Home / Reviving Mazzinianism / Republicanism

Republicanism

Written by David Tait | Last Updated on July 3, 2026

Guiseppe Mazzini’s republicanism was more than just anti-monarchism. Fitting squarely with the republican tradition from Rome, his political thought was founded on advancing the cause of liberty through civic, popular action. In today’s political scene, democratic republicanism can provide Mazzinianism with the essential vehicle it needs to translate its principles into political reality.

Though Mazzinianism as a doctrine has its own conceptions of politics, society, and economics, the vehicle for those conceptions is well in line with the civic republican tradition. While today the term republicanism is usually associated solely with anti-monarchism, it has historically had a much broader meaning, representing a tradition of political thought distinct from that of liberalism, socialism, and conservatism. Republicanism in this broader sense is of an ancient lineage, descended from the political philosophy and practice that emerged during the Roman Republic, and has influenced major political events, including the American and French Revolutions in the late 1700s.

This tradition of republicanism—often referred to as “classical” or “civic” republicanism—centers around a distinct conception of liberty from that of liberalism, and emphasizes the need for citizens to be engaged in political life in order to preserve their liberty. Republicans argue that citizens practicing civic virtues and vehemently contesting power structures is vital for maintaining the freedom of the polity and thus for each individual that makes it up. This republican conception of freedom is not merely the need for people not to interfere in your life, but requires a system of laws to prevent domination of any kind.

This republican tradition, unfortunately, has no mainstream movement or party, despite it being a strong alternative to other existing political philosophies. Given the general success of liberalism over the last two centuries, the need for a republican alternative has not been obvious, and the movement had mostly diminished by the beginning of the 1800s. However, given the general crisis of liberalism and the movement of politics toward arguments about belonging, republicanism provides a strong foundation for a response to modern-day problems.

Coupled with Mazzinian political thought, republicanism fused with a strong democratic and internationalist conception is ripe to take over from liberalism as a dominant force in the political world to come.

Table of Contents ▼

    Key Ideas of Republicanism

    • Liberty as Non-Domination
      Freedom is not simply being left alone by the state, but achieving structural independence from the arbitrary will and power of any master.

    • Active Civic Participation
      Meaningful self-government requires citizens to be active agents who continuously mobilize and contest power, rather than passive consumers of public policy.

    • The Encumbered Citizen
      Individuals are born into pre-existing moral and historical ties, with their specific nationality clarifying their universal duties toward the rest of humanity.

    • Internationalist Solidarity
      The struggle for liberty is universal, demanding active support for democratic self-rule abroad and strict opposition to all forms of imperialism and tyranny.

    • Pursuit of the Common Good
      A moral society transcends the pursuit of private ambitions, prioritizing civic virtues that actively cultivate the shared welfare of the political community.

    Introducing Republicanism

    Since the 19th century, liberalism has been the dominant political idea for most Western societies, as well as beyond. Whether this liberal idea has taken the form of classical liberalism, social democracy, or some other hybrid, the general principle has remained consistent that the individual—either endowed by nature, God, or otherwise—has a set of rights that are inviolable. According to these doctrines, a moral society is one that avoids interference in the lives of its individual members and holds that principle as socially axiomatic. Consequently, the structures of our governments, our economic policies, and our attitude to how individuals ought to live their lives have been influenced by these principles and continue to inform our views to this day.

    However, liberalism itself emerged out of the fading of another tradition of political thought that conceived liberty and the role of individuals in society quite differently: republicanism. Rather than the passive and laissez-faire approach of liberalism, republicans envisioned a society that was active and participatory, and that the preservation of liberty was not for a government to simply leave us alone, but for individual citizens to contest and engage with political life in order to hold all power to account.

    Brief History of Republicanism

    Though today we understand republicanism to be synonymous with anti-monarchism, it also possesses a much broader definition that forwards a distinct political philosophy. Originally emerging in the Roman Republic, this form of civic republicanism was particularly defined by the master vs. slave distinction that was made in Roman law. For the Romans, to be a master or a free person (liber or civus) was to live according to their own self-rule (sui iuris) and to not be subject to any one else’s arbitrary will (Pettit, 1999). This was contrasted to the status of a slave (servus) whose definition essentially rested upon them living “within the power of another person” (Skinner, 1998). Therefore, for the Roman republicans, the idea of liberty (libertas) was one in which an individual was free of non-arbitrary interference, that is, that they were free, not just in the liberal sense to make their own decisions, but were also free from the arbitrary whim of another individual. For the Romans, you were still a slave, even if you lived in the power of a “kindly master”; the sheer fact that that kindliness could turn to tyranny was evidence of a condition of slavery. Renowned writers and politicians such as Cicero, Sallust and Seneca are regarded as important Roman republican thinkers who developed civil ideas along these principles.

    After it was thrust into the history books by the transformation of the Roman Republic into an Empire, and that Empire’s subsequent collapse, republicanism experienced a revival in the independent city-republics of Northern Italy and during the Renaissance with the works of Niccolò Machiavelli. Machiavelli, particularly in his Discourse on Livy, reasserted the importance of popular engagement in politics and the need for the people to rise up in tumult against unjust laws and tyranny to protect their liberty, arguing:

    “The people makes lesser errors than the prince, and because of this can be trusted more than the prince.” [1]

    This revival of republicanism later found succor in the English Revolution and the execution of Charles I, with predominant thinkers such as James Harrington and John Milton writing foundational republican texts against the tyrannical rule of kings and the right to oppose them (Milton) and how economics contribute to how free a citizen is (Harrington). These republican ideals became known as “neo-Roman” and imbibed the ancient republican ideals of Rome with the universalism in Christianity (especially in Milton). This English Commonwealth tradition later influenced the republican movements in both America and France in the late 19th century, who each developed republicanism in distinct directions. The traditional “check and balances” and mixed constitution approach was followed in the United States, while the more Rousseauvian, communitarian approach was adopted in France. Both these forms of republicanism, however, were infused with a strong element of liberalism and both ended up being more liberal in their character than purely neo-Roman republicanism.

    By the turn of the 19th century, republicanism as a political doctrine began to lose out to liberalism and socialism, both of which were gaining ground in revolutionary circles in Europe and made ancient republican ideals look obsolete. While it made a last stand in the form of “labor republicanism” toward the end of the 19th century [2], republicanism as a distinct movement faded and was reduced to its narrow, anti-monarchist interpretation as it has remained since the early 1900s.

