Hmm, America is not a democracy, it's a Republic

[zbdent]

Or, at least, that's what some Righties claim.

Okay, if that's true, let's see what all has the word "Republic" or "Republican" in it:

Union of Soviet Socialist Republic

Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard

The People's Republic of China

There are more, right?

[nickinSTL]

1. Most Communist nations include Republic in the name

Republic just means it's not a monarchy.

[billyskank]

16. Right

so being a republic does not preclude the nation from being a democracy too!

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Here's a page about the difference between democracies and republics

http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

[dumpster_baby]

3. It is a "Propagandocracy"

Rule of propaganda....

[SCDem]

4. Byrd (WVA) has even said this

Our government is a Republic - a form of government where the PEOPLE are sovereign

Freepers confuse Republic with Republican - a form of goverment where the coporations have more sovereignity than the People and the Commander in Chief doesn't even know what sovereignity is

[FullCountNotRecount]

6. We're not a Democracy. If we were Pres would be popular vote

It's a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution protects everyone's rights including minorities against the tyranny of the majority.

[MGKrebs]

9. Wrong. You mean we are not a "pure democracy".

There are many variations of democracy.

[greenohio]

25. You hit the nail on the head

A Republic is a Democracy with seat belts. The theory is that there are some fundamental principles that the majority in a Democracy cannot cross. Ours are written in the Constitution. In a pure Democracy, you got the votes, you have the power. You can pass a law killing all those in the minority. It is true, we are a Republic. But this Republic should be run by Democrats.

[MGKrebs]

27. I don't know why this issue annoys me.

Read what you wrote.
"You hit the nail on the head" referring to "we are not a democracy".
Then you write, "A Republic is a Democracy with seat belts" and "It is true, we are a Republic."

So we ARE a democracy, right? Why try to deny it? A republic is a form of democracy, but a democracy nonetheless. Say it. Embrace it. It is true. It feels good. There is no shame in it.

de·moc·ra·cy 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

That's all. No more, no less. Vague yes, but inserting one's assumptions about what else SHOULD be included in that definition does not make it so.

[ProfessorGAC]

31. Not Correct

It's a democracy in which the government functions as a representative republic. The constitution sets forth the framework for the government's structure, responsibilities and limits.

But, by the very definition of the terms, the fact that the people decide who represents them, and are required to approve changes to the constitution, we are a democracy first, a republic second. The democracy is indicated by the basic philosophy of the system and intent of the framers. The republic is the structure by which democracy is carried out.

If you look up the definitions to each of these terms, i think you will agree.
The Professor

[soothsayer]

5. We actually live in an oligarchy, tho we pretend it isn't one

Between our out-of-control national security agencies (who really call the shots, and do most of their scary stuff out of the sight of the american people and sometimes without our elected reps knowing about it) and the BFEE and other things like it, we only have the pretense of being governed by the people.

[DeadHead67]

7. The word comes from the Latin : Res Publica . . . .

. .. .Which means, simply, public things.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. Freepers are ignorant, because a republic is simply

a country that doesn't have a monarch. Beyond that, it can be a right or left dictatorship or a democracy or an oligarchy, but that's why France and China are republics and Norway and Japan aren't.

When Australians talk about "becoming a republic," they're talking about giving up the British monarch as their nominal head of state.

I don't know what the freepers think a republic actually IS. They seem to have "democracy" (which can be either representative or direct) with "direct democracy," which can exist only in very small groups.

[MGKrebs]

30. I think Repubs don't like the similarity

between "Democracy" and "Democratic", as in Democratic Party.
They prefer 'Republic" as in "Republican" Party.

Secondly, I suspect there is a sentiment to deny that we are a democracy because they do not really want "the people" to run the country. Much of their philosophy is based around letting some selected group have all the power and money.

I keep seeing that Tytler quote floating around that says a democracy can't work because people will just vote themselves no taxes or something. And the Repubs are the ones making it so!

[Mel]

10. I like this link it's one of my favorite book marks

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
THE LONG FAQ ON LIBERALISM
Part of the Liberalism Resurgent web site
© Copyright by Steve Kangas, editor


http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-democracy.htm

Myth: The U.S. is not a democracy.

Fact: The U.S. is a representative democracy in every branch of government.

Summary

The U.S. is a democracy -- just not a direct one. Every branch of our government -- executive, legislative, judicial, monetary -- ultimately derives its power from majority rule or approval. By making our democracy indirect instead of direct, the Founders prevented unrestrained mob rule, allowing a more reasonable pace of majority rule, and greater room for compromise.


