For definitions of a Democracy and Republic, see ‘The Federalist Papers’ #10
To learn which the USA is, see ‘The US Constitution’ Article #4 Section #4.
To see what the OP is talking about, see Is the U.S. a democracy or a republic? What’s the difference? .
Livin’ on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine
I have to say I was unsatisfied with the discussion of democracy v. republic. Why, for instance, not discuss the numerous constitutional monarchies, which are just as democratic as republics, but are not republics?
Well, that was kind of my point, that there is no clear-cut difference between the two, because the terms simply don’t refer to the same thing. One is a system of government, one is a concept. A constitutional monarchy is a republic if it wants to be; those that choose not to refer to themselves as such don’t really have a rational reason not to, 'cept for they just don’t. You want a discussion of all the fine points of each nation and how they describe their own governments, and how others do so, that sounds like fun, but it was really beyond the scope of the question, IMO.
I wonder, Democracies are not exactly easy to find in this world. I am unable to name three. Can anyone who reads this name three Democracies?
Tell me your first two…
If you mean the public votes directly on everything, then there is no direct democracy–it is impractical in any society with millions of people.
Constitutional monarchies have token monarchs, and are now de facto republics, though the Republican form of govt. was created by the monarch voluntarily giving up power.
Democratic countries are those with universal suffrage; not all republics have this. When the US started out, it was a republic (elected officials wrote the laws,
appointed people, etc.) but was not DEMOCRATIC; suffrage was limited by race, gender and property. By amending the constitution, however, the US has become a DEMOCRATIC republic because everyone can vote after reaching age 18. Western Europe is like this also, as is Japan and Latin America, except there is a lot of fraud in Latin American politics. This is what people mean when they refer to “democracies.”
Now I am confused. Are you saying that in a Republic, the people vote for a representative and In a Democracy people also vote for a representative. I then do not discern the difference. I still maintain that the definitions are as stated in ‘The Federalist Papers’ #10.
Since the 1930’s the dictionary definition has become to be the same thing, I maintain they are NOT the same.
Hamilton’s position in #10 is summed up as
Succinct, but inaccurate with the historical definition. Simply put, AGAIN, a republic and a democracy are not two mutually exclusive sets in some governmental Venn daigram. To say a nation is a republic is not to describe, IN ANY WAY, its system of government. “Republic” is just another way of saying “the people’s” - it’s a statement of ideals, not a description of policy. To answer your last question, yes, in a democracy, at least in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, people elect representatives to make legislation. The USA, to clarify the question answered in the topic of the thread, is a democracy and a republic.
Beg your pardon. #10 was written by Madison, not Hamilton.
Most people don’t realize that when the Democratic Party was formed, it was called the “Republican Party”. It was called “democratic” by its opponents as an insult, but the badge was picked up and worn proudly. After a few generations, “Republican” had falled into disuse, so that by 1856 it was available as the name for a new party.
That’s why on charts of presidents, etc., you’ll see some listed as “Democrat-Republican”.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
A democracy and a republic are not the same thing; I used the word DEMOCRATIC to refer to
republics that have universal suffrage, as most do today. Democracy is like a town assembly–someone makes a proposal, and the masses say “aye” or “nay”. A kibbutz is like this; ancient Greece (where democracy started) is like this. Ross Perot proposed electronic town meetings for direct democracy–I don’t know if this would work.
A referendum on an issue is more democratic that letting elected representatives (whose positions on some issues are unknown) vote, but is chaotic; its done in California, and the people approve things that are unconstitutional or unfunded. Democracy is also a condition–a culture in which people actively participate. There is less democracy when voters are apathetic or uninformed. Also, a people can vote to delegate power–communism has on occasion been the result of a democratic process, and its how Hitler initially came to power. The
US, by any definition, is democratic and a republic–the masses can even amend the constitution, and their reluctance (except on a few occasions) to do so shows that the delegations of power are accepted–even if the people in office frequently are not. This is partly because the US is the only nation that Constitutionally guarantees free speech and press.
According to the dictionary, democracy is “rule by the majority” and a republic is rule by “leaders elected by a group of voters.” While the US has universal suffrage, it is interesting to note that is isn’t precisely rule by the majority because it has a split
legislature, and the Senate gives each state 2 votes regardless of population (so California’s 30 million people could be outvoted by the people of Alaska and Wyoming, who have a total of one million people, if California’s 2 senators vote one way and the other two states’ senators vote another). The presidency, moreover, is winner take all in each state, so you can win the popular vote but lose in the electoral college–but this has only happened once. These are constitutional safeguards that protect smaller states by making them more powerful in proportion to their size, and is kind of undemocratic–except Californians are free to move to Wyoming if they so choose.
