I’ve seen it asserted countless times on these message boards that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. I’ll not try to provide context, because part of my point is that this claim is made in a multitude of contexts. Unfortunately, those asserting this never bother to explain what they’re talking about. Why do you believe that democracy is incompatible with a republic?
from The Random House College Dictionary, Third ed.
I take it that those of you who make the “republic, not a democracy” claim have different definitions. I’m just wondering what those definitions are.
It has been asserted that democracy is a form of government, while republicanism is a theory of sovereignty. That’s just fine, and it conforms to the 2nd Random House definition of republic, but I still don’t know why the two would be incompatible.
Republicans, as you must have noticed in the recent Florida imbroglio, have a deep-seated distrust of the people’s vote. They would much rather be appointed to power without having to go through such messy spectacles as democratic elections where the common rabble is allowed to participate.
Ok democracy, broken down into the root greek from which it is derived is basically “Rule by the people.” Right? So in that sense, a republic is democratic. However, when you refer to the US being a democracy (as Clinton does so commonly) the implict assumption that people make is the US is a direct democracy, as in ancient Athens. Our process is democratic, but this is not a direct democracy, thus when people speak as though we are, they misrepresent reality. A republic, by contrast, is an indirect democracy. Thus, we elect representatives of the people, and those representitives have the power. The people have a say in the government only in so far as they can choose their representative. And yes, this was intended to limit the power of the people. Direct democracy is inherently unstable, thus the republican form of govt is a compromise that maximizes stability while retaining a great deal of influence for the citizens.
The thing you have to keep in mind is that neither of these terms has anything to do with the 2 parties. Members of the 2 parties chose the term they use to decribe our form of government in such a way that it favors their party. This is why democrats are fond of calling the US a democracy and republicans have a stronger tendency to call it a republic. It is really just a play on words. The country is in fact a republic, but it is also a democracy, but it isn’t a direct democracy. Thus, the US is a form a of democracy, and to be specific the exact form of democracy we have is a republic. Ok, make sense now?
btw, I’m and idenpendent so I have no reason to choose one over the other, however, I do prefer the term republic simply because it is the most precise and acurate. If you tell people they live in a democracy, yet we don’t let everyone have an equal say, it kind of pisses people off. However, if we don’t spin it to call our form of government something it is not, then this is less likely. The reason I say this is because to many the mention of the word democracy tends to invoke the imlicit assumption that we are talking about a direct democracy.
I have a few opinions on this, but I’ll wait to see how the thread progresses first, and I’m a little lazy tonight too;).
If you want the precise term, we are a representative democracy. Republic is the next closest, and democracy is the least precise. No one claims republic and democracy are incompatible - it’s just a matter of accuracy in language.
I am unfamiliar with the “republicanism is a theory of sovereignty” position and would appreciate it if someone could enlighten me.
The idea that a republic is a form of democracy is false, though I have formerly argued the very same thing in this forum. The difference is in the franchise. A republic may be a democracy if the franchise is sufficiently broad enough to be described as “the people”; however, if inclusion in the empowered body of citizens is more limited then a republic is not a democracy. For instance in Heinlein’s Starship Troopers the franchise is limited to those who undertake civil or military service. That nation is a republic but not a democracy.
Sua:
Since I have been trying for the last few weeks over on the Constitutiontalk message board trying to make the point that America was both a democracy and a republic and I got nowhere, I have to disagree that “No one claims republic and democracy are incompatible”.
Of course, I was “debating” with a prevaricating nitwit.
RD:
The afore mentioned nitwit also made the implicit assumption that “democracy” meant “direct democracy”. My position is that it is unfortunate that people don’t understand what words mean but if I explain how I am using a term and post a dictionary definition showing that I am using it correctly then I have done all I can to cure their ignorance. I don’t understand why people confuse the 2 terms. It’s not like there are any direct democracies anywhere in the world.
The the restrictive definition doesn’t seem very useful.
Well, as for why true democracy cannot exist in a republic such as ours, I think the best explanation was provided by James Madison in Federalist #10, which should be required reading in every high school in the land.
Basically, the United States, as it was in 1789 and as it is now, is simply too large for direct democracy to work. We would be subject to the whims of factions and the rights of the minority would be suppressed beyond belief. Basically, mob rule. It would also be a logistical nightmare, no matter how far technology advances.