    Since the 1970s, however, there have been a number of works that have attempted to recover and revive the republican tradition. Starting particularly with J.G.A. Pocock’s The Machiavellian Moment in 1975 and Quentin Skinner’s The Foundations of Modern Political Thought in 1978. In the 1990s, more works reviving republican ideals were published, such as Michael J. Sandel’s Democracy's Discontent in 1996, Phillip Pettit’s Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, and then with Skinner again in 1998 with his Liberty before Liberalism. These works are sometimes referred to as “neorepublicanism” though not all these authors embrace this term.

    Republicanism today is still a small academic movement. However, with the failures of liberalism becoming more evident and the growth of postliberal conservatism and communitarian movements, republicanism in a modernized form provides a strong alternative that does not require us to go backward on the progress that liberal politics has undoubtedly achieved. In fact, with the right conception behind it, republicanism today could be well positioned to make a comeback, especially in a democratic and internationalist conception which it has never quite achieved before.

    Overview of Republican Principles

    Republicanism is centered around several main principles. These principles have been developed from the ancient Roman tradition all the way through to modern republican thought. While not all republicans follow all of these principles and many will adopt others, these are the ones that generally form the republican tradition as defining. These are also the ones most relevant to Mazzinian thought:

    • The Common Good: Republican politics aims to pursue the shared welfare of the community rather than broker competing private interests. True democratic deliberation transcends factional preferences, ensuring laws reflect the public good instead of the arbitrary will of the powerful.

    • The Encumbered Self: Owed to the work of Michael J. Sandel, the “encumbered self” was his response to John Rawls’s idea of the “unencumbered self”. In contrast to liberal individualism, republicanism views citizens as “encumbered selves” claimed by prior moral and historical ties. Acknowledging these pre-existing communal attachments is essential for cultivating the deep civic engagement required to sustain self-government. The encumbered self is not endorsed by all republicans, but is extremely relevant to the Mazzinian conception of nationality and duties.

    • Liberty as Non-Domination: Developed particularly in the works of Phillip Pettit and Quentin Skinner, freedom is defined strictly in opposition to slavery. It requires the absence of arbitrary mastery, because even a benevolent master destroys freedom by retaining the capacity to interfere, and therefore true citizens must live structurally independent of another’s arbitrary will. This means republicans are skeptical of both public and private power.

    • Civic Virtue: Because power is inherently corruptible, maintaining a republic requires citizens to exercise active, motivated virtue. This demands prioritizing the public good over private ambition and maintaining an eternally vigilant, contestatory spirit to check abuses of power. Civic virtues were, of course, the main subject of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and Cicero’s On Moral Duties, and also developed by Machiavelli. Civic virtues are directly related to the Mazzinian conception of duties.

    • Participation: Meaningful self-government requires citizens to be active agents sharing in political authorship, not just passive consumers of policy. An engaged citizenry must continually mobilize and contest government actions to hold power accountable and master their collective destiny. Participation is central to a republican conception of democracy which holds that active engagement in politics beyond just voting is vital for protecting freedom.

    • Against Wage Slavery: Permanent wage labor under industrial capitalism constitutes a form of structural domination. Because workers must rely entirely on the arbitrary will and mercy of employers for their survival, they are denied the material and economic independence essential for true citizenship. To secure liberty, republicans advocate for dismantling this economic vulnerability, often demanding workplace democracy or cooperative ownership so that citizens are not reduced to subjects within corporate hierarchies.

    • Anti-Corruption: Republicans warn that extreme wealth and power inevitably corrupt institutions, as economic dependence suffocates civic independence. To prevent this, the republic must regulate corporate power and prevent moneyed aristocracies from capturing the state for self-interested factions.

    • Empire of Laws: To prevent the state from becoming a dominating master, the republic must operate as an “empire of laws and not of men”. This requires constitutional constraints, like the separation of powers, that disperse authority and strictly bind officials to established rules.

    Liberalism vs. Republicanism

    Liberalism and republicanism have two very different conceptions of liberty and government. Given that we live in a world where liberalism as a political idea “won” against republican conceptions, the differences between them are a good starting point for understanding the republican framework, particularly when it comes to thinking about liberty.

    The liberal tradition is centered around the idea of individual rights. We, by nature of us being human, have rights and individual sovereignty to decide on how we live our lives. Therefore, for there to be liberty, we should be free as long as no one is physically or legally coercing us or actively blocking our personal choices. In other words, freedom is essentially being left alone—a definition of negative liberty first introduced by Thomas Hobbes in The Leviathan to argue that all laws are a restriction on freedom (and formalized by Isaiah Berlin with his positive vs. negative liberty dichotomy) [3]. In this liberal tradition, an absolute or dictatorial ruler can theoretically still leave you free, provided they respect your individual rights and choose not to interfere in your private life. Liberty is generally understood simply as non-interference.

    As outlined above, the republican tradition of liberty rejects this liberal notion of freedom as non-interference and argues that true liberty cannot exist if you live at the mercy of someone else's arbitrary power, introducing the concept of freedom as “non-domination”. For the republican, merely being left alone by a benevolent master isn't enough to secure these rights. If a powerful ruler or employer could arbitrarily interfere with your rights at their own discretion, you are reduced to a condition of servitude. The republican framework insists that natural rights are only truly protected when you possess an independent public status, structurally secure from the arbitrary will of any master.

    These different ideas on liberty outline their opposing views on the role of government. Whereas, for the liberal, the idea is that a government should not intervene in our lives and be purely neutral, the republican insists that liberty is the direct consequence of sharing in self-government and cannot survive in a purely neutral state. The state must (and inevitably) intervene in our lives in order to secure our liberty as citizens through balancing out powers with legal protections and contestatory power. Republicanism demands a “formative politics” that actively cultivates civic virtue, and that the state works for the common good.

    It could be argued that, given republicanism’s belief in liberty as non-domination over non-interference, it has a much more realistic approach to how liberty can function as opposed to liberalism’s. Republicanism, in accepting and even requiring the state to intervene, while at the same time requiring that intervention to be non-arbitrary, neutralizes the state’s propensity to dominate with its own need to; it turns the danger into a virtue.

    Anti-Monarchism

    Republican anti-monarchism has often been misinterpreted as an advocacy for a system of government where there is no hereditary head of state. The actual republican position is a little more nuanced. While republicans are strongly opposed to the idea of an absolute monarchy, the principle that informs this is their critique of arbitrary power. In an absolute monarchy, the monarch possesses dominant power over you, which can change on a whim. While in one moment you might have a benevolent ruler who lets you live your life as you see fit, they will also possess the power to change that without any repercussions. This absolutist power to veto at whim is what republicans are opposed to, and not necessarily the institution of a monarchy per se.

