Introduction
According to Brutus and Publius, the size of a given republic often relates to the republic’s preservation as well as good government. This is by the way to which the liberty of the people is exercised either democratically or by tyranny as discussed in the arguments below.
Arguments on the effect of republic size on preservation and good governance
Brutus argues that a free republic that secures the liberty of American citizens cannot be constituted under a single government covering thirteen United States. This to him is not practicable by its immense size of inhabitants that are continuously increasing. Brutus in authority quotes cap xvi. Vol. I (book VII) under the baron de Montesquieu spirit of laws. This provision is to the effect that, for a republic to have a small territory is only natural because it can otherwise fail to subsist for long. This is because, in a large republic, there exist many great fortunes and thus less moderation. There exist trusts that are too large to be under one subject, an individual with much wealth may thus opt to oppress his fellow citizens to raise himself to the top and consequently ruin the country. Big size of a republic causes the good of the republic to be sacrificed because of the perceptions of thousands. Critically, even under a small-sized republic not all the views of the people will be represented since they are likely to have diverse opinions and interests being the nature of man.
On the other hand, Brutus argues that where a republic is of a smaller size, then the views and interests of people are better understood and implemented (Storing 10-12). The abuse of power in such cases is also less compared to when the size of the republic is great. This opinion is also shared by Marquis Beccarari in that, history reveals how the Grecian and Romans republic was initially effective and small in size. However, after these republics extended their conquests to larger extents of territories, their governments changed from good free governments to those characterized by tyranny. As opposed to the law being supreme in each given government, the despotic governments recognize only one supreme authority which is the tyrant leader who perceives himself as the law itself. According to Brutus, a single city or state can easily assemble, debate and decide their democratic issues. Observably, it is true that it is easier for a smaller group to assemble and agree than for a large group.
Brutus defines a free government as that which the people consent to the laws provided even if through representatives they select. The will of the people is thus expressed in an agreed way thus people are at liberty to decide what law should be in place. However, a government that has arbitrariness is based on the law of one person or a selected few as opposed to a law given by the consent of the people. To this point, Brutus argues that for a free government to exist there ought to be a manner in which people select those qualified in declaring their sentiments. In his opinion, this is not possible where the size of a republic is large. He therefore submits that if the new constitution is aimed at consolidating the thirteen states into a single one, then it ought not to for the above reasons.
James Madison also displays his perception of the size of a republic vis-à-vis the preservation and good governance of a republic. He considers pure democracy to be a society that has a small size of population that assembles and administers the government individually. On the other hand, he defines a republic government as that whose scheme of representation normally opens different prospects that are way better than a democratic government. As opposed to supporting democrats as Brutus did, Madison refuses to believe in equality before the large federal government. He instead prefers people looking after themselves as well as their neighbors under a small government or rather a state government. According to him having a democratic government places a number of people in representative capacities for the good of the people. However, some of the said representatives may obtain suffrage first and consequently betray the people’s interests instead of representing their integrity and views. The smaller the society, therefore, the fewer interests and parties to represent and be represented. Critically, this may not be true because even in a small republic people tend to have diverse opinions and values that may not be present in the person they choose to represent them. A larger republic may have a larger group of people with the same interests than it may in a small one.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, Brutus and Publius illustrate how the size of a given republic such as the United States affects its good governance and preservation. It is easier to have effective governance in a small-sized republic than it is in a large one such as the entire United States. Under a small state, the will of the people and their sovereignty is better manifested since they are fewer and can thus be represented with common interests. However, where the territorial boundaries of governance are vast like for example the entire United States, it is impossible for a small number of representatives to represent the common interests of the people, since the said people are too many with diverse opinions. It is thus revealed by the two that the smaller the republic, the better the preservation and governance.
Works Cited
Storing, Herbert J. The Complete Anti-Federalist. 7 vols. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1981.