Languages aren’t pure. Words have meaning based on how they get used. “Democracy” has long meant a government with popular control including election of representatives by the people. Representative democracies are democracies.
One estimate that I’ve seen is that the citizenship definition of Athens was so narrow, that only about 15% of the population of the city were citizens, when exclusion of women, slaves and other birth requirements were taken into account. But Athens is considered to have been a democracy.
Just shows that there is a lot of flexibility to the term and always has been.
No idea who Loren Graham or RT is but that’s exactly wrong.
The founders used the word “republic” to refer to the political entity they were creating. They were well-read in Greek and Roman history, and knew the differences between the two systems. The Greeks - really meaning Athenians - did have a democracy.
It was limited to men of the highest class, about 40,000, still a number too large to meet and discuss issues. In practice, the ekklesia met about once a week with a few thousand appearing to speak their minds. But the boule of 500 actually ran the city’s day-by-say operations. This parallels the division of powers in the Constitution. Democracy, from the very beginning, was not quite the purest direct democracy of imagination.
The Roman Republic ruled through the Senate, but that too was not quite a law-making body of representatives.
“Vested in the people.” Where have I heard that before?
Roman history, mainly because the English liked to think that their Empire was the modern Rome, was more revered and emulated than Greek history. The founders placed themselves in partial opposition to the English, considering themselves as having restored the Roman Republic and shaken off the monarch-worship of the Roman Empire. They used the word “republic” far more often than the word “democracy” which had taken on the connotations of direct democracy of small groups, like those in a New England town meeting. The United States was simply too large and widespread to allow this. A representative republic was needed.
But a funny thing happened on their way from the forum. The word “democracy” started replacing the word “republic.” There were numerous reasons. Jefferson’s soon-dominant political party called itself the Democratic-Republicans, of course soon shortened to the Democratic Party and Democrats. The French Revolution cast a particularly nasty light on the resulting French Republic. So did the Republican revolts all over Europe in 1848.
Over time, Americans embraced democracy as the word emblemizing their achievement. The United States became what people pointed at when they wanted to give an example of “democracy.” Republic never quite fell out of favor - the Pledge of Allegiance, written 1892, begins, "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands… - but by the 20th century democracy became the dominant and nearly undisputed term.
The current push to go back to republic is an ideological cause that can’t be discussed in GQ. It is loud in certain circles, but unlikely to prevail. Democracy has too made good associations to be displaced without another literal revolution.
That’s interesting. Was that a case of Spain independently evolving a Parliamentary system similar to Britain’s? The only other countries I know of with Westminster-style Parliaments have been former British colonies.
RT used to be called Russia Today, which gives information as to its line. It’s the modern version of Pravda, only better, because it doesn’t look like a propaganda mouthpiece at first glance; it looks, appropriately enough, a lot like the BBC World Service or Al-Jazeera or any number of other international news services which try their damnedest to ape Aunty Beeb.
It is, of course, utterly controlled by the Russian government, making it popular among people who disdain CNN and the BBC and Al-Jazeera because they can see through the mainstream media’s lies.
In short, using it to support your position in an Internet debate is a dozen points knocked off and a good laughing-at.
Instead of reaching for the gun perhaps you could educate yourself as to who Loren Graham is and there is a chance you would give a dozen to yourself if you manage to listen to the interview which seemed more candid than usual, if a bit antagonistic.
As for the thread, I obviously mean democracy and republic within its citizenry, otherwise the discussion is lost. Only 2 out of 3 people in the UK were allowed to vote in this referendum. Was it democratic? Well, for those 20 million people it was not.
What Exapno Mapcase wrote illustrates pretty close what I meant by the opening post.
By reading other threads inspired by the recent burst in democratic interest I got to this page, written by someone who seems to have been through hand fulls of threads like this one.
Just need to note that I thought I was completely refuting you. Your OP proffered definitions of democracy that have never been used, aren’t practical or sensible, and serve as an assault on everyday reality. Usage determines meaning. The meaning of democracy as applied to America has been quite consistent over time.
America is a democracy and a republic. If you want any more than that, we have to take the thread out of GQ.
Can you provide some cites for that? It doesn’t match my understanding of the constitutional development of England.
The Whig view of English constitutional history emphasised (somewhat mythical) Anglo-Saxon roots, like the witangemot, and particularly Magna Carta, as well as the common law, which they sharply distinguished from the civil law, with its connections to the Pope. Those were all appeals to indigenous English law and history, not any inheritance from Rome.