    The example that is usually used to illustrate this is the evolution of England from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. The baronial revolt of 1215 against King John’s high taxes and abuse of royal power led to the signing of the Magna Carta, that preserved rights and liberties of nobles, guaranteed the right to due process, and prevented the arbitrary imposition of taxes. However, the most significant feat of the Magna Carta was to establish the principle that no one—not even the king—is above the law. The republican principle of making the monarch subject to a constitution is what really matters, more than having an elected head of state.

    The issue with republicanism’s association purely with anti-monarchism is that it overshadows its genuine principles in favor of superficial changes in the political system. A republican is content when arbitrary power is non-existent, and a monarch, even if not purely ceremonial and with some constitutional power, is restricted by a constitution and by a contestatory spirit from the public. Moving from a hereditary head of state to an elected president doesn’t change anything substantially. That being said, republicans are nevertheless suspicious of constitutional monarchs and regard them as always trying to extend their power somehow. Indeed, this was a suspicion that Mazzini himself deeply held.

    Realism

    One of the advantages that republicanism (as a radical movement) has in its tradition is a profound realist streak. This is owed mostly to Machiavelli, whose pessimistic insights into human nature enabled him to theorize how tyranny and corruption could be countered effectively. This realism gifts republicanism with a shrewd view of human behavior and profound understanding as to how naked power works.

    However, unlike conservatism, republicanism remains an optimistic philosophy simply because it takes these insights as advisory rather than dogmatic. It permits republicanism to develop wise strategies toward countering tyranny—both domestically and in foreign policy—without it devolving into cynicism (something that Mazzini firmly opposed). These strategies can also involve electoral strategies to defeat moderate and extremist parties alike. This realism is perhaps what makes republicanism unique among other radical doctrines and republicans formidable adversaries.

    Economic Stances

    Republican economics stances can often appear contradictory in the modern political paradigm. Republicans, as guided by their principles, tend to arrive at mixed approaches to economic arrangements and favor policies that either maximize non-domination or (in the Mazzinian conception) aid individuals in their duties.

    In many cases, republican economics can look like social democracy, especially those conceptions that follow a more “social contract” stance. This stance favors welfare programs and regulation in order to maximize economic non-domination. Alternatively, there are republicans who favor a more “social covenant” side which argues for a government to cultivate and provide the opportunities for an individual to exercise their liberty in a specific direction. The state does its bit to take on what the individual needs in order to succeed, while the individual does what they need to as their duty to society.

    The Mazzinian view generally prefers the social covenant side of this spectrum, but also regards the maximization of freedom as non-domination in order to achieve it. The government must do its duty, while the individual does theirs.

    Equality

    Republicans, through advocating freedom as non-domination, have a radical conception when it comes to equality. While liberals favor a form of equality that is in the “eyes of the law”, republicans believe that there must be a structural response to dealing with inequalities. In his book Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, Phillip Pettit argues this as a form of “structural egalitarianism” where the intensity of your freedom—your level of protection against arbitrary interference—is determined not just by the powers you possess to defend yourself, but by the powers at the disposal of others. This does not mean that republicans desire material egalitarianism, but that the “power-ratios” are balanced out.

    Pettit’s “eyeball test” is a metric he uses to test how much a state has maximized non-domination. To pass this test, individuals must be sufficiently safeguarded against the arbitrary power of others so that they can “look their fellow citizens in the eye without any objective reason for fear or deference”. When a state adequately entrenches this status, it ensures that no one is forced to rely on the grace, favor, or mercy of a more powerful master, allowing every citizen to "walk tall" and assume a truly equal public and subjective status.

    Civilian Militia

    Classical republican thought has been skeptical toward standing armies given the experience that led to the end of the Roman Republic. The fear is that a standing army, with its allegiance to a general, monarch or leader, holds a perpetual and arbitrary form of domination over a population. The classical republican solution was a form a formally constituted civilian militia that would act in the defense of the polity if attacked.

    In the modern world, the best example of a successful civilian militia is in Switzerland (though there other citizen models in Estonia and Finland). Given the reality of nuclear weapons and the need for a professional military to operate them as well as other weapons, the idea of a civil militia as a modern republican policy is at best fanciful. Therefore, properly constituted armed forces that are subject to a civilian government, as well as the “democratic ethos” is argued to be sufficient to keep the military in check [4].

    The other alternative is to extend the idea of national service to include community service activities as well as military ones so that the military participates in more socially aligned tasks, and that young civilians are more involved with military affairs. This crossover could strengthen the military’s neutrality and help foster a strong bond between different aspects of society. This would also provide for the right training with respect to successfully maintaining a citizen’s right to bear arms.

    Mazzini’s Republican Thought

    Mazzini’s own political thought sits squarely in the republican tradition, though with its own idiosyncrasies. From his famous ire against monarchical despots to his firm belief in civic, popular action, Mazzini was one of the firmest adherents to the republican cause. His rejection of both liberalism and communism came from a definitively republican angle and it was his hope to see Italy united under a republican government (which he never lived to see).

    Nevertheless, Mazzini’s republicanism also deviated significantly from other republican and radical movements that came before him and that were around during his lifetime. While his republicanism was unambiguously revolutionary, he strongly rejected the materialist radicalism that emerged in France and was severely critical of characters such as Maximilien Robespierre for the violence during the Reign of Terror [5]. Mazzini also rejected the French Jacobin approach to republicanism for its sectarianism [6].

    Mazzini’s republicanism also deviated from the modern, neorepublican forms expressed in academia. Mazzini’s republicanism was opposed to the idea of liberty as an ends for society—whether in its liberal conception as non-interference or  in its Neo-Roman conception as non-domination. Liberty for Mazzini was a means towards the greater ends which were duties to humanity. Though he would have likely leant toward the Neo-Roman view of freedom, this view stops at the same place that the liberal view of freedom stops, leaving the exercise of that freedom as the discretion of the individual in question. For Mazzini, this was not the purpose of liberty and so he deviates from the Neo-Romans on the question of duties.

    His republicanism was also internationalist, and he strongly supported turning it into a universal movement rather than leaving it as being national or community-based. In fact, this was probably the most unique aspect of his own republican doctrine since neither the radical, national-focused Robespierrianism nor the Neo-Roman theorists are internationalist in the same way. For Mazzini, republicanism was a struggle for all peoples to form their own nations and contribute to humanity, and the end was never the republic in itself, but its duty toward everyone else. Mazzini essentially laid down a truly republican alternative to liberal internationalism.