Argument

Conservatives continually point out that America is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. This is a quibble over definitions, because a constitutional republic is a type of democracy. Democracy comes in two forms: direct and republican. In a direct democracy, the people vote directly on proposed laws, and government (to the extent that it exists) serves only to put their laws into action. By contrast, a republic is a representative democracy, where laws are passed not by the people, but their elected representatives. Adding the term "constitutional" to the word "republic" is frivolous, since all nations have constitutions.

Why, then, do conservatives insist on this distinction? There are two reasons, both of them trivial. One is to embarrass those who make casual use of the term "democracy." Another is that conservatives are so hostile to democracy that they seek to deny its very name.

But a democracy we are. No matter which branch of government you look into, you'll find the fingerprints of democracy everywhere: </snip>

[Nordic]

11. "George Bush and his REPUBLICAN GUARD"

we need to start using that.

A lot.

[Gwerlain]

12. The real difference is...

In a pure democracy, as has already been pointed out, the majority rules. This can lead to "tyranny of the majority" in which the majority tramples the rights of all minorities, which was also pointed out. It can also lead to nothing ever getting done, because everyone's vote has to be counted for every issue- there is no representation. This has not been pointed out.

It is possible to construct a "representative democracy," but this actually is a republic, since a democracy requires that every person represent themself, whereas in a republic each individual votes for a person to represent them. It is not a true republic, because the concept of elector is subsumed by the democratic notion that every person is an elector; but it is far closer by virtue of the representatives to a republic than to a democracy.

In a pure republic, the concept of an "elector" is added to the concept of a "representative." An elector is a person to whom the right to vote for representatives is delegated by the individual. In the US, this is the electoral college. A representative is a person to whom the right to legislate- that is, construct laws- and the right to enforce those laws- and the right to adjudicate based on those laws- is delegated by the individual.

So your Congresswo/man in the House, your Senator in the Senate, your President, and your Justices in the Supreme Court all represent you in one of these three capacities. And the electoral college chooses your congresscritters and your president. Thus, the US is a republic, and a relatively pure one at that, not a democracy at all.

The separation of legislation, enforcement, and adjudication is intended to serve as a check on the power of each. The Constitution is intended to prevent the forms of tyranny, especially that of the majority over the minority, that were known at the time it was written. It is a living document, intended to allow new items to be added that were intended to be new checks on new tyrannies. The House/Senate duality is intended to prevent the states with the most people from dominating the others, another form of "tyranny of the majority."

We have already broken once with the spirit of the Constitution; Prohibition was the first experiment in this regard. Luckily it failed; this prevented many another misstep in the time since. However, we now face both the threat of a constitutional amendment defining marriage, which is actually intended to promulgate the tyranny of the majority (heterosexuals) over the minority (homosexuals), and the so-called "Patriot" act, which makes direct attacks on several of the first ten amendments to our Constitution; these first ten amendments are known collectively as the "Bill of Rights." In our time, right here and now, our Constitution will either be upheld or damaged. Perhaps not irreparably; but these two together may well accomplish the task that Prohibition (luckily) could not. Make sure you exercise your franchise wisely and thoroughly this November; not just Kerry, but all your representatives must be carefully considered.

[Warpy]

13. Nearly all nations are republics, even the

constitutional monarchies.

The US is a democratic republic, or it used to be before 2000.

[HamdenRice]

20. No they are not...

The country we commonly call Britain is officialy "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." (Great Britain, in turn is England, Scotland and Wales.) It is most certainly not a republic. Whether it should become one is an issue of debate in that country.

[VOX]

14. Re the U.S.,roughly put: republic is the "it," and democracy is the "how."

The U.S. is a democratic republic -- and a representational one at that, since we elect particular individuals to speak/act on our behalf. Supposedly. Ideally. When the right wing isn't in control.

[CaTeacher]

15. I thought that the

people that got this country started (like George Washington) called it a Federal Republic.

However--that has nothing to do with the republicAN party.

[HamdenRice]

17. It's like comparing apples and oranges

There is nothing inconsistent in saying that the United States is a republic and the United States is a democracy. The terms cover different aspects of the political system.

In its most narrow definition, the term "republic" simply explains what component of society "sovereignty" resides in. Sovereignty is the source of both the political power and legitimacy of a state. In a republic, sovereignty resides in "the people."