I often marvel at how much thought went into the creation of the government. Though the people in it are, just like us, flawed, they work in a system that is almost perfectly designed. People complain about it being slow. Well, it was meant to be slow.
The argument is that parliamentary democracies are overly responsive because you can replace the government at any time, thus, they are too subject to some temporary whim of the majority. If you poll the people of a nation at the right time, you can get them to agree to just about anything. But if elections are on a set time frame, the chances of some temporary whim actually changing things are greatly reduced.
I often post on the flaws I find in our current system. I occasionally counter the assumption that “the chances of some temporary whim actually changing things are greatly reduced” is a good thing. Usually at that time I point out that those “temporary whims” are just as easily removed if they prove shortsighted.
I did not do so in this thread because that is not what this thread is about.
This thread is about curing the ignorance of those who think that “America isn’t a democracy, it’s a republic.”
Once every four years*, registered voters in the US go to the polls to choose which of two nitwits will make our decisions for us until next time. That is more democratic than some systems, and there exist people (sadly enough) who do not believe that a more democratic arrangement could be formulated that would work with so many people.
For a system to be a democracy and NOT a republic, it would probably have to set no one structurally above the rest even via election and for a temporary term of office. I suppose that if you view the system of elected representation as the most democratic system feasible, you would not see any meaningful different between “republic” and “democracy”.
Disclaimer: Nothing in this posting shall be construed to mean that I claim or believe the Democratic Party of the US is dedicated to the attainment of a form of government that will not be a republic. I don’t even believe they’ve seriously considered funding a little research for purposes of investigating the possibility.
actually, although the President is elected every 4 years, other participants in the representative government are up for election at other intervals, e.g., House of Representatives every 2 years, Senate every 6 years.
Republic, from Latin, synonymous with SPQR (Senate and People of Rome): Res (thing) Publica (of the people). The Roman Republic is therefore defined as that which is previous to the Roman Empire (when kings ruled it).
Democracy, from the Greeks, who invented it, Demos (the common people) Kratia (government).
Maybe this is why we say “Democratic Republic” to imply a representive system of government elected by the common people. They are never mutually exclusive.
Excuse me, are you actually in favor of the US becomming a direct democracy?
Or even believe that this is feasable?
If so, I am glad to meet you, you are the first I’ve met.
And Brian,
The meaning of words changes over time. Check the OP for a modern definition. Also, Rome was ruled by kings before the Republic was formed. The subsequent Roman Empire was ruled by Emperors.
Just my 2sense When I refer to my 2sense, I’m actually talking about my weird fifth sense. Not sixth. By some tragic accident, I was born without taste buds.
But I do believe that a direct democracy is possible and can work.
I always hear that a direct democracy is ‘mob rule’ and would degenerate into anarchy. Huh? Athens survived for centuries in a very dangerous neighborhood, locked into a series of grinding wars. Everything that I have read convinces me that a direct democracy is more stable than any other form of democracy, since the general public (who I give a lot more credit to for common sense than seems to be the case with most of the posters to this board) has a personal stake in the survival and proper functioning of their government.
By ‘direct democracy’, I do not mean referenda, but the direct participation of individual citizens in the decision-making bodies of government. These citizens would be chosen, not by elections, which are inherently corrupt, but by ‘assortion’, much like being chosen for jury duty. Random assortion would ensure accurate proportionate representation of every attribute of the citizens of the general public: gender, income level, skin colour, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
If the argument is made that this would also include a representative sample of idiots and criminals, then tests could be administered before extending citizenship, as is done now for immigrants. But I do believe that the majority of people would do just fine in this position; they are, after all, entrusted under the US Constitution with deciding major criminal cases even today.
Isn’t that simply another form of representative democracy? Except when we take random people from the population to make decisions for us, we are simply choosing people at random instead of picking them through elections. Either way, the entire population would not be directly taking part in making decisions so that could not be called direct democracy.
Well, if Athenian-style democracy were in place, almost every aspect of ‘government’ would be controlled by boards of citizens, with the membership of each board numbering in the hundreds. The percentage of citizens directly participating in some level of government at some time in their lives would be very high, possibly a majority. And of course many decisions would be decided by direct referenda as well.
If that sounds impossible, the Athenians, a much poorer society than ours, managed it. I cannot believe that what was once accomplished over 2000 years ago is beyond today’s capabilities.
So do you guys want a direct democracy? Is that where we are going with this? I’m just wondering.
If so how, why and when.