    Republican Upbringing

    Mazzini was introduced to republican thinking through his upbringing. His father, Giacomo, had been an active participant in the short-lived Ligurian Republic, writing for republican papers and even holding public office in Genoa. Mazzini was brought up in a vibrant republican atmosphere and was surrounded by revolutionary energy, despite the Republic coming under French imperial rule. As he notes in his his Note autobiografiche:

    “I had already been unconsciously educated in the creed of equality by the democratic habits of my two parents and by the identical manners they used with the patrician and with the common people: in an individual they clearly sought and valued not the rank but the honest man. The aspirations to freedom, deeply rooted in my soul, were nourished by memories of a recent period, that of the French republican wars, whose events were often on the lips of my father…” [7]

    While at university, he was renowned for his republican insubordination as well as anti-clericalism. It was also at the university that he experienced his first inspirations of patriotism and formulated his very first practical plans to achieve Italy's "National and Republican Unity”. After university, he joined the secret Carbonaria society, whose aims had been the establishment of a united Italian republic through secret means. Though Mazzini later left the Carbonaria on the ground that he believed that a republican revolution ought to be a popular uprising, rather than behind closed doors, his revolutionary party, Young Italy, carried with it his same republican fervor.

    Mazzini’s most explicit republican ideals were expressed in his party’s journal La Giovine Italia in an essay entitled The Collaborators of Young Italy to their Countrymen:

    “The many causes for which we embraced what the heart dictated,—the empire of a few immutable principles, from which the republican form derives necessary, and inevitable, the impossibility of reconciling a true liberty and the dogma of equality with the monarchical form, deduced by now from the history of half a century,—the thousand delusions and the very recent ineffaceable ones, the difficulties of reducing provincial rivalries to quiet themselves before a single throne, the lack of a man apt by fame, virtue, and genius to direct the Italian regeneration,—the republican memories powerful over our people, the need to convince a people, so many times betrayed and sold, that the men of liberty work truly for it,—the absence of many elements necessary to constitute a monarchy…

    “We chose the republican symbol. — From that principle derive all the differences that stand between us, and those who have preceded us in the political arena.” [8]

    Mazzini Against the Princes

    Mazzini’s absolute rejection of monarchical rule was one of his most consistent positions throughout his life. He regarded monarchy in any form as utterly incompatible with equality or democracy and rejected any form of compromise. His republican commitment against monarchy was so strong that, when Italy was finally unified by the efforts of Count Cavour and Giuseppe Garibaldi under the rule of Victor Emmanuel II, Mazzini refused to participate in it on the principle of it not being a republic.

    Mazzini’s anti-monarchism was anti-tyrannical in principle, and formed the basis of his struggle against despotism in any form. However, he did appreciate the British constitutional system and he regarded Queen Victoria’s non-interventionist rule and her tolerance for liberty of expression in Britain to be an exception to his anti-monarchist principle, believing Britain to be in a transitional phase [9]. Regardless, however, he remained deeply suspicious of concentrated power in a single individual, and disliked the office of the American president system on that same anti-monarchist principle.

    Education

    Mazzini’s fierce belief in the principle of education was one of the main themes of his most famous work, On the Duties of Man. He believed strongly that a progressive society was to be founded on a free and universal education for all citizens in both their national history and their duties. He makes a distinction between education—which he regarded as the civic and moral ideals which a citizen ought to aspire to—and instruction—academic and vocational skills [10].

    Mazzini’s belief in education in this civic sense was perhaps one of his more distinctly republican ideas. Republicanism emphasizes civic education (often called “Civics”) as a fundamental part of the education system, and is often a required class. However, while this civic education in the United States and France typically only involves teaching young citizens of their rights and the functioning of the political system (though both key for the advancement of freedom as non-domination), Mazzini’s idea for education went further.

    For Mazzini, true civic education was to orient individual citizens toward their moral destiny and to consider how to best use their liberty in service to humanity. He argues that true liberty is not “the right to use or abuse your faculties as you may please” but instead “to freely choose the means of doing good, according to your specific tendencies.” This, for Mazzini, was the chief purpose of republican education [11].

    Equality and Unity

    Mazzini’s republicanism was based on a fierce belief in both political equality and unity. He saw the establishment of a republic as the same as the abolition of caste and privilege and forcing all members to join together in their same rights and civic duties [12]. The removal of a single royal family endowed with hereditary rights above the rest of the political community was therefore unacceptable to him and a barrier to the true association he regarded as a prerequisite for equality.

    Mazzini believed that unity provides a superior element of strength over the atomization that was promoted by liberalism. This was particularly where his republicanism justified his strong belief in the moral principle of the nation. For him, a crowd of people could not make a nation unless they are united by common principles, a uniform tendency, and equal laws. The path toward this unity was through a republican form of government.

    Internationalism

    As we have mentioned earlier, where Mazzini differed particularly with mainstream republicans at the time was that his republicanism had a distinctly internationalist and universalist flare. His belief that, though the nation was a pivotal “fulcrum”, the ultimate goal of a republic was not its own self-preservation of liberty, but its own role toward the greater cause of humanity, was no doubt influenced by liberal cosmopolitanism.

    His belief in a universal republican alliance among free peoples to challenge monarchist despots was itself likely an adaptation of Kant’s universal republic and it essentially synthesized the liberal humanitarian instinct in a genuine republican form. This more liberal-universalist influence on his republicanism was also evident in Mazzini’s own early humanitarian interventionism.

    Fostering a Democratic Republicanism

    Republicanism has a set of general principles that we have outline above, but it also comes in many different types. Even within the Neo-Roman tradition, there are differing views between more legalistic republics—which focus on the laws constituted in a way to protect from non-domination—to popular republics—with the focus on citizens actively participating in defending their freedom. Both of these conceptions are valid forms of republicanism.

    Given their emphasis on democracy and their support of the global democracy movement, Mazzinians lean towards a democratic republicanism that seeks to form a democratically accountable system of government with republican policies. Democratic republicanism as a political doctrine sees democracy as the best form of political constitution and within which desires to implement policies that maximize freedom as non-domination and help citizens in their duties. These are two separate principles that create a universal equation: the democratic side to support the political pluralism and the republican side for specific policies.

    Complemented by the philosophical underpinnings of Mazzinianism, democratic republicanism becomes a genuinely internationalist and popular vehicle for Mazzinian ideas to be translated into political reality.

    Why the Democratic Republican Label?

