• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democracy V Republic

Rich2018

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
70,691
Reaction score
8,304
Location
Norcross, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I had a recent discussion with someone on-line. He is an American and states that the USA is not a Democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic.

On YouTube there are a number of videos saying that Democracy is different (and usually inferior) to a Republic.

Are there any US members who actually agree with this ?


For the record I said that a Republic is a form of Democracy (though not all Republics are it is true like the USSR, DDR, PRC, Saddam's Iraq etc)


Thoughts ?
 
Yes, a Constitutional Republic is far superior to a democracy.
 
Rich2018 said:
But a constitutional republic is a form of democracy...specifically a form of representative democracy.
Click to expand...

Difference being that in a Constitutional Republic individual people have Rights. Other forms of democracy are generally more about tyranny of the majority.
 

There has not been a true democracy since ancient greece for a state, though numerous tribes in europe have tried it in regions during roman times. Democracy is a failed idea, it is always the majority voting to oppress the minority. A republic is representative democracy, it takes the better ideas of democracy but adds a direct layer between the people and the laws, but also holds govt more accountable to the people.

It is not the most ideal system, but it is the best of what we have, and has done better at protecting minorities than other systems have excluding some dictatorships, however minority protection is not uniform among dictatorships either.
 
Rich2018 said:
But a constitutional republic is a form of democracy...specifically a form of representative democracy.
Click to expand...

A democracy has minimal govt, usually those who run the military control trade and emergency power of martial law, otherwise in a true democracy all laws are voted by the people instead of the govt, which often leads to oppression against minorities. A representative democracy has it's laws made by senators, often with an executive, and representatives, each country has a different way of doing it, like some use a senate and some use a parliament, but the laws are made by people who represent others, and those representatives are voted on by the people.

Another thing is excluding the us very few representative democracies have the people elect their head of state, but rather they elect representatives and the elected elect the head of state, exception being france and a few third world countries being the only other states with direct head of state elections, while the united states elects it's president indirectly but still through the people.
 
The USA, at least in theory, is both a republic and a representative democracy. In reality it is a republic and an oligarchy controlled by networks of powerful people, organisations and business interests who both oppose and thwart democratic expression in America. However there is also a powerful populist tradition which opposes such oligarchy but has been unable to stop it. The republic is also cracking under the weight of a highly militarised and very expensive state and a security and surveillance state which is rapidly curtailing or extinguishing many of the rights and freedoms upon which the USA was based in the service of centralisation of power and run-away statism.

So in theory the USA is both a republic and a representative democracy. In fact it is more of an oligarchy which is faced with a populist political rebellion which rejects oligarchy but is also systematically and serially co-opted by that oligarchy. This process is leading to de facto fascism as a reality of American political life and the destruction of the republic and the principles for which it stands.

Cheers?
Evilroddy.
 
Most black/white definitional distinctions between democracy and republic don't hold up historically. The U.S. has been referred to interchangeably as a democracy and a republic since the Framing.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
Democracy - "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"

Sounds pretty apt.

Even assuming that republic is technically the correct term, because of the rights afforded minorities or whatnot, I think correcting people who describe the U.S. as a democracy is patronizing in casual conversation and a really weak tactic in debate unless the issue itself is what you are debating.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Difference being that in a Constitutional Republic individual people have Rights. Other forms of democracy are generally more about tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...

Where do you get these ideas from.

Are you not aware that when the USA was first conceived and its Constitution written, it excluded the majority of the population.

Women, Blacks, Native Americans
Do you really need a list of examples where people in the USA have been legally suppressed ?

This is not to bash the USA, all countries have their flaws but to say people in a constitutional republic have more rights than in say a constitutional monarchy is quite ridiculous.



And you don't need a written constitution to protect rights. Laws do that. The US Constitution is just a collection of laws (albeit the highest law in the land).
 

What you call "True democracy" is actually known as "Direct Democracy" and is impossible to implement in all but the smallest of communities and yes that included ancient Greece too.

What we have is "Representative Democracy".

The UK, Canada, USA, Australia etc are all representative democracies - differing only in the details on how representatives function.

In a republic the head of state is elected
In a constitutional republic like the USA, the head of state (president) is elected by the people rather than by a smaller group of people holding political power.

So the USA is a democracy (if you don't believe this, then ask the US government itself)
The people don't vote on individual issues but instead elect representatives (the reason the "House" in Congress got its name Btw) - so the USA is a Representative Democracy (again confirmed by the US Government)
The head of state is elected and conforms to a set of rules/laws (the Constitution) - so the form of representative democracy in the USA is one of a Constitutional Republic

Canada and the UK are slightly different:
Both are democracies - like the USA
Both elect representatives to sit in their respective legislatures and so are Representative Democracies - just like the USA
However both have a head of state who's claim is by birthright not election...they are therefore Constitutional Monarchies


the people of the USA and Canada/UK are no better protected than each other.
What protects the people are laws and the judiciary.
Those laws do NOT require a formal constitution and neither do they require the head of state to be elected.
 