Also please elaborate on the costs and benefits that you think would be involved if this is where we are going with this.
Personally, I’m against it, but I would like to hear what you guys think this would accomplish (assuming it could even be implimented, btw not structurally, but rather in the legal sense).
Well, instead I will say hello to you, Willie, as the first person I have met who thinks a direct democracy might work.
I completely disagree.
The problem is not that we don’t have the same resources as the Athenians; the problem is that our society is much much much larger and complex. If over half of your population has a single job/lifestyle ( farming ) and the rest are mostly in a few more ( artisans, sailors, or nobles ) then it is a bit easier to represent the interests of the people. Plus you could actually go and ask them, there aren’t that manny. Also, how is every citizen going to keep track of what every committee is doing? Instead of a comparative few elected officials to watch a citizen would need to keep an eye on every committee to ensure that their view was represented. Bleh. It would be one big SNAFU.
Not to create a strawman, no one brought up the internet, but the idea that the system of linked computers is a tool powerful enough to solve the problems of Athenian Democracy ignores the incredible social complexity necessary to create the net and to keep it linked.
My direct experience in direct democracy comes from living in a townhouse community. It was awful. People would need to fill petitions for the tiniest of rule changes and they would come knocking on your door to ask if you want to support the right of owners to landscape the twelve square feet of grass in front of their condo. We were lucky in that we rented so we had no vote. We still had plenty of visits and phone calls but not as manny as our neighbors. When I imagine that system enlarged by six orders of magnitude I shudder. And then I would have issues that I did care about and would have to impose on my neighbors to drum up support.
No thanks.
I love Democracy. I support it strongly. I rail against the belief that most people are too stupid to understand their government. I favor direct election of the President. I even think that, at times,The People should have a direct say in government. I feel that constitutional amendments should face a popular vote. I am an ardent believer in The People. But when you start talking about putting government completely in their hands…
Sorry, you lost me.
As for your “Government by Assortion”, there is no voting, or direct control by the people so I hesitate to even call it a democracy. Perhaps the randomness would balance out so that views were basically represented proportionally but I don’t know enough to judge. After positioning myself as an advocate of the people I suppose I can’t let your “elections are inherently corrupt” statement go unremarked. What exactly do you mean by this?
We are pious toward our history in order to be cynical toward our government - Garry Wills
One thing the attempt at a direct democracy might achieve is to show people at large all the stupid shit the government wastes time and money on. You want a surplus? Hahaha. SLASH
I don’t see how anyone could say that democracy cannot exist in a republic. More proof that the war on drugs is terribly unsuccessful?
This is not direct democracy. Period. This is a form of republic, with the means of choosing the representatives changed. This is not what Athens did. Athens simply had assemblies of the citizens (which were actually a small percentage of the residents) who voted.
Hundreds of members of each board? Do you forsee the boards’ roles as administrative or legislative? If it’s administrative, it’ll never work. You can’t get a committee over 10 to do anything efficiently.
Why, no, actually… I favor the PLANET becoming a direct democracy.
I don’t even think it would be that difficult to structure. An absolute confederation, decentralized, structured according to a hierarchy of meeting sizes, meeting periodicity (how often the meetings occur), and permanence of decisions made would give you a good start without at any point having to put someone (even temporarily) in a position of power over others.
You’re going to have all these different sized meetings equally determine policy? What if one group disagrees with another?
As well, do you really consider all of us mopes to have enough background to deal with all the issues a full-time government does? How many hours a week are we going to have to sacrifice to have this literal democracy, and do you really see gains from that system as far as the applications and ends of government legislation goes? This is really interesting.
Under the existing system, the world is governed by thousands of governments–most without any requirement that they give a damn about the concerns of folks beyond their borders. We have national governments, state or regional governments, local governments; we have a plethora of nations with generally non-overlapping domains of authority; and the average individual’s concerns are addressed, hypothetically, by several of these, even though the elected officials lack the background to understand that individual’s concerns even if they wanted to, and it usually isn’t among their highest motivations, if I may be so cynical as to make that claim. What if people disagree?
Insofar as the system I propose will (of course and by both necessity and convenience) replace the organized structures of the economy as well as those of government, we will have, as individuals, at least 40-some-odd hours per week to devote to the meetings and the organized activities of daily social living that result from same.
A lot of the human activity that is necessary under the current system serves no purpose whatsoever outside of maintaining that system or patching up its insufficiencies in inefficient ways.