    Mazzini dismissed the democratic republican label in his 1871 essay The Democratic Congress, calling it a “ pleonasm, a useless repetition” [13]. From his perspective, a republic and a democracy were synonymous, and he saw no reason to differentiate between the two ideas. For him, republican was enough to encapsulate the entire republican ethos in its democratic and civic aspirations.

    Today, however, the story is different. While for Mazzini democracy and republic could be widely considered the same, today both these terms have mutually independent meanings that are understood as significantly different. On the one hand, the term democracy does not necessarily entail a republican form of government: there are liberal democracies, constitutional monarchies, social democracies, all which represent legitimate forms of democratic systems. These distinctions were not as clear in Mazzini’s day, where monarchy and democracy were seen as polar opposites.

    On the other hand, there are many who argue—in particular in the United States—that a republic is not the same as a democracy since it is constituted against the abuses of majority rule. Therefore a republic can be conceived in a non-democratic way. Outside of the United States, the terms “republic” and “republicanism” are now, for the most part, exclusively understood as a form of government that lacks a hereditary head of state. To be a republican in most contexts means that you oppose the monarchy and want an elected president, and does not mean that you endorse the classical or civic sense of republicanism. For example, you may be a republican and wish to establish a liberal democracy, despite the clashes between civic republicanism and liberal individualism. If you do want to refer to yourself as a republican in the broader sense, the current convention is to use the prefixes “civic”, “classical”, “neo-“, or “Neo-Roman”.

    The democratic republican label seeks to solve a number of these definitional issues while also presenting the movement as modernized and with a universal applicability. Firstly, by adopting the “democratic” prefix, it avoids the more communitarian connotations of the prefix “civic” and the old-fashionedness of the “classical” one. The democratic ideal, with its focus on participation, voting, separation of powers, and civil liberties, captures the same elements from the “civic” prefix and restates them with a modern framing. Democratic republicanism can also help broaden the movement away from the academic “neorepublicanism” and “Neo-Roman theory” while not rejecting their influence and importance. It provides an openness to a wider range of republican contributions outside of the strictly Neo-Roman theory.

    Secondly, democratic republicanism as a pairing has an aesthetic uniqueness that helps it define itself as a new movement. While describing yourself as just a republican can be easily confused and to describe yourself as a democrat is too wide (that is, which system of democracy do you favor?), describing yourself as a democratic republican is different enough in regular discourse to be considered as distinct to other more commonplace labels, while not being totally alien. It is a helpful, rhetorical shortcut that makes democratic republicanism stand out as its own coherent political philosophy that entails something more. In the United States, there is also the potential advantage (if it doesn’t generate too much confusion) of attempting to heal the political polarization by bridging the divide between the two main parties.

    Thirdly, democratic republicanism captures the internationalist ideal that other forms of republicanism lack. While “civic”, “classical” and “Neo-Roman” are legitimate, they are more narrowly associated with the Western tradition—and specifically the Italian-Atlanticist tradition—than necessarily associated with a global movement. Democratic republicanism, therefore, can take on a universalist character that can appeal to Westerners and non-Westerners alike, remaining open to philosophical contributions. It also avoids, as we indicated above with the “civic” prefix, a communitarian and exclusionary doctrine, in favor of a genuinely internationalist one.

    Democratic republicanism, therefore, can be seen as the modern restatement of the classical republican ideals with true internationalist leanings, and can help these principles emerge out of academia into activist politics.

    Individuals First, Systems Later

    Democratic republicanism naturally leans toward the popular stance than toward the legalistic stance outlined above. Democratic republicanism considers civic participation as the crucial practice to protecting citizens’ freedom and places a strong emphasis on our contestory powers to challenge politicians, institutions, and even majorities to preserve freedom. The view is that while systems can go a lot way to protecting rights and freedoms, these systems are neither infallible nor eternal, and rely on the civic virtue of the citizens that make it up to preserve it. This is in line with Machiavelli’s view that republics are essentially cyclical and that “all things of men are in motion and cannot stay steady; they must either rise or fall” [14].

    Democratic republicans, therefore, are primarily concerned about individual and civic activism before desiring to change a system to reflect republican values. This has two significant advantages. The first is that democratic republicans do not need to wait for legalistic changes in order for them to fulfill their principles: merely participating in already existing democratic processes is enough to comply with democratic republican principles and is not dependent on formal political power. The second advantage is that democratic republicans can exercise their devotion to democratic pluralism through focusing on policy rather than seeking to radically change the political system. This can be of substantial pragmatic benefit, especially in an electoral setting, since the key principle would be to implement republican-aligned policies without being hung up on more divisive constitutional changes. For instance, unless there is a serious need for change, democratic republicanism operating in a constitutional monarchy that is broadly supported, need not adopt a policy of abolition at the detriment of this support or more socially useful policies.

    In undemocratic societies, the same principles of civil participation first applies, though significant consideration ought to be taken toward the risks that are posed to liberty and life. Any democratic revolution must start with a popular uprising first in order to be successful, and this starts with individuals, but since the legal channels that democracies possess do not exist in unfree societies, this is not as simple.

    Matching Republicanism to Democracy

    Democratic republicans are principally devoted to democratic pluralism against any form of authoritarianism. While they have a positive vision of what a republican society ought to look like, democratic republicans believe that democracy is the best political system that allows for their conception of liberty as well as for their other ideas to be implemented. Republican ideas and policies should always have to freely compete with others in a democratic society.

    Republicanism naturally fits well with democracy. Beyond the belief in voting as a mechanism for calculating the national will, republicans also see civil liberties and independent political institutions as fundamental tools for popular control. Civil liberties, such as freedom of speech, of the press, of association, as well as others, are vital for democratic participation and for holding power to account. Political institutions, such as the assembly, judiciary and others, ought to be independent to operate as constitutional safeguards.

    Given that a democratic system can take shape in a variety of forms and with many different voting systems, democratic republicans ought to be broad in their definition when it comes to democracy. While there can be debates regarding which voting system is better or how much representativity constitutes full democracy, these are individual views that all may be legitimately held by different democratic republicans. Concerns over constitutional nuances in present systems can inform democratic republicans in given countries, but overall, where there is a recognizably democratic system, democratic republicans should be satisfied. This even goes for constitutional monarchies that operate as parliamentary democracies: the concern for the republicans isn’t whether there is a monarch, but whether they are restrained a constitution. For democratic republicans, the question is how free and independent these institutions are, regardless of how they personally think they ought to be organized.

    Democratic republicans, however, interpret their civil duties in a more active sense than many liberals might. Almost all democratic systems formally provide channels of democratic participation, but democratic republicans should use them actively, even outside of normal party politics. For this reason, democratic republicans should be politically active to oppose abuses of power and corruption in whatever way they can, and should use the full democratic system to do so.

