oligarchies, single-party states, or military dictatorships (pick your poison). In the last quarter of the 20th century, about three-fourths of the nations in the world deemed themselves republics, yet very few could be described as democracies.
Around 605 B.C. marks a very important part of human history. It was around this time that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah and it was the start of a period of four successive dominant world empires: the Babylon empire, followed by the Medo-Persian empire, followed by the Grecian empire and of course the Roman empire. The Bible (specifically the book of Daniel) is clear that there would have been four such empires, followed by a final one built on the last empire (a revived Roman empire). Now unless you have been under a rock, it should be obvious that she is in the process of being (re)built. Once she is up and running, the second coming is inevitable. So take heed of the Lord’s words: “So keep on watching, because you don’t know on what day your Lord is coming. So you, too, must be ready, because at an hour you are not expecting him the Son of Man will come.” (Matthew 24:42, 44)
