lunachick

Showing my ignorance again...but what the hell - can't learn nuthin' if you don't ask questions, eh.

A few times lately I've read "America is not a true democracy, it is a Republic".

What does that mean, exactly? Can't a Republic be a true Democracy?


re�pub�lic (rĭ-pŭb'lĭk)
n.

A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
A nation that has such a political order.

A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
A nation that has such a political order.
often Republic
A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.
[French r�publique, from Old French, from Latin r�sp�blica : r�s, thing + p�blica, feminine of p�blicus, of the people; see public.]

de�moc�ra�cy (dĭ-mŏk'rə-s�)
n., pl. -cies.

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
[French d�mocratie, from Late Latin d�mocratia, from Greek d�mokrati� : d�mos, people + -krati�, -cracy.]


The dictionary defines them differently, but not all that differently as far as I can see - although it can be argued that a republic is more of an oligarchy than a democracy. But America prides itself on being a democracy - increasingly bogus as that may be.

So what can't a Republic also be a true democracy, and what would it take for America to be a truly democratic republic?

Farren

Lunatic,

er, I mean Lunachick. Pass me that bong, won't you? I'm out of dope and Old Brown Sherry is just not doing it for me.

I think the key issue is that a republic is a representative democracy. IOW, the will of the people is exercised through representatives rather than directly:

From the Hyperdictionary

Of course, this makes 99.9999999% of the world's democracies republican. I could be wrong, but it looks that way to me.

I think the reason the distinction is made among the politically acute is to distinguish between proportional representation (party that gets 40% of the vote has 40% of the decision making power) and winner-takes-all systems. I could be completely and utterly wrong.

For some reason the phrase "common weal" makes me think of a nasty injury.

schu

In a Democracy everyone who has the vote gets to vote on everything, you need not have representatives. Issues are settled by referendum. The majority on an issue always win. That is why I described it as mob rule. Once the mob finds it can vote money out of the coffers of government the game is up. As I've said before, four wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. Why people find a system where people can use force to take property and wealth from others is beyond me.

In a Republic the voters send representatives to a congress where the representatives vote on the issues. Many are set up as bicameral and in the US the state governments used to vote on the Senators. That has changed and with it the lessening of states rights. This may not be the best form of government, but it can if used effectively preserve the rights of individuals and ward off mob rule.

Either way the rights of individuals should be protected to the utmost. These rights were depicted by our founders as inalienable (unalienable) meaning that they could not legally be taken away by the force of government or by other people. They could however be forfeited by someone who flaunted the rights of others. These rights are implicit in the body of the US constitution and are explicate in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the constitution.

John K. Fitzpatrick

In general, anarchists and other anti-statists, focusing on the individual and social relationships rather than from the perspective of the 'government', advocate for Direct Democracy, with delegation (not representation) to be used for federated councils. They consider even representation an unwarranted loss of both liberty and responsibility.

- John

lunachick

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking.

We have proportional representation here. Personally, I think that is far more democratic than first past the post, winner takes all.

Oh, now you're just being silly! And you have the cheek to call me the lunatic.

Kat_Somm_Faen

That distinction is a safety mechanism to argue away from the consequences of being a democracy

Like the "Innocent American". When we try to define why is the USA the greatest nation in the world "Why it is because we are a democracy!". Why can we attack Iraq "Why because they are not a democratic regime." What are we doing in Iraq? "Why establishing an example of democracy for the Middle East!"

And once that premise is attacked - "Well we are not truly a democracy." so it does not apply. Bleh!

"The majority on an issue always win. That is why I described it as mob rule."

So majority deciding who is the president or on the issue of elected officials is a no-no?

So you are against majority deciding for what is right? More of a distatorship is to your likeing? Those damn unwashed masses deciding! What is the world coming to? Eh?

A good whip is what THEY understand! Eh, there is a back just aching for a lash!


Could USA is not a democracy be an example of "No True Scotsman"?

lunachick

Hmmm. So basically Sweden (I think it's Sweden) is the only real democracy in existance today?

I agree with referenda (is that the correct word?) for many of the more important issues, provided the information people are given surrounding the issue is true information of all sides of the debate, and not just bumpersticker sloganing and demonising of opposing views, etc. I'm all for informed public decision making, and don't see it as mob rule at all. To me the only drawback is that it slows down the legislative process, but that is a small price in a true democracy, I think.

lunachick

I could buy into that, but my own thinking is more concerned with the collective than the individual. I'm of the opinion that societies are often greater than the sum of it's parts. (Did I make sense just then? I'm not sure...).

I also don't consider representation to be an unwarranted loss of liberty and responsibility. - But other than that, I'd make a happy little anarchist, methinks.

lunachick

Yep. That's pretty much what's been messing with my head on the Republic/Democracy thang.

Hmmm...except for Sweden. Sweden is a true Scotsman.

Kat_Somm_Faen

That's what I am talking about

But actually I hear that Swiss ( or Switzerland ) is the most advanced democracy right now. For example they have regular referendums on a variety of isues and any1 can submit a question to it with a certain number of signatures. No matter who or what organization submits it - they all get that single condition and then they put it up for a nation-wide referendum.

http://www.vote.org/Fossedal.htm

Quite advanced if you ask me - the True Sctosman :P

....

Edit:

Thte above link is taken from http://www.vote.org/swiss2.htm so you can get more and or google it with swiss+democracy.