    In undemocratic regimes, the democratic republican’s role is naturally to advocate transitioning to a democratic system. Whether through a popular uprising or even as clandestine underground movements, democratic republicans ought to practice democratic principles and pluralism even while under an authoritarian regime. Republicans may differ over the character of a post-authoritarian constitution and its timeline, but should remain committed to it being a democracy, no matter what. Democratic republicans should aim to devise a system of democracy that works for their countries and not necessarily a copy and paste of what is already available. The main point is that they allow for free elections, civil liberties, and an independent judiciary, which are the fundamentals.

    Democratic Republicanism vs. Communitarianism

    Democratic republicanism—as well as modern republicanism in general—is usually presented as an alternative to communitarianism. While both movements have sprung up in opposition to liberalism and share critiques of liberal individualism, they diverge on key philosophical ground. That being said, there are many similarities between republican and communitarian thought, so it is worth being specific about the differences to substantiate as to why democratic republicanism really is an alternative.

    Both republicanism and communitarianism defend a form of politics based around strong civil bonds. Both share a belief that civic virtues, solidarity, and the common good, so naturally there is a lot of crossover between both republican and communitarian thinkers. Where they differ, however, is mostly over the quality of those civil bonds. For republicans, civil bonds are mostly constituted through agreement of non-domination as a common good and its protection through the law and the constitution. While republicans regard the social community as important, it is not as much a constitutive value as it is for communitarianism. For communitarianism, freedom is something realized through social relationships and shared cultural practices. Communitarians emphasize pre-political homogeneity as an important value for forming a political society based on a thick, shared ethos.  Republicans do not necessarily discount this and many classical republican thinkers (Rousseau) had strong communitarian elements surrounding it. This is why the distinction between the two is particularly fuzzy. In fact, democratic republicanism, as a more popular form of republicanism, in synthesis with Mazzinianism and its ideas concerning the nation, are closer to communitarianism in many respects.

    However, for the democratic republican, communitarianism has the danger of sliding into the same individual passivity as in liberalism, but for the group. The communitarian group can become isolated from the rest of the world and the liberty it preserves for its citizens is driven by the interests of that group [15]. The solidarity within supersedes the solidarity without. In its most extreme forms, communitarianism can risk becoming sectarian, identitarian, and separatist, which runs counter to the universalist principles in democratic republicanism and Mazzinian focus on unity. This distinction between universalism and identitarianism is the crucial one that makes democratic republicanism definitively not communitarian, but an alternative movement.

    Republicanism and Internationalism

    In accordance with its internationalist principles, the Mazzinian argument is that republicanism ought to become a devoted part of the global democratic opposition. Republicans ought to support, promote and aid democratic struggles around the world against tyrannical forms of government. This requires active engagement in world affairs and a determination to show solidarity in what ever way possible with fellow democrats.

    Traditionally, republicanism has had an uneasy relationship with foreign affairs and internationalism. Classical republicanism has grappled with a profound, unresolved tension between the desire for defensive stability and the necessity of aggressive expansion [16]. Paradoxically, the classical republican opposition to standing armies, given the experience in Rome, has been just as strong as the expansionist urge [17]. Many classical republicans became definitively opposed to expansion, however, after observing that the need for a standing army to maintain it led to autocratization at home, as happened with the English Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell [18]. Modern republican thought—though not fully homogenous—tends toward embracing the principles and achievements of liberal internationalism. While not isolationist, modern republicans look to multilateral cooperation and intergovernmental institutions to reduce the risk of war and to settle disputes diplomatically. In Phillip Pettit’s terms, the republic should focus on becoming a “good international citizen”.

    Given its adhesion to the global democracy movement, democratic republicanism takes a more radical line when it comes to international relations. While it is supportive of multilateral alliances, democratic republicanism also believes in actively supporting democratic opposition groups in countries under tyranny, either through solidarity or actual help. The democratic republican applies the contestatory principle already in republicanism on a global scale to oppose corruption and abuse of power wherever it exists.

    Multilateralism and International Institutions

    Democratic republicans are strong supporters of multilateralism and opposed to isolationism. Taking influence from Mazzini’s belief in the “Holy Alliance of the Peoples” [19], democratic republicanism encourages free, democratic countries to form multilateral treaties to extend trade, create stronger cultural links between nations, and to counter tyranny. In the eyes of the democratic republican, multilateralism forms the basis for international legitimacy, and they encourage likeminded states to support one another, even beyond their interests.

    However, democratic republicans are generally more skeptical of large, international and intergovernmental organizations. They regard the distance between the elector and the staff of these institutions, as well as the complexity of international arrangements—“the democratic deficit”—as a potential source of arbitrary domination that is out of reach of their contestatory rights; the fear is that technocracy, secret negotiations, and ideological capture quickly put the claim of independence of these organizations at risk . Democratic republicans are also highly critical of the inclusion of authoritarian regimes into global decision making processes as they do not regard them as legitimate governments.

    This being said, democratic republicans do not advocate withdrawal from these organizations as a solution. Instead, they advocate for building strong multilateral organizations to help counter the gaps in legitimacy as well as forming a stronger check on authoritarian regimes.

    Self-Rule and Anti-Imperialism

    Democratic republicans are staunch anti-imperialists. However, unlike many other anti-imperialist doctrines, they arrive at it from a consequence of their positive belief in democratic self-rule. This means that, while many anti-imperialists stop at nominal independence of a country against imperial rule, democratic republicans regard the absence of democratic self-rule as a continuation of the anti-imperialist struggle and not the end of it.

    Democratic republicans oppose imperialism in all of its forms: military, economic, or legal. Imperialism, whereby a foreign government dominates another, is a violation of the very essence of democratic self-rule and therefore unacceptable. This belief in self-rule is not only in opposition to the domination in principle, but also from the disbelief that that a foreign government can ever have the best interests of the governed population at heart. Democratic republicans therefore regard self-rule is the only way legitimacy can be properly cultivated.

    Where democratic republicans deviate from other anti-imperialist movements is that they extend the the anti-imperialist principle to opposing the dictatorship in the country itself. Since democratic republicans hold democratic self-rule as a positive principle, they also see this imperialist domination in family dynasties and military dictatorships. The consequences of this position are radical, since it means that opposing imperialism doesn’t just mean opposing foreign rule, but also opposing domestic rule by a monopolizing leader or junta. For example, if a country throws off an imperial power but fails to establish a democratically accountable system of government, the mere fact of independence does not constitute as a true fulfillment of the anti-imperialist principle. Where a dictator rules and thus exploits the country for their own gain, this, for the democratic republican, still constitutes a form of imperialism and must be opposed.

