Talk:Res Publica Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Union for the Republic?! Where is that from? Clossius

This organisation was founded as early as 1989 and existed as a community of young conservatives during the 1990s. It was finally reorganized in a political party in December, 2001. As Res Publica here stands for 'republicans' the term Union for the Republic was may-be added so that the name wouldn't be of entirely foreign origin. Actually the party is always called just Res Publica in Estonia, too. The reason for labelling themselves 'republicans' is probably due to the fact that the label has often been used by conservative politicians in Estonia.

[edit] Name

Was "Union for the republic" the official name until 2006, or did they change to just "Erakond Res Publica"? In the latter case the article's name should be changed to Res Publica Party.

I think "Union for the Republic" is just a fantasy name, which should indeed be removed.

It's not made up, that was originally their original name. However, they apparently dropped it quietly at one point. Rain74 19:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative

I reverted the deletion, because clearly, there was nothing conservative whatsoever about the Res Publica. That's clear from the description of Conservatism here and any other as well; it's also clear in all writings by the usual Estonian and Estonian-knowledgeable political scientists. They describe the Res Publica variously as technocratic (which I think is the best), liberal, libertarian, and in the end-phase (especially Veskimägi and Vaher) also as right-wingish. If someone wants to change it back, some more precise quotes can be supplied, but the change should also be substantiated. Dagöer 21:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly disagreeing with your claim about Res Publica. However, could you please add some reference of some political scientist saying they're not conservative? Of course, if there's been any notable doubts, they should be added. However, they have been called conservatives not only by themselves, but also media, and them joining with Isamaa shows that the other party sees something in common with Res Publica. The claim that the party is effectively wrong (or lying) about its stance is quite strong and needs to be backed up. Rain74 19:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

First, I think that in the Estonian party system, coalitions and even fusions are not necessarily connected with ideology, as the past has shown (that the parties are in the end under-ideologized is, I think, well-known). Second, I also think - there was a big discussion on that talk page - that Isamaa is, at least today, more right-wing than conservative (it was conservative in 1996, and the right-wing turn has more to do with election success than with genuine ideology), and this means they can easily fuse with a party like Res Publica anyway. Third, if I recall correctly, Vello Pettai, Wolfgang Drechsler, and David Smith have repeatedly characterized RP as technocratic etc.; Rein Taagepera's views are of course also interesting and along the same lines, although he is personally biased and certainly, I admit, tries to write the Res Publica story so that his own affiliation with it and split from it looks better. (Still, he is a Liberal, not conservative by any possible means, and he was the first Chairman, even if this, as he now says, was kind of an abuse.) But really: By what standards could Veskimägi, Vaher, Parts, and Vaske be called conservative? The only possibly conservative person in the leadership, I think, would be Urmas Reinsalu, and that purely on an intellectual-playful level (such as in the sense that T.H. Ilves is one, too, and he is a Social Democrat by affiliation), not a policy one. Dagöer 05:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)