Republicanism: Civic Freedom as Non-Domination and the Control of Arbitrary Power

Republican Freedom as Non-Domination: What Makes Power Arbitrary?

Republicanism treats civic freedom as security against being subject to another’s uncontrolled will. The central target is not every interference, but arbitrary power: power that can be exercised without having to track your interests, without having to give reasons you could contest, and without being constrained by stable, public rules.

Arbitrariness: a practical test

To decide whether a power is arbitrary, ask whether the person or agency wielding it is forced to govern by publicly checkable standards rather than personal discretion. A useful diagnostic is the “Could they do it to me even if I did nothing wrong?” test, paired with “Could I effectively challenge it?”.

• Arbitrary power: a housing officer can delay your application because they dislike you; a police unit can stop you repeatedly without recording reasons; an agency can deny a permit with no explanation and no appeal.
• Non-arbitrary power: a tax authority audits you using published criteria, must document reasons, and you can appeal to an independent tribunal.

Why civic equality matters

Republicanism links non-domination to civic equality: if some groups predictably face more discretionary stops, weaker access to appeals, or higher burdens to be heard, then domination is built into the system even if the written rules look neutral. Civic equality is not only “equal rights on paper” but equal standing in the processes that control power: equal ability to know, contest, and influence how rules are applied.

Evaluating Institutions: What a Non-Domination Audit Looks For

Republicanism evaluates institutions by asking whether they reliably constrain discretion and enable effective contestation. Four institutional virtues are especially important: transparency, rule of law, anti-corruption, and inclusive participation.

1) Transparency (without turning citizens into targets)

Transparency means that the public can understand what powers exist, how they are used, and with what effects. It is not “everything is public”; it is publicly intelligible governance.

Continue in our app.

• Listen to the audio with the screen off.
• Earn a certificate upon completion.
• Over 5000 courses for you to explore!

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

• What to look for: published policies; clear decision criteria; statistics on stops/searches/denials; explanations for individual decisions; accessible reporting channels.
• Red flags: secret rules; vague standards (“as deemed necessary”); missing data; refusal to give reasons; “trust us” governance.

2) Rule of law (predictability + reasons + review)

Rule of law constrains power through general, stable, and public rules, applied consistently and reviewable by independent bodies.

• What to look for: legality (clear authorization); proportionality limits; documented reasons; time limits; independent review; remedies when rights are violated.
• Red flags: broad discretionary clauses; retroactive rules; weak judicial oversight; immunity for officials; no meaningful remedies.

3) Anti-corruption (blocking private will from steering public power)

Corruption is a direct route to domination because it converts public authority into a tool of private preference. Republicanism emphasizes structural prevention, not only punishment after the fact.

• What to look for: conflict-of-interest rules; asset disclosures; procurement transparency; whistleblower protections; rotating assignments in high-risk roles; independent inspectors general.
• Red flags: discretionary contracting; opaque lobbying; revolving-door incentives; retaliation against whistleblowers; weak audit capacity.

4) Inclusive participation (who gets to shape and contest power?)

Participation is not merely voting; it includes standing to be heard in the ongoing governance of institutions. Non-domination requires that affected people can contest decisions and influence rules.

• What to look for: accessible complaint systems; community oversight boards with real powers; participatory rulemaking; legal aid; translation and disability access; protections against retaliation.
• Red flags: “consultation” with no impact; barriers to filing complaints; complex procedures that require lawyers; exclusion of marginalized groups from oversight roles.

Institutional Design Tools: How to Reduce Arbitrary Power

Republican institutional design aims to turn potentially dominating powers into controlled, contestable, and publicly accountable powers. The tools below work best in combination.

A) Checks and balances (splitting and supervising power)

Checks and balances reduce domination by ensuring that no single actor can decide, execute, and judge their own actions without oversight.

• Separation of functions: the body that sets rules is not the same as the body that enforces them; the body that reviews complaints is independent of both.
• Layered authorization: high-risk actions require multiple approvals (e.g., supervisor sign-off + documented justification).
• Independent review: courts, inspectors general, ombuds offices, or audit agencies with subpoena power and budget independence.

B) Civic oversight (making power answerable to the public)

Civic oversight gives citizens organized ways to monitor and shape institutions. It is not “mob rule”; it is structured accountability.

• Oversight boards: representative membership, clear mandate, access to data, authority to recommend or require policy changes.
• Public reporting: dashboards on enforcement patterns, complaint outcomes, and disciplinary actions (with privacy protections).
• Participatory evaluation: regular public hearings; citizen juries on policy proposals; community impact assessments.

C) Contestatory mechanisms (the right to challenge and get a remedy)

Contestability is the heart of non-domination: if you cannot effectively challenge a decision, you remain vulnerable to another’s will.

Step-by-step: building an effective contestation pathway

1. Notice: the person affected receives a clear explanation of the decision and the legal/policy basis.
2. Access: a simple way to file a challenge (online, phone, in person), with translation and disability access.
3. Evidence: the person can see the evidence used against them (with narrow, justified exceptions).
4. Independent hearing: review by a body not involved in the original decision.
5. Timelines: strict deadlines for responses; interim protections when delays would cause harm.
6. Remedy: power to reverse decisions, order compensation, or impose discipline; not merely “recommendations.”
7. Non-retaliation: enforceable protections for complainants and witnesses.
8. Learning loop: complaints feed into policy revision, training, and structural reform.

D) Administrative design: reducing discretion at the point of contact

Many dominating experiences happen at “street level” where officials interact directly with citizens. Republican design focuses on frontline constraints.

• Clear thresholds: define when an action is permitted (e.g., stop/search requires documented, specific grounds).
• Documentation: require written or recorded reasons for high-impact decisions.
• Random audits: routine checks of decisions for bias, legality, and consistency.
• Training + incentives: reward compliance with procedural fairness, not only output metrics (like number of stops).

Applied Analysis I: Policing and the Risk of Domination

Policing concentrates coercive power and therefore poses a high domination risk, especially where discretion is broad and oversight weak. A republican analysis asks: Are police powers constrained by public rules, and can citizens contest misuse effectively?

Common domination points in policing

• Discretionary stops without recorded reasons can create a climate of vulnerability for targeted groups.
• Use-of-force decisions made without transparent standards or independent investigation.
• Complaint systems that are complex, slow, or biased toward exoneration.

Safeguards aligned with non-domination

• Stop documentation: require officers to record the reason, outcome, and demographic data; publish aggregated statistics.
• Body-worn camera governance: clear rules for activation, retention, access, and penalties for non-compliance (designed to protect both citizens and officers).
• Independent investigations: external unit for serious incidents with authority to compel evidence.
• Community oversight with teeth: power to set policy standards, review patterns, and trigger audits.
• Early warning systems: identify repeated complaints or high-risk patterns and intervene with supervision or reassignment.

Applied Analysis II: Surveillance, Data, and Invisible Domination

Surveillance can dominate even when it rarely leads to direct punishment, because it creates uncertainty and dependence: people adjust behavior to avoid attracting attention, and officials gain leverage without needing to justify each use.

Republican questions for surveillance programs

• Legality and scope: Is the authority clearly defined, or open-ended?
• Necessity and proportionality: Is the data collection limited to what is needed for a specified purpose?
• Transparency: Do people know what is collected, how long it is kept, and who can access it?
• Contestability: Can individuals challenge inaccurate data or improper use?
• Equality: Does the system disproportionately monitor certain neighborhoods or groups?

Practical safeguards

• Purpose limitation: data collected for one purpose cannot be reused for unrelated aims without new authorization.
• Data minimization: collect less; retain for shorter periods; restrict sharing.
• Independent authorization: warrants or independent approvals for intrusive monitoring.
• Audit trails: every access is logged; logs are reviewed by an independent auditor.
• Notice and correction: mechanisms to learn what data is held about you and to correct errors (with narrow exceptions).