Those of you who wrote that republic merely means that the US is not a monarchy have it only partly right. In a monarchy, sovereignty resides in the sovereign, usually a king or emporer. (That's why republics have "citizens", while monarchies have "subjects" -- ie subjects of the king.) But there are other kinds of systems. In a theocracy, such as Iran, the Vatican or Taliban-era Afghanistan, sovereignty resides in a god or in its representatives, the church or other religious system. (In other words, it's not just a choice between republic and monarchy.)

Democracy refers to the system by which political officeholders are chosen and political questions are decided. In a democracy, officeholders are chosen through some kind of consultation with the public, most often through elections or the votes of representatives.

But a state can be a monarchy and a democracy -- like Great Britain. It can be a republic and a dictatorship -- such as the Soviet Union, which drew its sovereignty from the people, but which chose leadership through the dictatorship of the proletariat. Even a theocracy can be a democracy, as when Iran holds presidential elections.

The US is supposed to be a republic, in which sovereignty resides in the people, as well as a democracy, in which officeholders are chosen mostly through elections.

The distiinction between indirect and direct democratcy is overblown. Direct democracy is a system in which the people chose their leadership directly, in assembly. One of the few examples would be the New England town meeting. Direct democracy is impracticable in a large country because all 280 million of us won't fit into the courthouse on the New England village square.

There is no contradiction between a country being a republic and a democracy; neither is it necessary for a republic to be a democracy.

Obviously however, there is a great deal of consistency in political culture if a republic, which draws its legitimacy from the people, also chooses its office holders and makes political choices, through consultations with the people, via elections.

[ibegurpard]

18. They're simply to trying to get people to make associations.

Republic-republican
Democracy-Democrat

Removing the "ic" from Democratic as an adjective describing a politician or party is a further attempt to get people to disassociate democracy (which has a positive connotation) from the Democrats.

[HamdenRice]

22. You hit the nail on the head ...

While we are discussing political theory, the project of the RW is to delegitimize the Democratic Party and elevate the Republican Party. It is a ridiculous and meaningless distinction in those terms. People who make the argument in that way could not give a rat's ass about the real differences between republic and democracy.

[texastoast]

19. Like my bumpersticker says,

We don't have a democracy (or republic, IMO), we have an auction.


:puke:

[H2O Man]

21. The USA is a

democratic republic, by definition. It is not always a democratic republic in action. There are a number of historic reason why. However, every individual who participates in the process increases the chances that we reach our potential to be a democratic republic.

[Room101]

23. America is a "Republic" and that's how the founding fathers

Wanted it. They were scared of both a tyranny and Democracy. The word Democracy never appears in the Constitution. .

Read "The myth of Democracy" Ferdinand Lundberg.

[Gwerlain]

26. Agreed, on all three:

The thing they most feared was tyranny: by a monarch, or by the majority. In their view, democracy was sure to lead to the tyranny of the majority.

[no_hypocrisy]

24. Qualification: it's a CONSTITUTIONAL republic. Big difference.

[Tsiyu]

32. NO, Y'all : It is a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

Both parties are right there ( though Dems are first!)

WE have a representative form of government - others represent ( vote for) us, which is where the republic part comes in - a "federation" of states given proportionate say in lawmaking, etc.

It is a DEMOCRATIC form of a republic, because each of us ( theoretically at least) can cast a vote for the person we wish to represent us. THE PEOPLE decide who THE LAWMAKERS should be.

[deutsey]

28. Democracy is the means by which we choose representatives

in our Republic. Theoretically, anyway. That's why what happened in Florida in 2000 is so sickening. How many people gave their lives (both in wars fighting fascism abroad and in the civil rights movement at home) so that the franchise could be defended and expanded to include all Americans in the democratic process?

[tjwash]

29. That's an older argument. It's just more divisive BS.

nt

[The Revolution]

33. According to Aristotle...

"A democracy exists whenever those who are free and are not well off, being in a majority, are in sovereign control of the government, an oligarchy when control lies in the hands of the rich and better born, these being few."

So are we a democracy or not, by this definition?

It seems to me that a handful of wealthy people and corporations are in control of the government at the moment. I suppose the answer depends on whether or not we can change this by working within the system we have. If we can change this without having to resort to some kind of uprising or overthrow of the existing system, then I'd say we are a democracy. If it is impossible for us to do this, I'd say we are not.