Ran into this distinction a couple of years ago and always wondered. Maybe someone here can set me straight.
A “republic” is simply a non-monarchy. A republic doesn’t have to be democratic. Cuba is an non-democratic republic.
A democracy does not have to be a republic. A consititutional monarchy like the U.K. is a democracy, but not a republic.
From Merriam Webster:
“Republic” is often used to imply a democracy, as in sense 1 b (1), but does not have to, as in sense 1 a (1).
The asnwer simply is that the English language, in casual, everyday usage, isn’t very precise. Meanings multiply, mutate, and migrate.
So really, a Democracy is in fact a Republic, but a Republic is not necessarily a Democracy.
Well, that clears that up. >:^D)
I would disagree with the first part of this sentence. There are lots of democratic states that are not republics.
Many of them are in the Commonwealth - the countries that still retain the Queen as the head of state, such as the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Barbados, and so on. Then there’s the scandanavian monarchies: Norway, Sweden and Denmark. And the low countries: the Netherlands and Belgium. And Spain.
All of these countries are liberal democracies, same as republican countries like the U.S., France and Germany, but by definition they’re not republics, since the monarch retains constitutional authority by hereditary right.
a related question. are there any true democratic countries? it seems like it might be a problem for most countries but maybe a smaller country could wing it.
A democracy is the rule of the majority in the collective will of the citizens.
A republic has representatives for the citizens acting on their behalf.
from here:
- A Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.
- A Republic: The flock gets to vote for which wolves vote on dinner.
- A Constitutional Republic: Voting on dinner is expressly forbidden, and the sheep are armed.
- Federal Government: The faction which fools the sheep into voting for a Democracy.
- Freedom: Two very hungry wolves looking for dinner and finding a very well-informed and well-armed sheep.
Does this mean the U.S is not a democracy?
It seems we also have two definitions for republic:
- A republic is a non-monarchy.
- A republic has representatives for the citizens acting on their behalf.
These definitions are distinct; there is no overlap. So which is correct?
How can a monarchy be a democracy? In a monarchy, power comes from one person. In a democracy, it comes from all the people.
And for the sake of comparison, pwer in a republic is held by representatives of the people (chosen by the people in a democratic republic).
It always seemed to me the the ideas of a democracy and a monarchy were mutually exclusive.
This is how it was taught to me in my constitutional debates class a few years ago.
A Republic is a system of government whose leaders are ultimately selected by the voters. It could be people directly voting for their leaders, or people who vote for people to vote for their leaders(electoral college), or people who vote for a leader who appoints other leaders or any other situation of which you can possible think; the one condition being that it eventually traces back to the voter.
The term democracy, at the time of the constitutional debates, referred to a type of republic in parts of Ancient Greece where every voter had to be present at the same time and location and a vote was cast assemble style. In ancient Greece and in our fouding father’s time the word was assosciated more with mob rule more than rule by the people.
Madison and the other founding fathers’ invented term ‘representative democracy’ was really a misnomer at the time because democracy meant that everyone had to be present at the same time…no representatives. So at the time I guess you could say the the US was a republic and not a democracy but since lauguage constantly evolves I would say that right now we are both.
I think the term ‘democracy’ now just refers to American sytle government; protection of minority rights, checks and balances, separation of powers, freedom of religion, free press, etc…
Again, this is how it was taught to me in college…I am not an expert. Feel free to point out any mistakes.
I would say that constitutional monarchies like Britain and Canada are democracies.
What you think of as a monarchy is in fact an absolute monarchy, where the monarch is little better than a dictator. Like I_Know said, a constitutional monarchy like Canada or Britain is a democracy in almost every way.
A direct democracy is exceedingly rare these days; as someone noted, it’s a format in which all legal voters who wish to do so, gather and vote directly on laws, budgetary expenses, and the like. New England town meetings where still preserved, a couple of the smaller Swiss cantons, and one or two other places, are the only surviving direct democracies.
A representative democracy is one in which the voters get to choose the legislators, and is common in both republican and constitutional-monarchical forms of government.
A republic is one in which the head of state is an elective, rather than inherited, office. The means of electing the head of state need not be democratic, and the system of government need not be democratic. Venice (1200s-1797) was a republic in which the citizenry had no say in the choice of leader, and very little say in legislation. Vatican City could be regarded as a republic in that the Pope is elected, though it’s usually considered an elective monarchy.
Sheesh people! The differences between a democracy and a republic are clearly laid out.
-
In a democracy, military units not inside a city or a fort within 3 spaces of a city (or any bombers/missiles regardless of position) make two citizens in their home cities unhappy. In a republic, the first such unit for any city has no effect, and subsequent units only make one citizen unhappy.
-
There is no corruption or waste in a democracy, while republics have both, albeit at low levels directly proportional to distance from the capital.
-
In a democracy, cities are immune to bribery.
-
The senate in a republic will only force you to resolve conflicts peacefully 50% of the time. In a democracy they always force peace. Of course, if you build the UN, this difference disappears. Anyways, what the heck are you doing fighting a war using democracy? Research fundamentalism at once!
-
Tax, luxury, and science production rates are limited to 80% under republics, and are not limited at all under democracy.
How can the US be both?
It can’t. But if the Statue of Liberty is built, you can switch back and forth as often as you like at no cost.
Ahh, a Civilisation player.
Gorsnak that was great 
So true…actually there’s a patch out there that replaces Fundamentalism with Facism since it had such a profound effect on civilization, and it adds a few neat units like Heavy Armor and Zepplin. But yeah, don’t try fighting a war in a Democracy for sure.
The US is a representitive republic, where the people elect representives to run the ship. Achent Greece was a demoracy where the people voted directly on laws. The US was NEVER a democracy