What?!
Beg to differ. The US are certainly not the only nation that constitutionally guarantees free speech and press!
I disagree Ian cuzco and all.
The quote is accurate with the historical definition. The definition has changed within the last 100 years. Before then the differences were well know, and as stated within # 10: “… it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person,…” and “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place,…”
Reference the quote you cite; first, delegation of the government IS a sign of a republic, not a democracy, and second, a democracy must be within a reasonably small population while a republic can include “the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country,…”. The quote is accurate.
Even Plato was against a democracy. The right of a person and property is not secure under a democracy. The quote is historically accurate, the current popular definition is NOT historically correct.
Democracy is the rule of men, while a republic is the rule of law. Paper #10 explains the main, but not the only problem under a democracy: factions. “By faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”
In a democracy, all interested persons can vote on any and all proposals. Decisions are made by majority rule, the most powerful gang rules.
In a republic, laws protect property and the rights of the non-powerful or unpopular persons. Representatives vote, not the individual on most proposals.
The terms ‘representative democracy’, or ‘democratic republic’ are both contradictions. To follow the above definitions and use both terms is beyond me. I do not understand how the people can both ‘assemble and administer the government in person’ and at the same time delegate the government to representatives. To call the USA a democracy is odd; how many people actually vote for the President? The people do NOT vote for the President. The people do not vote on the ordinary issues of government. The USA is not a democracy. The people elect representatives to administer the government for them. The representatives vote on issues, not the people. The USA is a republic.
Also, I now refer to the US Constitution Article 4, Section 4. This requires all states, each and every one, to have a republican form of government. No individual state is allowed to be a democracy. All states must be republics.
And to finish, I present a game. See if you can find and correct the error in the following paragraph (The US Pledge of Allegiance).
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the democracy for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
chatchy
Yes chatchy, it should be “republic” for which it stands.
Hog, you are rude, and also wrong–Peter Arnet came to the US for the very reason I cited. His native New Zealand, the UK (where he also could have migrated), Australia and Western European states guarantee it by statutes that can be repealed (Canada also), and these nations have exceptions–some disallow pornography,
Germany disallows any Nazi propaganda, the UK suppressed dissidents in Northern Ireland.
The UK does not even HAVE a written Constitution, just a long body of laws that (over time) have given rights. I went to law school and was an editor of an international law journal, so only make assertions like that if you can cite a foreign constitution (how many foreign constitutions have you read).
Labrador asked about const. monarchies–these are de facto republics because the monarchs have allowed them to be, though they technically could assert power if they wanted to. They also have universal suffrage, and are democratic as well. As we discussed on the UK post, the monarchies in these countries are legal fictions, much like the British commonwealth is now. The US is a CONSTITUTIONAL republic, but it is not required that the nation have a constitution, and many do not.
Cuzco:
The US Constitution can be changed, and has been. There may be extra hurdles to jump, but if it can be changed at all, then it’s just a matter of degree.
And, as for unlimited protection, what about “fire in a crowded theatre” and slander/libel laws? They’re both for a good reason, but both are limts…
Thanks, WhiteNight, that’s exactly my point.
What’s rude about ‘beg to differ’, cuzco? I’m too lazy to make up a pun on your name, so I’ll just take that ‘Hog’ thing as a typo.
The US is not the only country to guarantee freedom of speech and the press in its constitution. Here’s one example, from the Norwegian constitution (English translation available on line at http://odin.dep.no/ud/nornytt/uda-121.html ):
PARAGRAPH 100
There shall be liberty of the Press. No person may be punished for any writing, whatever its contents, which he has caused to
be printed or published, unless he wilfully and manifestly has either himself shown or incited others to disobedience to the laws, contempt of religion, morality or the constitutional powers, or resistance to their orders, or has made false and defamatory accusations against anyone. Everyone shall be free to speak his mind frankly on the administration of the State and on any other subject whatsoever.
The Norwegian constitution, written in 1814, was to a large degree inspired by the US Constitution, and not surprisingly many of the rights guaranteed in the US Bill of Rights were included in the Norw. constitution proper.
An interesting example, flod.
And let’s not forget the Spanish Inquisition, which guaranteed such freedoms as freedom FROM heresy.