shrug The claim wasn’t that “No other country guarantees these freedoms in the same way as the US does” - a claim that’s probably true, barring plagiarized constitutions, but pretty meaningless. The claim was that in other countries freedom of expression was only protected by means of statutes which could be repealed. In the above example, a national constitution spells out the limits of what statutes can restrict. Other than the rather bizarrely archaic “contempt of religion” bit, these look a lot like restrictions US courts have allowed all along. Cities can decide to forbid exhibitions of photographs that don’t meet “community standards” (which is to say someone in a position of power thinks they’re naughty), for example, and the right sort of speech or publication can get you in trouble for treason. These things aren’t spelled out by the US Const., but as always, it’s the interpretation that really matters.
I think a step back should be taken here, to the original answer Ian provided. Basic research into the words used will show that the meanings of ‘republic’ and ‘democracy’ have changed with time.
Reference to #10 of The Federalist Papers is a clear example of this. In the late 1700’s, there was a clear feeling of difference between what a true democracy was (government by the people directly), and government for the people by representatives of the people, without any monarchic overlord (republic). It is only with time that the meaning of ‘democracy’ has mutated from direct voting by the people on all matters to a form of government in which the people remain the source of government through elections, though they may yield up power to govern to people they elect. The town hall meetings of old New England were close to true democracy, mimicing the old Greek city-states that practiced what was called demokratia. The closest current form of true democracy in this country would appear to be the state initiative (as well as some few towns where the town hall meeting remains a staple of life).
The fact that early political thought differentiated the two forms of government does NOT, however, mean they are incongruous. As has been noted ably by Ian, a democracy, either pure or representative, is a government in which the populace retain ultimate control of the power to govern. A republic, however, is merely a form of government in which the power to govern is not retained by an elite, such as a monarch. Thus, you can have a democracy that is NOT republican (for example I give you the interesting hybrid of England after the Commons had obtained governing power), and a republic that is not democratic (note the original US Senate was not democratically selected).
Of course, as anyone can see currently, the terms have reached quite broad definitions, being applied to many situations that make one wonder if there are any limits. Is it really correct to term a one-party state a democracy, even if the people ‘vote’ (cf Mexico)? Is it really correct to call a government democratic when half the people it governs are disenfranchised (cf USA before the 19th Amendment)? Is it really correct to call a state a republic, even if the power to govern is truly retained in an elite, even if that elite can be joined by anyone from the masses in theory (cf The People’s Republic of China)?
The U.S. has a democratic form of gonvernment, a representative democracy. It is republican in form as well, as the power to govern is retained by the people as a whole, not an elite. What Plato and Socrates would have thought, goodness knows.
Thanks DSYoungEsq.
You are bringing forth the recent arguments that bring the definitions together to mean the same thing.
I guess I am just old. To me, both phrases (representative democracy and democratic republic) are oxymorons.
Sorry, "The fact that early political thought differentiated the two forms of government does NOT, however, mean they are incongruous. As has been noted ably by Ian, a democracy, either pure or representative, is a government in which the populace retain ultimate control of the power to govern. "
Wrong! No such thing as a Representative democracy. The people either vote themselves or they do not. When you say they retain ultimate control of the power to govern you are forgetting that democracy is about voting not control of power. In a democracy, the people vote. If the people do not vote, it is not a democracy, period. If the people are served by reprersentatives then the people are not voting, the representatives are, therefore NOT DEMOCRACY! Period. Simple. Clean. Understandable. No such things as "represantative democracy’ or any other adjective you wish to apply like constitutional, parlemantary, etc. Either the people vote on everything or they do not.
stay dry
“The fact that early political thought differentiated the two forms of government does NOT, however, mean they are incongruous.”
Nor are they incongruous assembled.
Well, someone had to say it.]]]]]]]] <-- Dex
But why do you always get to? Wasn’t a vote on it that I remember…
I don’t get it, chatchy. Why would someone coin a word to describe a type of government that has never existed anywhere? And the Greek city-states don’t count, unless you think women and non-Greek people aren’t people.
To assert that ‘democracy’ is only government by having the populace vote on everything because that is what it was originally intended to mean is silly. Words change in meaning with experience. ‘Pure’ democracy is practically impossible. The meaning of the word today reflects the understanding that the original ideal has mutated into a more practical form. Asserting this is not true not only ignores reality (a silly way to practice life), but also probably represents a classic example of say one thing, do the other (unless such people really use a word only for what it was originally created).
Boris, Why coin a word for something that has never existed? Hmm. When is the last time you saw a Unicorn? Democracy has existed. It is only possible within a small population though.
Why is it that most people when using democracy, have to add an adjective?
Again, I refer to my original post and am stating my understanding of The Federalist Paper #10. I am using those definitions, not any new change to the dictionary that has happened within the last 100 years or so. Of course, one could ask why the definition held good for many centuries and has had to be modified since the 1st world war.
President Clinton and Madam Allbright refered to the ninteen democracies that made up Nato, I can not find one democracy in Nato.
A republic is, pure and simple, a government where the sovereignty is vested in the public conceived as a unit (res publica). It is no more necessarily free or well-governed than is any other form (and no less). Consider some of the 19th Century South American republics where the letter of the governing law was followed but a strongman retained control for years, often against the will of the majority of the people.
A direct democracy is one where the franchised citizens act as the legislature. Outside small-town New England town meetings and a couple of Swiss cantons, it’s scarce as tyrannosaurus feathers.
A democracy is a form of government where the people, or a large portion thereof, have the principal say in how the government is run and how the laws read. In general, such bodies are “representative democracies” which elect a legislature to enact the laws and, either directly, through the legislature, or through a moribund pseudo-institution with that single purpose, choose the administrative head of government. Such bodies can be presidential republics, limited monarchies, parliamentary republics, or something out of left field.
Canadian courts have consistently struck down statutory provisions that infringe on these guarantees.
As well, although the Charter was only enacted in 1982, prior to that date the Supreme Court had held that freedom of expression, at least in the political arena, was so essential to our system of constitutional democracy that it was implied in the Preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Well, here is more of my thinking.
Bubba-Blue. Just because this is what you have always thought does not make it so. Do some research.
For the other comments. Why is it that whenever a word is added to ‘democracy’ it always sounds like the definition of ‘republic’. Representative Democracy - Please explain the difference from a republic. Constitutional Democrace, ‘whatever’ democracy always seems to sound just like a republic. Only ‘direct’ democracy does not sound like a republic. Why is this? Again, the definition stayed the same for many hundreds of years. Only in the first half of the 1900’s did it change. Why did it change? Why did all of the ‘whatever’ democracy’s end up being the same as republic?
“Democracy” and “republic” have nothing to do with one another. “Democracy” is a system of rule, one which comes in several flavors (direct, representative…). “Republic” is a theory of sovereignty. Any state is a “republic” in which the theory is that the state is the sum of its citizens. An outright dictatorship is a “republic” as long as the dictator is theoretically the voice and hand of the citizens.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
