Should Republican Liberty as Non-Domination Be Outsourced?

Abstract

Politics, along with economic and cultural ideals and institutions, seem no longer bound by the traditional borders of the nation-state. As a result, many individuals have become increasingly exposed to forms of interference and potential instances of domination that arise from sources both of domestic and foreign origin, but which they have no capability to counter. In response to this challenge, many republican writers have turned to cosmopolitan thinking to chart a way forward. These moves, however, cut against conventional wisdom that holds that since republicanism is primarily rooted in the past and tied to the existence of classical notions of sovereignty, construction of a contemporary and relevant version of it in this way of thinking may prove difficult. This raises two related questions. First, is it really possible to detach republican ideals and institutions from the nation-state and think of them in a global context? If it is possible, then the second question focuses on whether or not moving to a more globally oriented republican political theory is an attractive and positive move forward and one likely to result in a decrease in the amount of arbitrary interference an individual experiences? In critically engaging with these two questions, I will argue that while it might be possible to develop and extend republicanism in a cosmopolitan direction, at least presently it may be prove to be counter-productive. This is because by vesting republicanism’s central concern with minimizing domination in a world republic or in some kind of transnational political institution(s), arbitrary interference may well increase due to the difficulties in controlling and checking the power of these kinds of agencies. Instead, I argue that to better guard against arbitrary interference, democratic citizens must first be able to utilize the institutional and political mechanisms closest to them – those found within their nation-state – to fight back against domination. To be sure, I do not argue that real and meaningful republican cosmopolitan transnational political institutions cannot ever develop or that we should necessarily dismiss them because they have not developed yet. Rather my argument is that before we outsource the task of minimizing domination to transnational institutions that reside far from the everyday lives of individuals, we must not forget that currently the only place where genuine democracy takes place is at the nation-state level. Thus, republicans must first continue to argue for the development of properly constituted institutions and ideals that serve the cause of republican liberty in a domestic political context while finding a way to extend these into transnational institutions before we can hope that domination of any origin will be effectively minimized.