The Statute in Restraint of Appeals, a key part of the Henrician revolution, contained the ringing phrase: “this realm of England is an empire”. That was a declaration that they were not part of the Roman civil world.
See that? He uses, explicitly and with explanation, the common definition of democracy, and has no patience for those who wish to make a meaningless, unhelpful distinction between “democracy” and “republic” for whatever reasons of their own.
Juan Linz and other scholars have identified a distinction between parliamentarism and presidentialism. Most democracies are parliamentary.
The distinction is generally this:
in the UK and many other countries, the people elect a parliament, and the Executive is effectively made up of members sitting in, and reliant upon, that parliament. The parliament can sack the Executive at any time and reconstitute a new one, and it’s quite possible to dissolve the parliament and get a fresh one.
A presidential democracy, however, like the USA, is like this - the people elect the Executive and the Legislature separately. They are in effect co-equal, their memberships are mutually exclusive, and they are not dependent upon another for their tenure of office, i.e. Congress cannot be prematurely dissolved for a fresh election, and the President cannot be removed from office, save by impeachment.
There’s also semi-presidential states like France, which have a bit of both.
I wasn’t thinking of the English constitution but more of the way writers and thinkers who influenced the Americans went back to Roman examples. Hot topics in 1776, e.g., were the new books by Edmund Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and Adam’s Smith, The Wealth of Nations, both which can be seen as discussions of England as an empire. That followed the works of many of the political philosophers that are known to have be read and debated by the founders.
I have some sympathy with people who assert (at least from the left) that the U.S. is neither a democracy nor a republic, but structurally and de jure, it is both. Direct democracy is unnecessary and also a terrible idea.
(I am firmly opposed to electing judges, but that is a rant for elsewhere.)
A couple of terms for the U.S. that get used now and then are a Representative Democracy, (or, just about as often, a Representative Republic) and a Constitutional Republic (or Constitutional Democracy.)
The House of Representatives said we are a “Democracy in a Republic.” Hard to say exactly what that means…
It was a case of copying the British system (in that particular detail), IIRC. In general, when we had a “head honcho” who wasn’t drawn from Parliament he’d get a different name: for example, General Primo de Rivera (named directly by the King with orders to “clean things up”) wasn’t called Presidente, but Dictador.
I swear that most of the hair splitting in the US system on the matter is caused by the fact that one party is named “The Democratic Party” and the other is named “The Republican Party”, and no one wants to say, “The United States is a <form of government the other party is named after>” because that sounds like, “you should vote for <other party>” to low-information voters.
[QUOTE=Northern Piper]
Can you provide some cites for that? It doesn’t match my understanding of the constitutional development of England.
The Whig view of English constitutional history emphasised (somewhat mythical) Anglo-Saxon roots, like the witangemot, and particularly Magna Carta, as well as the common law, which they sharply distinguished from the civil law, with its connections to the Pope. Those were all appeals to indigenous English law and history, not any inheritance from Rome.
The Statute in Restraint of Appeals, a key part of the Henrician revolution, contained the ringing phrase: “this realm of England is an empire”. That was a declaration that they were not part of the Roman civil world.
[/QUOTE]
More to the point, although ancient constitutionalism was a major strand of eighteenth-century English Whig political thought, so too was classical republicanism. Not that connections between the two traditions were ever straightforward. Some saw the two as being mostly compatible. Others saw one as representing a critique of the other. Still others thought that they were a bit of both or glossed over the issue. Then there was the question as to whether either applied to English politics as it already existed or as it ought to be. Which tradition was the more important was much debated at the time and is still much debated by historians of political thought. What however is not in doubt is that the language of classical republicanism saturated much of the debate about political theory in England throughout the eighteenth century and that this then influenced American writers.
That the US and UK connotations of some of the words used in such discussions have since diverged isn’t exactly a surprise. So before the American Revolution the word ‘republic’ already meant either a state or specifically a state without an hereditary head of state. As states without hereditary heads of state became more numerous, the latter meaning became the dominant one in UK English simply because having a term for that is rather useful. The other meaning is now almost entirely obsolete in Britain. Something similar happened with respect to the meaning of the word ‘democracy’ in both countries. Since by the nineteenth century neither had much cause to discuss Greek-style direct democracy but they did want to discuss the powers and actions of elected institutions, using ‘democracy’ mostly to describe the latter was also more convenient.
So to British ears, the distinction some Americans want to make between a ‘republic’ and a ‘democracy’ sounds really weird. It’s not that Brits think they mean the same; it’s that they regard them as being different in a different way. This, of course, is no big deal to anyone who can get their head around the idea that words can have more than one meaning and that those meanings can change.
