Gorsnak, are you still playing Civ 2? Come on, man, Civ 3 has been available for years now. Why not update? Civ 3 kicks Civ 2’s butt.
Response:
and
The language since the time of our founding fathers has evolved to include our form of government into the definition of the word democracy, which is one type of republic.
As Speaker said, there’s a range of monarchies. There’s the absolute monarchy, typified by Louis XIV: “L’État, c’est moi.” That’s not the only type of monarchy. In the Commonwealth monarchies, the Queen is the head of state and possesses considerable legal authority, on paper. Those powers come from the traditional royal prerogative, and also from powers granted to her by statute. However, her exercise of those powers is effectively limited to comply with democratic principles, in two key ways.
First, the Queen is subordinate to Parliament. Parliament has the power to pass laws that reduce or eliminate her powers, to change the line of succession, and so on. There are variations within the Commonwealth as to the composition of each country’s Parliament, but by and large the Parliaments are democratically elected, either in whole or in part. In the Parliaments that have a non-elected component (House of Lords in the U.K., Senate in Canada), the democratically elected component is clearly dominant.
The second point is that by constitutional convention, the Queen only exercises her prerogative and statutory powers on the advice of the Prime Minister, who in turn holds office because he/she commands a majority in the democratically elected chamber of Parliament. By and large, then, the Queen only acts to implement the decisions made by the democractically elected government. That government then takes the political responsibilty for her actions to the electorate, keeping her above partisan politics.
There are some reserve powers that the Queen can exercise without the advice of the Prime Minister, most notably the choice of the Prime Minister, who holds office by virtue of being appointed by Her Majesty. Here too, for most purposes, the Queen’s decision is determined by the democratic process. If one party holds a clear majority in the Commons, the Queen will summon the leader of that party. If it’s unclear who has the majority in the House, then the Queen will await events in the House to see which party commands the confidence of the majority of the people’s representatives.
In summary, in constitutional monarchies, the monarch has constitutional powers, but in law and practice, those powers are exercised in accordance with the advice tendered by the people’s elected representatives, who actually control the government. That’s why I argue that constitutional monarchies can be democratic, and most are. But, given the hereditary nature of the monarchy, and the fact that the monarch has constitutional powers, constitutional monarchies are not republics.
These days that would be a distinction between Autocracy and Democracy. Under the modern definition of “monarchy” the distinction is not one of “power” but of sovereignty. In a Monarchical state, sovereignty is vested into “The Crown” (presumably by delegation from Heaven); in a Republic, it is retained by the collective of the Nation.
Who comes to occupy the visible offices of that sovereignty and how, and who exercises the power of government and how, are separate axes. The State may be either Monarchical or Republican; and at the same time the Government – the exerciser of “power”-- may be Autocratic or Democratic.
Thus places like the UK and Canada have highly democratic governments, though they have monarchical states.
Using “democracy” to refer to a liberal(in the classical sense of the word) representative government was a rhetorical flourish back in the 19th century, and since the language has evolved (or drifted) so that it became an acceptable everyday use of the term.
.
Jimmy and Charley Stuart would have agreed with that statement, but not the classical Whigs. In their view, relying on social compact theory, the Crown is sovereign because the people have chosen to vest their sovereignty in the Crown, just as on a more limited basis, they vest their individual decision-making power in their elected representatives in the Commons.
I’m by no means an expert but I thought that the main difference in the modern definitions of “republic” and “democracy” was that the former had a constitution that couldn’t be overturned by majority vote.
In other words, if murder was made illegal by a constitution, a majority vote couldn’t be used to kill someone in an individual case. Anybody?
Having a constitution is not reserved for republics. Sweden has a constitution (or Grundlag as we call it), as noted earlier Sweden is a monarchy with a king as head of state. We elect a parliament every 4 years and the governemnt needs the support of parliament, thus we are a representative democracy with a monarch as head of state.
While the discussion of monarchies is interesting and no doubt accurate, it misses the mark. Few in the US use the term “republic” to mean the absence of a monarch. In the US, the term republic is used to connote representative government and democracy is used to connote self rule. The US is a democracy only in the indirect sense that we have self rule. The term republic emphasizes the fact that we vote for representatives who then vote on laws. The term democracy is used to connote that we have some, albeit indirect, voice in our government.
So what would the US term for Great Britain, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Sweden (to name just a few monarchies) be? They all vote on representatives to Parliament which then makes the laws (or Riksdagen, Folketinget, Stortinget). Would you then as an american call them republics?
I’m sorry but it seems the American use of the terms democracy and republic is a wee bit confused.