Republicanism distrusts the powerful, not the ordinary people, who need restraint.

Evidence

The republican tradition has always taken a pessimistic view of the corruptibility of human beings in positions of power, while being relatively optimistic about human nature as such. It generally downplayed the Augustinian fear of an inherently wayward people who require strong leadership if anarchy is to be avoided. But it enthusiastically countenanced the Ciceronian spectre of a corruptible leadership which requires careful containment if there is not to be tyranny or despotism (Bradshaw 1991: 117-18). As Richard Price (1991: 30) put it, ‘There is nothing that requires more to be watched than power’. The view was, in Machiavelli’s words (1965: 201), that the law-giver has to make pessimistic assumptions about people in positions of power: viz. ‘that they are always going to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope’. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 947

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the checks-and-balances design tradition in Madison and to the corruptibility vs corruption distinction being developed across this chapter. — connects to: Trusting a government is not analogous to trusting another person.; Distrust of government arises from generalization over humans and fiction — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 756; Distrust of power holders needs no theory but trust of them does — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 749 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Republican freedom means absence of dependence on arbitrary power, not non-interference. #expands (0.95) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 18
• Distrust of power holders needs no theory but trust of them does #corroborates (0.90) — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 749
• Trusting a government is not analogous to trusting another person. #expands (0.85)
• Distrust of government arises from generalization over humans and fiction #contradicts (0.85) — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 756