IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v106y2012i03p607-621_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competing for Liberty: The Republican Critique of Democracy

Author

Listed:
  • URBINATI, NADIA

Abstract

Freedom as non-domination has acquired a leading status in political science. As a consequence of its success, neo-roman republicanism also has achieved great prominence as the political tradition that delivered it. Yet despite the fact that liberty in the Roman mode was forged not only in direct confrontation with monarchy but against democracy as well, the relationship of republicanism to democracy is the great absentee in the contemporary debate on non-domination. This article brings that relationship back into view in both historical and conceptual terms. It illustrates the misrepresentations of democracy in the Roman tradition and shows how these undergirded the theory of liberty as non-domination as a counter to political equality as a claim to taking part in imperium. In so doing it brings to the fore the “liberty side†of democratic citizenship as the equal rights of all citizens to exercise their political rights, in direct or indirect form.

Suggested Citation

  • Urbinati, Nadia, 2012. "Competing for Liberty: The Republican Critique of Democracy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(3), pages 607-621, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:106:y:2012:i:03:p:607-621_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055412000317/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lawrence R. Jacobs & Judd Choate, 2022. "Democratic Capacity: Election Administration as Bulwark and Target," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 699(1), pages 22-35, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:106:y:2012:i:03:p:607-621_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.