I'm well aware of our history. It is thanks to that Constitution that we now have Rights being applied to everyone. Yeah, it didn't start out that way due to the times. But it has since evolved into what we have today where everyone has Rights on an individual basis. No monarchy has that.
 

Part in red: How is that protection working out for free speech on Canada and the UK? Not very well from what I can see.
 
beerftw said:
A democracy has minimal govt, usually those who run the military control trade and emergency power of martial law, otherwise in a true democracy all laws are voted by the people instead of the govt...
Click to expand...

Again you confuse "True Democracy". This is properly known as "Direct Democracy" and does/can exist in certain circumstances in Representative Democracies on single issues like the recent "Brexit" vote in the UK
No city today, much less a modern country, can engage in direct democracy and I'm fairly sure the ancient Greeks couldn't either.


Again I think you're confused again. You seem to be confusing the head of state with the head of the government. In the USA they are one and the same in the office of the PoTUSA.
However in the Constitutional Monarchies like Canada and the UK the (constitutional) monarch is the head of state but the prime minister is elected by the members of the legislature
(In France, Ireland, Germany and others the people elect the head of state and the head of government is elected by the legislature)

In the USA the head of state is elected by the people (within the constraints of the electoral college) and lower house (The House) elects its leader (the speaker). In the UK the lower house elects its leader who serves as the head of the government (as in France).
 

The US Constitution is just a collection of laws...all countries have laws. The difference is that in a constitutional form of government, the people have the ability to change them if they so wish.
Having a constitution just makes some laws harder to amend or repeal.


It is true the a monarchy doesn't give rights to the people...but a Constitutional Monarchy does.


Many republics in the world give few if any rights to their peoples....North Korea or the People's Republic of China.

The key word is "Constitutional" - the USA is a "Constitutional Republic"
The UK is a "Constitutional Monarchy"

And despite what the titles may suggest, you don't actually need a written, formal constitution to be "Constitutional".
 
Kal'Stang said:
Part in red: How is that protection working out for free speech on Canada and the UK? Not very well from what I can see.
Click to expand...

How is free speech not working in Canada any differently than free speech in the US? Are you confusing "free speech" with free stupidity?
 
queenmandy85 said:
How is free speech not working in Canada any differently than free speech in the US? Are you confusing "free speech" with free stupidity?
Click to expand...

By the bold part there I can already tell that you are of the opinion that its OK to make people say things that you approve of or not say things that you do not approve of. The very anti-thesis of Free Speech. Guess you're one of the ones that supports Bill C-16?
 

As a conservative, I am usually reluctant to support anything put forward by the grits, but what on earth is wrong with protecting the rights of Canadians who are in the LGBTQ community. How does that curtail free speech under the charter?
I welcome the opportunity to debate people with whom I disagree.
 
Last edited:
queenmandy85 said:
As a conservative, I am usually reluctant to support anything put forward by the grits, but what on earth is wrong with protecting the rights of Canadians who are in the LGBTQ community. How does that curtail free speech under the charter.
Click to expand...


Or you can read the lawyer who Peterson was paired with in that video thoughts on Bill C-16 here: Bill C-16 – What’s the Big Deal?

Forcing people to say things that they do not wish to say is the very anti-thesis of Free Speech.
 
A few years ago, a motorist wanted to contest a ticket. He began the conversation with, "Hey, Dick." I responded that my name was "Allan" (not my real name). He continued to call me "Dick," and I continued to correct him. Once I explained the reason for the ticked and I was satisfied the point was made and understood, I cancelled the ticket. My point is, regardless of my office, should I not have the right to be addressed as I wish? Does his desire to call me names over weigh my right to be respected for who I am?
 
Kal'Stang said:
So you think its OK to arrest people for saying things that might be "offensive"?
Click to expand...


Depends.


If you're speaking honestly, then you're fine.


If you're trying to stir up hate, then you're not.



Freedom of Expression has its limits.
 

We have a hybrid. We have Representatives and Senators that we elect via direct democracy. They make laws in our names.

There are elements of direct democracy in every one of the 5 states where I've lived, generally in the form of ballot initiatives and referendums.

None of this is perfect, but in my opinion it's far preferable to direct democracy. Is there any nation state that's a pure direct democracy?
 


No, no nation or even city has ever ruled through direct democracy


Yes there are plebiscites but I'm not sure if they carry the weight of law behind them. If for instance the people of your state voted to relax drinking laws, your state's legislature are under no legal obligation to act upon that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…