OK, I am dense and must be misinformed. Let me approach this in a different manner.
You all tell me that there are many different ‘flavors’ of democracy: direct, constitutional, representative, parlementary, etc.
I now pose the question, what is it about all of these that make each of them a ‘democracy’? What is the common thing that ties these diverse forms together and that places them ALL under the term democracy?
Take you time, I will be gone for about 5 - 7 days so you can work on this.
Jeesh! What in the world have we all been SAYING in this thread! Chatchy, there isn’t any serious disagreement here that a ‘democracy’ is a form of government where the citizens (some or all of them) vote in some way relevant to the governance of the country. The different ‘flavors’ indicate the type of issue on which the people are allowed to vote.
On a side note, I wonder how many people realize that many if not most ‘communist’ nations are as much a ‘republic’ as is the US?
Interesting DSY, I get to that later. Looking over the thread, I see some interesting things.
First an aside to cuzco’s comments on 12-1. Sorry the states do not have any votes in the U.S. Senate. U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 3 was changed by the 17th Amendment and took the vote away from the states. The states have no vote at the federal level.
The subject is USA Democracy or Republic. It is not questioning whether the USA is a democratic country or not. Also on 12-1, cuzco states that democracy and republic are not the same thing, and then goes on to define DEMOCRATIC. Then cuzco defines a democracy as what this group would probably call ‘direct democracy’ and I refer to cuzco’s 11-30 note stating that there is no direct democracy.
Ian is accommodating; He accepts both, democracy and republic and states that the writers of #10 were “inaccurate”. Ian, sadly, does not address the US Constitution problem. It says that the all states will have a ‘republican form of government’. Why not also state a democratic form of government. The word ‘democratic’ is not mentioned at all in the Constitution. Also, the Pledge of Allegiance specifically mentions the ‘republic’, why not also mention democracy? Careless omissions? I think not.
On 1-5 Kennedy says even a dictatorship can be a republic as long as the dictator represents the voice and hand of the citizens. Curious. This begs the question, how would one tell? Presumably one would ask the dictator since the others would have no voice.
Now: It seems most agree that the original definition of democracy or ‘direct democracy’ has changed with experience and time, as DSY states. The original definition of democracy has mutated into a more practical form. I’ll address this point in my last paragraph.
DSY answered my question of 1-9, what is the basic form of a democracy? DSY says it is a form of government where ‘some or all’ of the citizens may be allowed to vote on different issues. Since no one else has commented, I assume they agree with DSY.
I would like to examine the limits we both put on the persons who vote and what they vote on.
For a maximum, I mean all can vote and I also mean all issues.
Your maximum also allows all to vote and seems to allow all issues.
Now for the minimum limit; I stick to all can vote on all issues.
Your minimum; ‘some’. My dictionary defines some as ‘an unspecified amount or number of’.
If ‘some’ is plural, then the smallest number would be two, if ‘some’ is allowed to be singular, the number would become one. These one or two would vote probably on everything, and the rest, or the ‘large’ population, would not vote on anything. This is allowed as a minimum within YOUR definition.
I would not call this minimum condition of your definition; a ‘democracy’ and I know no one else that would.
To look at the idea that it is understandable that the original meaning of democracy has mutated into a more practical form. When I started this thread I did not foresee that the consensus would be that the change of definition would be reasonable. Since I misjudged this point so far, I would request some Administrator, perhaps CXDextHavn please change the name of this thread. It should be: Animal Farm, alive and well.
As I said in the first place, “republic” offers a theory of sovereignty, nothing more. If the state is conceived as depending from the ruler, either as the elected of God or gods, or simply by the fact of force, then it is not a republic. It it conceived as arising from the people, then it is. Do you think it for nothing that Hitler called himself “leader”, and not “king”? (And, for that matter, do you think it means nothing that for the last few generations it has been made fashionable to refer to our own rulers as our “leaders”, rather than as what they are?)
Different people in history have used “republic” as both dyslogism and eulogism, and have tended to define the word for tactical purposes as meaning whatever they wish to condemn or praise by it. The same is true of “democracy”, which has been used by writers in the last 200 years to mean “mob rule”, “justice”, and everything in between. But the true meanings of the words are: “a state, conceived as deriving its sovereignty from the people,” and “a state in which the ultimate power is exercised by the people;” everything else is slimy rhetoric.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
Ah, Mr Kennedy, which dictionary are you using for those ‘true’ definitions. I have a small pocket dictionary that defined democracy as ‘of the people and by the people’. Different dictionaries have different definitions. In previous post, I put up definitions that were used in The Federalist Paper # 10. Most here seem to think that the definition has rightfully changed from that. Therefor, I think of this group now as ‘Animal Farm’ where any definition we wish to use we will. Still, The founders of America stated within The Federalist Papers that they did NOT want the USA to be a democracy. Within the Constitution they also gave their blessings to it being a republic, as implied by Article 4 Section 4.
