26
human beings to do good for their community, still holds forth that possibility as a
ground for moral action.
There are however limits to what republicanism can offer the anti-corruption
discourse, and some accompanying dangers as well. The discourse is not conducive to
the use of scientific and quantitative methods of analysis. It has little to offer in the way
of systematically identifying variables which might be tweaked to make governance
more effective. This is a limit, but not necessarily a weakness. Republican discourse
can be thought of not so much as a science but as a language through which substantive
political concerns may be critically debated. Rather than offering diagnoses, it offers
fuel for debate and communicative action. Some of the other limits of republican
discourse are more problematic. Grounding political morality in a love of country can
be seen as antithetical to the development of a cosmopolitan morality that is dear to the
normative liberalism of Immanuel Kant and his successors. Machiavelli’s advice to
leaders does not include an ethic of caring about what happens to those who live
outside the polity, except insofar as they may pose a threat (in which case they need to
be neutralized somehow). Despite his preference for a republican form of government,
Machiavelli was not above advocating violence and princely rule to correct the problem
of corruption in certain situations. And finally, republicanism is often deeply cynical
about the possibility that good, non-corrupt governance can actually be realized.
This latter problem was to some extent addressed by the Federalists in the U.S.,
who sought to overcome the weaknesses of human nature by constructing institutions
which would assure the survival of republican values without requiring the active
Convention