    Therefore, as a general rule, democratic republicans do not regard as sovereign those countries whose regimes do not allow for genuine self-rule, and refuse to conflate nominal independence with true anti-imperialism.

    Reconciling Republicanism and Interventionism

    As a consequence of their belief in democratic self-rule, anti-imperialism, and internationalism, democratic republicans tend to depart from the classical republican opposition to interventionism in favor of a more open and pragmatic approach. In line with Mazzini’s own criticism of non-interventionism, democratic republicans see that aiding other countries achieve their own democracy against tyranny as a matter of moral principle. Indeed, it is a matter of consistently applying their republican principles of freedom as non-domination, anti-corruption, and anti-tyranny, across all societies.

    However, the application of this interventionism will differ from method to method and depends on the practical situation. Democratic republicans do not advocate reckless military interventionism, unless it is clear that a popular, democratic revolution needs help throwing off their oppressive rulers. In these situations, multilateral coordination and coalition-building is essential, as well as the strict aim of establishing a democratic constitution. In the majority of circumstances, however, the interventionism advocated by democratic republicans is through identifying and supporting democratic movements and helping them through intelligence and with organization. It also involves countering authoritarian influence through democratic coalition building as well as through counter-propaganda.

    Democratic republicans also share the same humanitarian concerns as liberal interventionists, and argue that intervention is justified to both prevent and stop atrocities. However, as in line with the belief in self-rule, democratic republicans regard a democratic transition as the definitive prevention strategy, seeing it as unwise to leave criminal governments in charge.

    The serious republican objection to interventionism is that it requires a standing army—and is important to address. As mentioned above, the traditional republican dread of a standing army is out of a concern that it will lead the republic into tyranny and encourage imperialist expansionism. This is a concern that is worth taking seriously given the dangers it poses. While neorepublicans such as Pettit have argued this concern is moderately mitigated through the democratic ethos and the armed forces being subject to civilian governments, the democratic republican response also emphasizes the role of multilateral democratic coalitions in order to preserve liberty at home while opposing it abroad. While Pettit also argues that international law and organization do the job of keeping militaries in check, the addition of strong multilateralism provides for a more forceful restrain on democracies going rogue since each member has their own army.

    Internationalist Solidarity

    The democratic republican internationalism begins with the individual, rather than with governments. While government policies vary from government to government, democratic republicans should be consistent in showing their solidarity and support for democratic and humanitarian causes wherever they arise. This means engaging with democratic movements, even if they are not necessarily republican. Internationalist solidarity requires being actively engaged in world affairs and being willing to raise awareness in their home countries. It is extremely important for the democratic republican to recognize that the struggle for liberty in their country, is the same as the struggle of those in other countries.

    This solidarity is not unconditional, but necessitates careful thought and evaluation over the realities in these democratic movements. It is up to democratic republicans to judge whether a movement might be moving further away from democracy, and to call it out if they believe that’s the case. They should be unwilling to support a movement just because it opposes a dictator or imperialist rule while disregarding democratic principles and civil liberties. This sometimes require democratic republicans to be shrewd and aware that they could be lied to gain their support. At the same time, it is also on them to understand the political and cultural realities, and be prepared for pragmatism, unless it means absolute compromise of democratic principles.

    These are demanding principles and can only be held together successfully through an international movement, but they must start with the individual holding themselves to such a standard, before it can culminate into larger, more effective movement.

    Mazzinianism and Democratic Republicanism: A Modern Synthesis

    By way of a coda, it is important to stress that Mazzinianism and democratic republicanism are complementary principles, rather than mutually inclusive. It is perfectly possible to be a democratic republican without also being a Mazzinian, and it is possible (though harder) to be a Mazzinian without being a democratic republican. However, the point of the two principles is that they work together as separate parts of the same political movement. While democratic republicanism provides the political vehicle, Mazzinianism provides the philosophical direction and the underlying moral principles.

    Mazzinianism, with its arguments about nation, humanity, and individual duties, provides a metaphysical starting point from which democratic republicanism can build itself up. The most explicit example is over the question of liberty, as we have mentioned above. While democratic republicanism on its own argues that liberty (as non-domination) is the end of the republic, Mazzinianism argues that liberty is only a means toward the higher end of doing your duties. This is where Mazzinianism has provided the spirit, and democratic republicanism the flesh in which it inhabits.

    The coupling of Mazzinianism and democratic republicanism could be taken as analogous to the coupling often used by those who regard themselves as Marxists and democratic socialists.

    Liberty as Non-Domination as a Means

    While republicans argue strongly against the liberal definition of liberty as non-interference, they do not necessarily disagree that it ought to be the end of society. Though they have radically opposed ideas on the structure of that liberty, once it has been achieved in either definition, that is the end of the matter. Once the individual is free, they are free to exercise that freedom at their discretion for their own interests. In this, the republican and the liberal ends are virtually identical.

    For Mazzinians, however, liberty is definitively not the ends for the individual or society, but the means toward their duty to the nation and humanity. This means that the point of liberty for Mazzinians is not for the individual to exercise their rights for their own interests, but to exercise them in a way that means that their individual faculties are being used for the good of humanity. For the Mazzinian, liberty is vital since only the individual can truly know what role they can play in humanity, but it is also insufficient.

    However, even though the end in republicanism and liberalism are identical, this does not mean that Mazzinians are indifferent to the structure of that liberty. While they disagree on the purpose of liberty, Mazzinians regard the republican conception of liberty as non-domination as more compatible than the liberal conception as non-interference for its overall aims. While an individual must be free to exercise their liberty in pursuit of their duties, it is far easier for them to achieve this under the republican structural egalitarianism, than it is under the laissez-faire approach.

    For example, an employee who is unable to act without fear or repercussion from their employer is impeded in pursuing their duties as an employee. Likewise, a wife who is subject to the arbitrary will of their husband may be also impeded in their duties if their husband is tyrannical. With the republican emphasis on freedom as non-domination, it removes the practical, structural barrier that individuals face when pursuing their duties, which simple non-interference does not regard as important. Therefore, while the Mazzinian would argue with the purpose of liberty, they strongly align as to how it ought to be conceived politically.

