Republics and Democracies are not mutually exclusive

[removeduser_487563287433]

As Rome implied, only somebody with a comprehensive ignorance of political theory would think democracies and republics are mutually exclusive.

[chilon]

As Rome implied, only somebody with a comprehensive ignorance of political theory would think democracies and republics are mutually exclusive.

Only someone ignorant of political economy history and education would talk about "democracy and republic" so loosely without operationally defining how the terms are even being used (Direct Democracy or Representative Democracy for ex).

A true, pure theoretical Direct Democracy *IS* mutually exclusive from a Republic as a true Direct Democracy would not protect individual or minority rights as it would be a tyranny of the majority.

Of course people's connotations of what "democracy" means is what leads to all sorts of confusions. Hence the need to operationally define terms. Using colloquial connotations to discuss "democracy and republic" is only going to lead to confusion.

And then there is the intricacy of the Federal system where of course the Fed could be more Republic but then a state, like California, might have a system based on Direct Democracy (Initiative, Proposition, Referedum) so in a convoluted technical federalist sense, you would be right that they are not mutually exclusive but thats a technicality really.

--------------edit-----------------

Actually I suppose California, in another superficial sense, might seem to support your take that democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive since technically California is sort of a Republic but then again the Direct Democracy elements ALWAYS trump the Republic legislative elements so many historians of California will call it a de facto Direct Democracy even if it is a de jure Republic.

I could on with plenty of details that show why California is also the best example for why Direct Democracy should NEVER, EVER be implemented (prop13, Astroturf Movements, 2/3 Super majority) <- I doubt those buzz words make sense to you but all three are highly relevant to California politics.

California illustrates precisely how a Direct Democracy and a Republic cannot both be forms of government for the same State-entity without that government eventually collapsing upon itself (as is happening atm).

[removeduser_487563287433]

Only someone ignorant of political economy history and education would talk about "democracy and republic" so loosely without operationally defining how the terms are even being used (Direct Democracy or Representative Democracy for ex).

Not really. It doesn't make a difference that republics and democracies are not mutually exclusive. The only thing that makes a Republic is the fact it is not a monarchy.

[♔DeusVult!♔]

Not really. It doesn't make a difference that republics and democracies are not mutually exclusive. The only thing that makes a Republic is the fact it is not a monarchy.

What? Then can I say that what makes a Democracy is that it is not a dictatorship? What makes a monarchy is a not-communist state? That what makes a square is that it is not a circle? You make no sense...

[chilon]

Not really. It doesn't make a difference that republics and democracies are not mutually exclusive. The only thing that makes a Republic is the fact it is not a monarchy.

This just depends on which specific definition of "republic" you want to use. Political theorists tend to vary on their use of the term and the very basic definition you cite is not the only standard.

re·pub·lic (rĭ-pŭb'lĭk)
n.

1. 
   
   1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
   2. A nation that has such a political order.
   3. 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.
   4. A nation that has such a political order.
   
   
2. 
   
   1. 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.
   2. A nation that has such a political order.
   
   
3. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2009

[removeduser_487563287433]

This just depends on which specific definition of "republic" you want to use. Political theorists tend to vary on their use of the term and the very basic definition you cite is not the only standard.

re·pub·lic (rĭ-pŭb'lĭk)
n.

1. 
   
   1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
   2. A nation that has such a political order.
   3. 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.
   4. A nation that has such a political order.
   
   
2. 
   
   1. 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.
   2. A nation that has such a political order.
   
   
3. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2009

Yes, American dictionary.

James Madison (incorrectly) defined Republics as representative democracies and democracies as direct democracies. Regretably this mistake has taken hold. But when discussing with the outside world you should be aware of the peculiarities of your dialect and compensate accordingly.

[chilon]

James Madison (incorrectly) defined Republics as representative democracies and democracies as direct democracies. Regretably this mistake has taken hold. But when discussing with the outside world you should be aware of the peculiarities of your dialect and compensate accordingly.

True, but I would not call it incorrect after over 200 years of academic acceptance, at least here in USA, maybe in UK it is taught different.

Unless you believe language must always reflect original definitions (and you'd run into many problems with other terms with that stance) then I see no problem with Madison defining Republics as representative and "Democracy" as direct democracy. At least in many American political science departments this is how it is taught. Personally I find "republic" to have less analytical relevance if you are only defining it as "non-monarchy" since then you could have all sorts of theoretical "republics" from a theocratic republic to a Rule by AI Machines which is why I find the second definition of Republic more useful.

And of course there are all sorts of grey areas so using dictionary terms to describe all forms of government often falls short like for Sparta which Plato described:

""I do not know what name to give it. The board of ephors is tyrannical, but Sparta sometimes seems the nearest thing to a pure democracy of all states. It would be absurd to deny that it is an aristocracy, and it includes a monarchy -- the oldest in the world." Plato, Laws, IV 712.

[Bleda]

Yes, American dictionary.

