• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are we a 'republic' or a 'democracy'?

Iamme

Philosopher
I
Joined
Aug 5, 2003
Messages
6,215
This has been argued already. I heard a pastor on TBN the other morning, during his sermon, say that we a democracy living in a republic. So, for the fun of it, I looked up the meaning of both in my dictionary. What seemed the most odd to me though was the fact that the definitions sounded so much a like, regarding the government being run by the people or their elected . Yet, neither gave reference to the other, in their definitions!

I have an older dictionary. Has the definitions changed some, do you know?
 
I think the word "indirect" was the defining word BadReligion used. As it was explained to me the difference is as follows:

Democracy: In a true democracy everyone would have a say in every issue. Government wants to pass a new law? Hold a referendum and have everyone vote on it.

Representative Republic: The people democratically elect a group to make the decisions for them at various state and federal levels.

Hope that helps.
 
"A government which has a meaningful portion of its activities selected by a vote of the general population" seems like a good modern definition for Democracy

I'm less sure of "Republic," but I think it's something between "Representive Democracy" and "A government whereby power officially derives from the people it serves."
 
- a republic is a country where the leader is not a monarch.
- a democracy is a system of government where the people are the leaders, there are many variations.

if you had a computer algorithm decide the best person to lead a country every 4 years, it wouldn't be a democracy, but it would still be a republic, (in a sci-fi fantasy)

if you had a figurehead monarch, but the people decided (even indirectly) the course of government actions, then it is a democracy, but not a republic, (UK for example?).

for your pastor ... ancient israel was never a republic nor a democracy. the "coming kingdom" in the new testament would be neither either. the idea of the common person deciding the course for a nation was a recipe for disaster according to the bible. makes you think, doesn't it?
 
Ausmerican said:


Democracy: In a true democracy everyone would have a say in every issue. Government wants to pass a new law? Hold a referendum and have everyone vote on it.
Click to expand...

I think we need more democracy in the USA.
 
I say Republic.

I pledge Allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all.
Click to expand...
 
We're a Democratic Republic, just like North Korea (aka the Democratic People's Republics of Korea)




... except for the fact that we have freedom, elections, and pesky details such as those.
 
Iamme said:

I have an older dictionary. Has the definitions changed some, do you know?
Click to expand...
the definitions have changed, but the problem is that your dictionary isn't old enough, not that it's too old. In the really old days democracy was something like ancient Athens where everybody (meaning men except for foreigners) could vote on everything directly. Republics where states where everybody (still meaning men, and ussually only the rich ones) could vote for the leaders. So what we today calls representative democracy they called republics a hundred or two hundred years ago, some Americans, ussually those who worship the Constitution and the founding farthers, still use the words in their old forms. Shanek fx will go balistic if you tell him US is a democracy.
 
clk said:
We're a Democratic Republic, just like North Korea (aka the Democratic People's Republics of Korea)




... except for the fact that we have freedom, elections, and pesky details such as those.
Click to expand...
Yeah, bloody reactionary fascists that's what you are. :p

P.S. I always thought it was funny how countries that's called something with people's or democratic never actually are democratic, or does anybody know any exeptions?
 
Our Founders created a "Republic" but today in America we have in fact a defacto deomcracy wherein major public policy is dictated by popular will via the polls.
 
swstephe said:
the idea of the common person deciding the course for a nation was a recipe for disaster according to the bible. makes you think, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

This is interesting. Do you have a reference?
 
I cannot express in words how frustrating it is to engage in an argument in which my conservative counter-part answers "But we're republic, not a democracy" whenever the weight of informed philosophical-political opinion, elected representatives, and the majority of people conspire against his pet world-view.

From the Oxford Guide to the United States Government:

republicanism Republicanism is the belief in the worth of a republic, a type of government that is based on the consent of the governed and is conducted by elected representatives of the people. In a republican government, the people are sovereign, or supreme, because their representatives serve at their pleasure for the common good. Today, people tend to use the terms republic and representative democracy interchangeably. In contrast to a republic, a pure or direct democracy is a form of government in which the people govern directly—in a town meeting, for example—instead of through representatives whom they elect.

In The Federalist No. 39, James Madison presented the idea of republicanism that is embodied in the U.S. Constitution:

What, then, are the distinctive characters of the republican form?… If we resort for a criterion… we may define a republic to be… a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it…. It is sufficient for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified.
Click to expand...

In the world of the 1780s, the republican form of government was rare; monarchies and aristocracies prevailed. These non-republican forms of government function without representation of or participation by the common people. In an absolute monarchy, the monarch (the king or queen or both) rules; and in an aristocracy, a small elite group of aristocrats or nobles exercises power in government. Power usually is based on heredity in a monarchy or aristocracy; titles are passed from father to children (usually sons).

Americans in the 1780s were committed to republicanism, rather than a monarchy, aristocracy, or other non-republican form of government. They agreed that the rights and liberty of individuals could best be secured through a republican form of government. As a result, they built republicanism into the U.S. Constitution. Article 4, Section 4, says, “The United States [federal government] shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” See also Constitutional democracy; Constitutionalism; Liberty under the Constitution
 
Kerberos said:
Yeah, bloody reactionary fascists that's what you are. :p

P.S. I always thought it was funny how countries that's called something with people's or democratic never actually are democratic, or does anybody know any exeptions?
Click to expand...

One of my favorite politics jokes:

The Democratic Republic of the Congo is neither democratic nor the Congo.

Tip of the hat to Jon Stewart.
 
swstephe said:


if you had a figurehead monarch, but the people decided (even indirectly) the course of government actions, then it is a democracy, but not a republic, (UK for example?).
Click to expand...

The UK is normally described as a constitutional monarchy in which parliament is supreme. This supremacy dates from the Bill of Rights 1689.

Democracy these days is just a somewhat inaccurate way of describing a method of appointing representatives to a legislature.
 
I think the only thing that really matters in this whole regard is that regardless of what you call it, we are NOT a nation where "majority rules."

From what I've seen, this question of "democracy" basically rears up when someone is trying to claim something should be law because the majority wants it. However, because of our constitution, there are restrictions on some of the things the majority can do, no matter how overwhelming the majority is.
 
pgwenthold said:
I think the only thing that really matters in this whole regard is that regardless of what you call it, we are NOT a nation where "majority rules."

From what I've seen, this question of "democracy" basically rears up when someone is trying to claim something should be law because the majority wants it. However, because of our constitution, there are restrictions on some of the things the majority can do, no matter how overwhelming the majority is.
Click to expand...

Ah, you must be an "activist judge". The majority should always get its way! Unless it's in favor of legalizing physician-assisted suicide, medical marijuana, or not giving pay raises to Congress. In those cases, thank heaven we have the Constitution to protect us from the tyranny of the masses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom