So you claim that you know the thoughts of the majority of the people when they hear the word democracy.
Uh-huh.
The term is derived from the Greek: δημοκρατία - (dēmokratía) "rule of the people",[1] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (krátos) "power", in the middle of the fifth-fourth century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.
...The term democracy first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought. The philosopher Plato contrasted democracy, the system of "rule by the governed", with the alternative systems of monarchy (rule by one individual), oligarchy (rule by a small élite class) and timocracy (ruling class of property owners).[22] Although Athenian democracy is today considered by many to have been a form of direct democracy, originally it had two distinguishing features: firstly the allotment (selection by lot) of ordinary citizens to government offices and courts,[23] and secondarily the assembly of all the citizens[24].
All citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the Assembly, which set the laws of the city-state. However, the Athenian citizenship was only for males born from a father who was citizen and who had been doing their "military service" between 18 and 20 years old; this excluded women, slaves, foreigners (μέτοικοι / metoikoi) and males under 20 years old. Of the 250,000 inhabitants only some 30,000 on average were citizens. Of those 30,000 perhaps 5,000 might regularly attend one or more meetings of the popular Assembly. Most of the officers and magistrates of Athenian government were allotted; only the generals (strategoi) and a few other officers were elected.[2]
No it's not.It might also be called "direct democracy" or "pure democracy."
How so?The above is why a constitutional republic is better than a democracy. /thread
:doh
OK, dude.
:roll:
I know the full story about the birth of Democracy, and how it was initially a direct democracy (which wasn't really direct even back then, as the only ones who were allowed to decide were the Greek property owners, and not the entire of the citizens of ancient Greece.).The term democracy dates back to Greece, and the definition is quite well established
Nothing above confirms that, I'm afraid.When the term Democracy is used by itself, it tends to refer to the original form of democracy, see above.
What makes you say "Constitutional republics" and not "Representative democracies"?
After all, the US is a representative democracy and a constitutional republic, as I've proven before.
A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power.
The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.
So you claim that you know the thoughts of the majority of the people when they hear the word democracy.
Uh-huh.
Now you're really making a strong argument there. :2razz:
It is subjective by individual's eyes, not by society's eyes.
One may find a form of regime that he is aligned with its morality as the most moral of regimes.
I'm however referring to the morality code followed by the society.
I am glad that you understand.:doh
OK, dude.
:roll:
I'd say that the majority of Americans are with you on this.Constitutional republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Don't feel bad for not knowing this, I'd say 70% of Americans don't realize it either.
how does that mean that a constitutional republic is the only form of democracy?
Or even, how does that mean that representative democracies
that are not constitutional republics are less moral?
And even your article states that a constitutional republic is indeed mostly a representative democracy.
Meant to say "The most moral form of democracy".Strawman.
That constitutional republic you're speaking about is a democracy.Constitutional republics put checks on the power of any one branch of government to dominate, and guarantee the protection of rights. Democracy may or may not do that.
Meant to say "The most moral form of democracy".
I'm typing fast as I have a lot of people to answer to, it would seem.
That constitutional republic you're speaking about is a democracy.
Hence Democracy is the most moral form of regimes.
You are arguing about why constitutional republic is the most moral sub-form of Democracy (which is a different argument).
Read the article again.
Key differences:
-Representatives must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
-executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights
-no individual or group has absolute power.
In a representative democracy without these constitutional laws, the will of the majority could easily overwhelm the rights and protection of the minority. That's a HUGE difference.
Catz' Article said:A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people(=Representative Democracy), and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
A representative democracy can be a Constitutional republic, all it needs is to set those rules that enforce the representatives to follow the constitution.Catz Part Deux said:Key differences:
-Representatives must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
-executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights
-no individual or group has absolute power.
In a representative democracy without these constitutional laws, the will of the majority could easily overwhelm the rights and protection of the minority. That's a HUGE difference.
Also, a representative democracy may or may not be a constitutional republic. For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."
Give an example of a constitutional republic that is not a Democracy.Wrong again. See my above post. A constitutional republic differs substantially from a democracy, and is more moral than a democracy, as a result, if morality is defined as having the greatest protection for individual liberties.
Give an example of a constitutional republic that is not a Democracy.
Because it is a sub-form of democracy.This is a flawed use of logic. There are democracies that are not constitutional republics.
Are you being willfully obtuse?
Give an example of a constitutional republic that is not a Democracy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?