James Madison (incorrectly) defined Republics as representative democracies and democracies as direct democracies. Regretably this mistake has taken hold. But when discussing with the outside world you should be aware of the peculiarities of your dialect and compensate accordingly.

Just as "liberalism" does not mean the same thing as it does elsewhere, does not mean that the definition is inncorrect. Citizens in a republic, or at least in any government that is based on republicanism grants its citizens some sort of inalienable rights. Inalienable rights of course being rights that can not be voted away or legitimately taken away by any means. Along with that is the rule of law, which can be amended and changed, but again it cannot be voted away.

Fareed Zakaria, one of the foremost political theorists alive today, takes that stance. Just because you take a different interpretation of the term from James Madison or Zakaria, does not mean that the term is incorrect or that the "thing" the term represents, does not exist.

[removeduser_487563287433]

No, what makes a monarchy is that the head of state is an institutionalised, unelected and usually hereditary position. What makes a republic is that it is not a monarchy. It might be a democracy, a theocracy or a dictatorship. It might have a federal or unitary organisation. Doesn't matter as to whether it's a republic.

Not rocket science.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Well, the problem with it is that the moment you speak to anybody outside of America you don't make any sense to anyone and you are generally (and I speak from years of experience) unequipped by your education system to even begin fathoming that your definitions are at odds with the rest of the English speaking world.

Because they're wrong.

[chilon]

Well, the problem with it is that the moment you speak to anybody outside of America you don't make any sense to anyone and you are generally (and I speak from years of experience) unequipped by your education system to even begin fathoming that your definitions are at odds with the rest of the English speaking world.

Because they're wrong.

Unequipped by our education system? LOL nice insulting post with not much content.

... as if somehow this difference in cultural definition for Republic is *the* defining barometer of how US education is so far behind Britain?

Thats not too condescending and arrogant is it? Clearly since James Madison defined Republic as representative democracy we dumb Americans cannot "even begin fathoming" theories of political economy that you Masters of the English Language learned in elementary school right?
=/

I guess we should comb through the dictionary for EVERY word whose definition has changed/evolved over time to make sure teh Queen's English is protected by the British Language Police from those non-Constitutional Monarchic Americans who should never be allowed to change a definition. Once a term is coined by a Brit, that term is now Set in Holy Stone

[JP226]

Because Europeeins regularly debate republic versus democracy...

[removeduser_487563287433]

I should think they never do because they will be aware of the exceptionally easy to grasp fact that democracies and republics are not mutually exclusive and they will be busy using the slightly more complicated but far more appropriate phrases representative and direct democracy.

[JP226]

You just made a stupid assertion as if somehow Euros actually give two about this crap and therefore "know better" than there American counterparts. B and S.

Although... maybe I should take that back. It wouldn't surprise if this is the kind of useless nonsense you guys do talk about. When it comes to actually talking about work, making money finances etc etc (read useful things), it's akin to being lost in the woods.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I didn't make any comment about apathy at all, I just pointed out correctly that Americans frequently confuse the definition of republic with that of representative democracy due to the tradition laid down by James Madison's error.

As for money/work... I manage a budget of ~£25 million.

[JP226]

I thought the new monopoly world was denoted in "monopoly euros"?

[removeduser_487563287433]

I thought the new monopoly world was denoted in "monopoly euros"?

AHAHAHAHA

That's a bitter post.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Sorry guys but I've done this debate a hundred times and exhaustive experimentation has taught me that if you don't drive home to Americans they have a bizarre understanding of republic the you won't get anywhere, and you'll end up in a ridiculous discussion trying to teach some kid from kansas why the us is a republic, a representative democracy and a federation all at the same time.

Feel insulted if you want but you've both learnt something.

[Bleda]

Sorry guys but I've done this debate a hundred times and exhaustive experimentation has taught me that if you don't drive home to Americans they have a bizarre understanding of republic the you won't get anywhere, and you'll end up in a ridiculous discussion trying to teach some kid from kansas why the us is a republic, a representative democracy and a federation all at the same time.

Feel insulted if you want but you've both learnt something.

Not from you. Unless you're referring to what I've learned about your arrogance and smugness in the face of wrongness. But of course what do I know? I'm just an American.

It might be time for you to acknowledge that words can have different meanings in different societies and systems. Or you can stick to showing everyone how petty you can be.

[magickyleo101]

Sorry guys but I've done this debate a hundred times and exhaustive experimentation has taught me that if you don't drive home to Americans they have a bizarre understanding of republic the you won't get anywhere, and you'll end up in a ridiculous discussion trying to teach some kid from kansas why the us is a republic, a representative democracy and a federation all at the same time.

Feel insulted if you want but you've both learnt something.

Maybe you should just let Americans define "democracies" and "republics" since we invented both.

I mean, it's cool if you want to copy our form of government and our language, because we're generous people and love to share, but don't complain when you do the copying wrong and screw up some of the definitions...