Why are many Americans opposed to the term 'democracy'?

[Astaroth]

This is something I never really understood. Many Americans keep insisting that America is "not a democracy but a republic".

However, that's evidently false. America is clearly a representative democracy, just like most of the Western world.

"But democracy means mob rule!"
-- No, democracy just means government by the people. Whether there is a Constitution or laws to avoid "mob rule" doesn't affect whether a country can be a democracy. Germany for example has the term "democracy" enshrined in its Constitution, yet there is no mob rule.

"But the founding fathers were opposed to democracy!"
-- Yes, direct democracy. Most Western democracies are representative rather than direct.

"But republic means the government is bound by laws"
-- No, republic simply means a form of government without a king. Most Western democracies are both republics and monarchies. There are also constitutional monarchies in Europe which are not republics (duh) but are still de facto democratic (Spain, UK).

So really, both democracy and republic are fairly simple, basic terms. But claiming that they are somehow opposed to each other just makes no sense.

So what is it with the dislike Americans often have for the term democracy?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I made a post about this before. I assume it's propaganda by the Republican party against the Democratic pary. The USA is a federal democratic republic.

[Inkie]

I always had it that many of the FF's were opposed to a party system, and initially wanted a limited democracy where only the propertied could vote. Maybe I'm wrong, I can't remember which ones supported what now...

I guess I'm not an American so I don't know that many of them, but I've never heard any Americans say any of the above. To most of the rest of the world I'm pretty sure America seems to be the most democracy-obsessed state of all. I only ever hear Americans speaking well of democracy.

[Caelius]

Because a flexible representative federal republic is the best way of securing the people's natural rights so long as it maintains a strong and vibrant democratic tradition. While not engaging in any form of direct or indirect democracy which could threaten the complex fabric of the a nation as large and diverse as the United States.

Read up on the Federalist Papers when you get the chance. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton went to great effort to explain why a Republic is best for America.

[Astaroth]

Because a flexible representative federal republic is the best way of securing the people's natural rights so long as it maintains a strong and vibrant democratic tradition. While not engaging in any form of direct or indirect democracy which could threaten the complex fabric of the a nation as large and diverse as the United States.

Read up on the Federalist Papers when you get the chance. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton went to great effort to explain why a Republic is best for America.

I honestly don't see the difference. The US is essentially just a representative democracy, similar to Germany. The only difference is that it has a Presidential system (which e.g. France has as well).

Aside from that, we have pretty much the same political system in Germany. We also have a Constitution that's hard to change. We have federalism. We have separation of powers. We don't have "mob rule". We have human rights that can't just be abolished by the state etc. Yet we are a representative democracy.

In terms of government, how is the US any different?

And yes, I do realize that a Presidential system makes for a stronger separation of powers, yet as stated above, France has a similar system.

[pchalk]

I honestly don't see the difference. The US is essentially just a representative democracy, similar to Germany. The only difference is that it has a Presidential system (which e.g. France has as well).

Aside from that, we have pretty much the same political system in Germany. We also have a Constitution that's hard to change. We have federalism. We have separation of powers. We don't have "mob rule". We have human rights that can't just be abolished by the state etc. Yet we are a representative democracy.

In terms of government, how is the US any different?

And yes, I do realize that a Presidential system makes for a stronger separation of powers, yet as stated above, France has a similar system.

as it goes i tend to disagree with u more than not when it comes to politics but i pretty much agree with u here. in fact i read an article that Benjamin Franklin actually visited the holy roman empire before it dissolved and before the formation of the US. He wanted to study its political system as a possible model for an american one. it is this history that has likely led to the well established federalism in the two nations.

[Condottiere 40K]

I have to disagree - my believe that a well informed and well educated electorate is a surer guarantee of democracy than a well-armed militia.

[Jingo Eugene]

It's a nitpicking, perfectionist thing. Just don't pay it much mind, though to be honest, I have also never really heard anyone get worked up over America being called a democracy rather than a Republic.

And I never knew that a republic was a nation without a king, what does that make oligarchies, dictatorships, anarchies, plutocracies, then? Could they be considered republics too?

[bushbush]

american exceptionalism. they just don't want to be known as one of many democracies. they especially don't want to be known as similar to Europeans..

[Col. Tartleton]

I'd say because the emphasis was on becoming a Republic and we tried to minimize the Democratic element (which has grown over time) in order to attempt to create a literal aristocracy rather than the joke aristocracy of the Europeans. Aristocracy of course being defined as rule by the best.

[Dr. Croccer]

Because they're still under the (mistaken) misconception that a Republic and a Democracy are two mutual exclusive forms of government, whilst in reality a 'Republic' has come to refer to any non-monarchic form of government with public involvement and 'Democracy' refers to any form of government in which power is derived from the majority of the people. The original versions of these terms, the Roman quasi-aristocratic, quasi-democratic representative government and the Athenian model based upon direct involvement in the affairs of state of all citizens, aren't applicable to any modern states which calls itself 'republican' or 'democratic'.

In practice, there's not much difference between the American Republic, the British Monarchy and the Lýðveldi of Iceland, to name some examples. It's fairly obvious why, seeing as the government of the USA was still overwhelmingly based upon the British parliamentary model, with some modifications. It was never intended to be, nor did it ever become, a major deviation from the British example.