Applied Analysis III: Emergency Powers and the Problem of “Temporary” Domination

Emergencies tempt governments to expand discretion quickly. Republicanism does not deny the need for rapid action; it insists that emergency power must be tightly bounded, reviewable, and reversible.

Where arbitrariness enters during emergencies

• Vague triggers: declaring an emergency without clear criteria.
• Unlimited duration: measures that persist without renewal.
• Rule by decree: weak legislative involvement and limited judicial review.
• Selective enforcement: unequal burdens placed on certain groups.

Step-by-step: designing non-dominating emergency authority

1. Define triggers: specify measurable conditions for declaration.
2. Limit scope: list permitted measures; prohibit unrelated actions.
3. Sunset clauses: automatic expiration unless renewed by the legislature.
4. Periodic review: scheduled hearings with public reporting of necessity and impacts.
5. Independent oversight: courts or review panels remain fully operational; expedited review procedures exist.
6. Equality impact checks: monitor enforcement patterns; adjust rules to prevent discriminatory burdens.
7. Exit plan: criteria and timeline for returning to ordinary law.

Design Workshop: Reduce Domination in a Chosen Institution

This workshop asks you to apply republican tools to redesign an institution so that people are less vulnerable to arbitrary power. Choose one: a police department, a university disciplinary office, a welfare benefits agency, a public housing authority, an immigration office, or a workplace HR system.

Workshop Part 1: Map the domination risks

Step 1 — Identify high-discretion decisions. List 3–5 decisions that strongly affect people (e.g., benefit termination, stop-and-search, account suspension, disciplinary sanctions).

Step 2 — Locate discretion points. For each decision, note where an official can act without clear standards, without documentation, or without review.

Step 3 — Identify who is most vulnerable. Which groups face higher exposure (frequency of contact), lower ability to contest, or higher costs of challenging decisions?

Workshop Part 2: Choose safeguards using a republican toolkit

For each domination risk, propose at least one safeguard from each category below.

Workshop Part 3: Stress-test your design (practical scenarios)

Run your safeguards through three scenarios. Write what happens at each step and where a person can contest decisions.

• Scenario A (ordinary case): a routine decision affecting a citizen (e.g., a benefits review, a campus complaint, a traffic stop).
• Scenario B (bad actor): an official tries to target someone out of bias or personal dislike.
• Scenario C (high pressure): a crisis increases workload and temptation to cut corners.

Workshop Part 4: Minimum viable non-domination package

Budget and attention are limited. Select a “minimum viable package” of five safeguards you would implement first. For each, specify: (1) what domination risk it targets, (2) who enforces it, (3) what data proves it is working.

Safeguard 1: ____________________________
Targets: _______________________________
Enforced by: ___________________________
Success indicator: ______________________

Safeguard 2: ____________________________
Targets: _______________________________
Enforced by: ___________________________
Success indicator: ______________________

Safeguard 3: ____________________________
Targets: _______________________________
Enforced by: ___________________________
Success indicator: ______________________

Safeguard 4: ____________________________
Targets: _______________________________
Enforced by: ___________________________
Success indicator: ______________________

Safeguard 5: ____________________________
Targets: _______________________________
Enforced by: ___________________________
Success indicator: ______________________

Workshop Part 5: Non-domination scorecard

Use this scorecard to evaluate whether your redesigned institution reduces arbitrary power. Rate each item 0 (no), 1 (partly), 2 (yes).

• Rules: Decisions are guided by clear, public standards.
• Reasons: People receive understandable explanations for decisions.
• Records: High-impact actions are documented and auditable.
• Review: Independent bodies can overturn decisions.
• Remedies: Meaningful correction/compensation exists.
• Equality: Disparate impacts are measured and addressed.
• Oversight: External oversight has access and authority.
• Participation: Affected groups help shape rules and oversight priorities.
• Anti-corruption: Conflicts and private influence are structurally constrained.
• Emergency resilience: Safeguards remain active under crisis conditions.