    The Encumbered Self and Nationality

    Above, we pointed out the key differences between republicanism and communitarianism, especially when it comes to the identitarian risks inherent in the latter. The republican addresses these risks by adopting a universalist approach to their definition of liberty and the fact that they do not rely as much on pre-political cultural ties as communitarians do. However, it might appear that there is a contradiction here with republicanism and Mazzinianism, as Mazzinianism places a strong emphasis on the role of an individual’s nationality toward their role in humanity. In order to address this contradiction, it requires borrowing and adapting Michael J. Sandel’s idea of the “encumbered self” into specific universalist way to argue the Mazzinian’s republican point of view.

    Sandel's idea of the encumbered self is itself a response to John Rawls’s notion of the “unencumbered self” [20]. As Sandel characterizes it (and whether this is a correct interpretation of Rawls is another debate), Rawls’s unencumbered self is a free, independent agent whose identity exists prior to and apart from its ends. This self is unbound by any moral ties or duties that have not been chosen by that individual voluntarily. Sandel argues that this liberal idea of the self is flawed since it doesn't account for our actual moral experience, in which individuals feel solidarity and civic loyalties independent of their will. He proposes that individuals are encumbered by their membership in a social community, which provides them with moral ties and historical connections they have not chosen. Our encumbrance is therefore constitutive of the society we are born into.

    For the Mazzinian, this encumbrance is not just social, but individual and universal. By the fact of your birth, you have duties toward humanity that are derived from your nature and thus, from the very first moment of your life, you are encumbered. However, the Mazzinian also regards your acquisition of nationality—through being brought up in a particular culture and linguistic group—widens your encumbrance by further specifying your duties toward humanity. For the Mazzinian, your universalist role in humanity is not overridden by your inclusion in a particular group, but given a definitive character that makes it easier for you to pursue your role. Nationality provides you with an inheritance of a specific part of humanity that indicates how you ought to achieve your own duties. In other words, this is a metaphysical development of Mazzini’s fulcrum idea: that the nation was the vital, practical link between the individual and humanity.

    Why the Mazzinian idea is specifically not communitarian is that, while the communitarian argues that that this national group is the end, Mazzinians see nationality as clarifying your role toward the real ends in humanity. This also is a departure of the cosmopolitan view taken by liberalism and republicanism that holds the universalism of liberty but lacks the particularist insight that Mazzinianism provides. For the Mazzinian, therefore, an individual is encumbered with universalist duties that are made specific by their membership of a nationality.

    Republicanism and the Political World To Come

    While republicanism has an ancient political lineage and has had an impact on many political movements throughout the millennia it’s been around, the dominance of liberalism has relegated it to the object of mere academic pursuits. The rise of liberal democracy after the First World War and their consolidation during the Cold War closed the argument regarding the best system for both politics and economics. Liberty as non-interference has become a truism in many Western societies and, since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, liberalism in some form or another has become the only acceptable form of moral society.

    However, liberalism is not only going through a practical collapse through economic failures and negative social consequences, it is also going through a severe philosophical one. The liberal theme of maximizing self-interest and happiness is no longer working and, as it has failed to deliver for modern generations, belief in it is waning. Though there have been attempts to respond to modern crises by means of the liberal toolbox, the reality is the liberal arguments about society, economics, and politics no longer have the certainty they once had. In fact, that certainty is steadily becoming arrogance, as liberal conceptions of society rub up against the real problems that have been emerging. Social isolation, failures of meritocracy, large structural unemployment, financial inequality, welfare disasters, energy shortages, technocratization, and postdemocracy, have all been caused utterly or partially from liberalism’s failures.

    The death of one political order and its succession by another is not unprecedented. As the old monarchism vs. radicalism dichotomy became irrelevant as economic matters became more important during the 1800s, the stage was set for a new showdown between liberalism on one side and socialism on the other. While they offered opposing conceptions when it came to economics, there is no question that liberalism and socialism have shared the same concern: how do we extend individual emancipation to its fullest extent? For the liberal, the argument was through a non-interfering state with equality before the law. For the socialist, it was through revolution or egalitarian redistribution. This duel was definitively won by liberalism by the end of the 20th century.

    However, it is becoming clearer that this concern of maximizing self-interest is no longer representative of the actual political realities on the ground. This first became obvious in the growing irrelevance of socialism due to the gradual transformation of traditional classes into more obscure economic factions. While many socialists try to cling on by arguing that capitalism has blurred the lines to make class consciousness more difficult, the reality really is that our societies have simply moved on. This is also evident in the way that progressive left-wing movements now place less emphasis on class and more on other identities. In the same vein, liberalism is also losing relevance. Despite its victory, it has failed to secure the same material advances for many young people, and consequently, there is very little faith in it as a system. Left-wing populism in its economic form briefly reemerged during the early 2010s as a response to the Great Financial Crisis, but died off relatively quickly. Liberal populism, in the form of extreme libertarianism, is currently popular in Latin America, but is also likely die to down in the same way in the near future.

    In response, there have been growing movements that appear to cross the traditional liberal vs. socialist divides in ways that are quite strange. Traditionally working-class areas are voting for right-wing populist parties, while traditional liberals are allying themselves with left-wing identitarian movements (or becoming the new conservatives). More and more, the central political theme across the West and beyond has shifted from maximizing self-interest toward questions of home and belonging. The issue is that without coherent political philosophies to help cultivate responses to rationalize and stabilize this shift, the current political movements are becoming much more sectarian.

    Communitarianism and postliberal conservatism have emerged as providing definitive and well-reasoned responses to this thematic shift. Unafraid of crossing the now defunct political spectrum, they have both proposed policies that combine both traditionally liberal and socialist positions that are still odd in our current paradigm. A focus on community, economic intervention, and civic duties are providing a definitive answer to the puzzles that the old paradigm has failed to solve. But they are only presenting one form of this response and a particular flavor of it. For while they answer the question of belonging, they leave behind the internationalist achievements that previous paradigm undoubtedly managed, in favor of a more inward-thinking and cynical world. Democratic republicanism and Mazzinianism seek to answer the same questions, while maintaining these internationalist achievements.

    This is a bet on a certain type of future, as everything is still up in the air. That, while communitarianism, postliberal conservatism, and democratic republicanism all seem to weirdly mix left-wing and right-wing policies, they will clearly form a new right-wing and a new left-wing in the political world to come. In other words, as liberalism replaced monarchism as the right-wing, and socialism succeeded classical radicalism, communitarianism and postliberal conservatism could become the new right, and democratic republicanism and Mazzinianism could become the new left. This means that Mazzinianism through democratic republicanism is getting ready to take the place of socialism as the new internationalism and as the main opposition to communitarianism.