[Kanaric]

Nobody in or from the US cares about this issue TBH. people just use it to nitpick stupidly when they are losing arguments.

[Raubritter]

Yeaaay, antother US bashing trend because no of these people badmouthing here ever read the constitution, the Bill of rights or writings and letters of the founding fathers.

@Caelius is right. Read the federalist papers. Most of the posts i read here are already a big facepalm again.

[bushbush]

Yeaaay, antother US bashing trend because no of these people badmouthing here ever read the constitution, the Bill of rights or writings and letters of the founding fathers.

@Caelius is right. Read the federalist papers. Most of the posts i read here are already a big facepalm again.

so which federalist paper or letters of the framers have you read exactly? I am wondering. The Republic Framers envisioned and designed has changed quite significantly over the ages in its structures, so are the democracies around the world. It probably makes more sense to compare what is going on right now than to generalize writings from 200+ years ago as accurate reflections of what is going on today.

[Thorn777]

Because a democracy with allot of actual democratic processes often produce outcomes that are against the interests of the economic and political elite.

[Raubritter]

Because a democracy with allot of actual democratic processes often produce outcomes that are against the interests of the economic and political elite.

Totaly wrong, especialy if you look at how Rome became from a Republic to a Democracy, a Wellfare state(Bread and Circus) and than an Oligarchy.
And than you look at the movements against Tyranny and Corruption, it always were minorities. Its an good minority or a bad minority which change things, but it was never a democratic mayority.

[Thorn777]

Totaly wrong, especialy if you look at how Rome became from a Republic to a Democracy, a Wellfare state(Bread and Circus) and than an Oligarchy.
And than you look at the movements against Tyranny and Corruption, it always were minorities. Its an good minority or a bad minority which change things, but it was never a democratic mayority.

Apart from that analogy failing all over, Rome was essentially an oligarchy at any stage and never a democracy of any substance. It even was more democratic when the plebs where still the plebs and the landowning citizenry numerous, hence at its early republican and monarchic stages.

The mid and late republican era was an increasing disaster for the Roman citizenry and state security, which essentially caused its downfall. This increasing disaster also caused the demand for people like the Gracchi bros, or Marius who was enabled to enact "popular" reforms to deal with the Cimbri/Teuton invasions since there simply was to few landowning militia left.

The optimates not giving in to the Gracchi land reforms earlier, which where not tied to military service, caused the strong military men to gain ground later on, who ensured or at least tied their success to the landownership of the military class. Reforms the optimates had to give in to, to secure mounting internal and external threats they largely caused, hence to secure its wealth and standing it had to make compromises.

The problem and cause for military strongmen taking over and establishing dictatorship was an oligarchy owning basically everything at some point, after which prime functions of the state like protecting its borders and encompassing an economy that feeds its people where no longer viable.

This social and military pressure caused dictatorship, not "democracy", or an aristocratic popular tribune being overruled by another aristocratic tribune and then end up assisinated by the oligarchy. Democracy...

Laughable...

[DaVinci]

Sweet, how the topic developed now to a discussion about Rome's "democracy" (but my respect to Thorn taking the time to explain something in this regard) ... also

a Wellfare state(Bread and Circus)

... didn't know that one can name this phase welfare state, as the entertainment-program of the Coliseum in the centre of the city of Rome contained some distributed bread for free.

[Raubritter]

The Republic Framers envisioned and designed has changed quite significantly over the ages in its structures, so are the democracies around the world. It probably makes more sense to compare what is going on right now than to generalize writings from 200+ years ago as accurate reflections of what is going on today.

Just because we now have Iphones does not chance the subject, which is liberty. The mechanisms of rule were the same as today and governments didn't get honest. The basic message, the attitude of the american experiment is freedome and the right to defending it. This subject was the same before and it will be after. What is the going on right now in the world that has nothing to do with that?

Moreover, you are wrong on the Germany example. US Constitution can be changed too and dumb things like Prohibition were added too.

This was already unconstitutional, anti-freedome and createt many problems such as organised crime founded by the black market. But this is what happens with legislation which takes decisions away from the individual person.

You can't compare the two really.

I hear this so many times. Why i can't compare that? Because we are physical and psychical different kind of human beings or what? Americans are nothing else than europeans which had enough of the tyrannical treatment by governments in europe. Freedome is universal, everyone wants freedome.

Apart from that analogy failing all over, Rome was essentially an oligarchy at any stage and never a democracy of any substance.

The Senator said "Vote for me, i will feed the poore and give you as mmuch bread you can eat!"
And they voted for him. And Senators rear themself a class of dependent people which always votet for them because on some point they were so dependet, they couldn't care anymore for themself. And because the sentor get electet all the time, he became a carrier politician and could establish his familie which was the first step to political dynasties in rome.
Bread and circus was exactly that.

And know i don't waste anymore time on this. Better wrote some new articels are reach way more people than arguing with a hand full.

[Astaroth]

Again, a republic is simply a country without a king. That means, all countries from America to France or Germany and China, North Korea etc.

America is a representative democracy, buddy. If you disagree, feel free to refute it.