Inasmuch as both words have a history far older than the English language, and inasmuch as (as I explained at length in my last post) people have been using the words “republic” and “democracy” to mean both “good thing” and “bad thing” for over 2,000 years, according to their own prejudices (or, more cynically, according to their immediate dialectical advantage), the question of what the two words “really” mean is no longer one of what dictionaries say (which have the burden of having to deal with whatever people mean when they say a word), but one of political history.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
Thank you Mr. Kennedy. I appreciate you input even though it does leave me very confused.
On 5 Jan. you wrote that democracy and republic have nothing to do with one another. Democracy is a system of rule… Republic is a theory of sovereignty.
Using my 1986 copy of ‘The Oxford Reference Dictionary’, I notice that the definition of ‘theory’ is “a system of ideas”. Also, it defines ‘sovereignty’ as a supreme ruler or sovereign power. So, substituting I see that you seem to say that democracy is a system of rule and that republic is a ‘system’ of ‘rule’ also, however they have nothing to do with one another. Curious. And of course, you wonderful statement that ‘theoretically’, a dictatorship can be a republic.
On 24 Jan. you say that for the last 200 years writers have used democracy to mean ‘mob rule’. Well, let is say for the last 2,000 plus years since even Plato called it that. Democracy is when ‘50% plus 1’ of the people can do what ever they wish. Mob can be defined as ‘the common people’; therefore you might understand that democracy is ‘mob rule’. The biggest mob ‘gang’ rules!
And you finish off by giving us the ‘true meanings of the words’.
On 26 Jan. you now tell us that what the two words ‘really mean’ is not to be found in a dictionary. And yes, for over 2,000 years the words have meant good things and bad things. Until the last 100 years, democracy HAS referred to bad things. Look back at Plato, he admired a republic and did not trust a democracy, as did the makers of the U.S. constitution.
You have given us this, a dictatorship ‘can’ be a republic, also given us the ‘true meanings’ and then what the words ‘really mean’. How many more definitions do you have? Yes, you confirm my above observation for correction; Animal Farm is alive and well.
Chatchy
In the first place, stay away from little baby dictionaries that give 2-3 word definitions. They are rarely useful, and often dangerous.
In the second place, you don’t seem to understand that people abuse language, especially when they see issues of “right” and “wrong”. That people have said “democracy” when they meant “mob rule” is an historic fact. In fact, even “republican” has been used so, even in the USA. A 19th-century newspaper would frequently say “red republican” where a 1950’s newspaper would simply have said “red” and a 1980’s newspaper would have said “pro-Marxist terrorist”. And poor dictionary writers have to boil all this down.
But we are not writing a dictionary. We are asking whether something is “really” a democracy or a republic. And as soon as you ask the question, “Is X really a Y,” then the last thing you can do is look up “Y” in a dictionary, because if anyone ever said, “X is a Y,” without taint of simple fallacies of fact or identification (“Is America a democracy?” – “No, America is two continents.”), why then, to him, “Y” meant what X is, and dictionaries have to allow for that. “Really”, if it to mean anything, demands that we ask more.
“Republic” comes from Latin “res publica” – “the public thing”. A republic is any government that is thought of as arising from the people, no matter how it is constructed. A monarchy is any government that is thought of as springing from an inherent authority in the monarch. Have you ever heard the expression, “The King can do no wrong”? That’s not cynicism; it’s a statement of a basic legal fact; by definition, the monarch is the fount of all law.
To put it another way: all governments are “of the people;” a democracy is “by the people;” a republic is “for the people.”
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
I like that.
Interesting Mr Kennedy.
“stay away from little baby dictionaries that give 2-3 word definitions. They are rarely useful, and often dangerous.”
What they are is succinct, often ‘useful’ and rarely ‘dangerous’.
And as soon as you ask the question, “Is X really a Y,” then the last thing you can do is look up “Y” in a dictionary
Humbug!
You seem to be unable to pass beyond a definition, Let us try to go beyond that and work from the other end back, maybe, then you will understand why a democracy is ‘mob rule’.
You say, and I agree, "a democracy is “by the people;”
Let us imagine a democracy and see if that is what the U.S.A. is.
Let’s make it simple. 101 people in our democracy. All are equal and have the right to vote.
George suggest this democracy have a symbol, and suggests an Eagle. Benjamin thinks an eagle, since it is a hunter and scavenger, is a bad icon, so Benjamin suggests a turkey, more of a family figure.
Now we have a decision to be made ‘by the people’. Which symbol should be accepted? In this democracy, how would this be resolved?
No one seems interested in answering the above.
Take a look at how the U.S. federal government defined the difference between a republic and democracy. The following was taken from U.S. Government Training Manual, No. 2000-25 dated WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, November 30, 1928 and prepared under direction of the Chief of Staff.
DEMOCRACY: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic- negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
REPUBLIC: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principals and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the “standard form” of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a Constitution which provides for the election of
an executive, and
a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and
are required to create a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental Acts, and
“Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive, for as soon as the people learn that they have a voice in the fiscal policies of the government, they will move to vote for themselves all the money in the treasury, and bankrupt the nation.” – Karl Marx, 1848 author of “The Communist Manifesto”
(Sigh!)
You want conciseness. Fine. Here’s conciseness:
Q: Is the USA a Democracy or a Republic?
A: Yes.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams