Republic

N

nobbie48

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Forum Sponsor
I'm trying to wrap my head around the difference between a republic and a democracy.

As I understand it a simple democracy is that majority rules. A majority vote in Canada can ban something even if an individual has a need for it.

In a democratic republic some things are voted on but certain rights are enshrined in a constitution and even if every last citizen wanted to ban guns, marijuana or a particular religion it can't happen. It's almost like Harley Davidson. It has to be an air cooled V twin, not subject to change. You can tweak things but not change them.

Religion is a tricky one in that there is a ton of money to be made especially if you can get a TV show. I'm not sure about the difference between Canada and the USA. I was under the impression that in Canada only the church building was tax exempt but in the USA just about everything in the name of the church was exempt, hence the church owning $57 million dollar private jets and 10,000 square foot mansions.

The benefit of a simple democracy is that the tail can't wag the dog.

The benefit of a republic is that even a tiny minority can't be shoved around, theoretically.

Comments?

Any clarifications / comments?
 
The Excited States of America is (IMO) -
Oligarchy
Form of Government
Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. These people may be distinguished by nobility, wealth, education, corporate, religious, political, or military control. Such states are often controlled by families who pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition of oligarchy.
 
a Republic is based on the Rule of Law
a Constitution being paramount
the will of the masses can be held in check by the courts

Parliamentary Democracies also have Supreme Courts that can quash bad legislation
but it is the exception rather than the norm
 
nobbie48 said:
I'm trying to wrap my head around the difference between a republic and a democracy.
As I understand it a simple democracy is that majority rules. A majority vote in Canada can ban something even if an individual has a need for it.
Click to expand...


What we pass off as "democracy" these days isn't really authentic democracy as developed by its earliest practitioners.
It's a bastardized version... I'd go so far as to say "democracy" is just a word.

For a compelling example of alternative governance look no further than Monty Python

 
Last edited:
Pure democracy leads to "mob rule", the majority can vote to stomp over the wishes of the minority. Essentially people have no "rights". If a minority of people play golf, and the majority of people vote that there shall be no golf courses because we want to use the land for hunting and fishing, then the golfers are overruled, even if they have no interest in hunting or fishing. We have too much of that sort of thing as it is. If you don't like having your rights trampled, you definitely don't want to live in a pure democracy.

The USA calls itself a republic, but it seems lately that it's just messed up beyond recognition.
 
Brian P said:
Pure democracy leads to "mob rule", the majority can vote to stomp over the wishes of the minority. Essentially people have no "rights". If a minority of people play golf, and the majority of people vote that there shall be no golf courses because we want to use the land for hunting and fishing, then the golfers are overruled, even if they have no interest in hunting or fishing. We have too much of that sort of thing as it is. If you don't like having your rights trampled, you definitely don't want to live in a pure democracy.

The USA calls itself a republic, but it seems lately that it's just messed up beyond recognition.
Click to expand...

Too many people in the USA are in denial. They have a better chance of winning a lottery than turning the situation around. Considering the actions of Americans from the top down it will get worse until everyone understands the difference between rights and perceived rights.
 
Classical sense in form of government ignoring all the typical posturing GTAM "politics", Republic does not in any way automatically equal democracy:

We live in a country that is both a Constitutional Monarchy and a Parliamentary Democracy--all commonwealth realms are the same type of system (Westminster), Queen/King (Head of State) through birth, parliament/government through election. Balance of power in "the realms" favours government over Monarch (Monarch is a figure head) in day to day operation.

The US is a "Federal Republic" which is democratically elected one. In their case they directly elect the Head of State (President for them) and the rest of government.

While there are many differences but high level, if Canada removed the Queen and replaced her with an elected or appointed President we become a republic. We will/can then have a Prime Minister and a President....like France-which is also a republic. Many European republics have some flavour of this (with different names for the positions, some elect both some appoint the president. the amount of power "president" vs "prime minister" (or whatever they call them) varies, some are figureheads with emergency or reserve powers some are day to day powerful. The US has a President with much more power than typical but also has a House of Representatives/Parliament (with a leader of the house). Other Monarchies in Europe have a system similar to ours with different names...

None of this means the country is a democracy though....

Democracy is the key word in these examples. Just because a country is a Republic they are not automatically a democracy (they just don't have a monarch, really all it means). A Monarchy is also not a democratic form of government unless it is also some form of Parliamentary Democracy. There are Absolute Monarchies that the king/queen reigns supreme.

Or:
  • Monarch = Monarchy = not a Republic.
  • No Monarch = a Republic.
  • A democracy is a democracy and neither of the above automatically means any form of democracy.
  • Of course democracy can also be a loose term.... because it comes down to who can run and who can vote (think eastern bloc that called themselves democracies...). That is where the GTAM political posturing fits in...

Just to add confusion... we should also call 'Liz Empress as she is the queen of many independent realms (Kingdoms). They originally used the name Dominion of Canada as opposed to Kingdon of Canada to not "offend" the Republic to the south...

A Republican can be anyone that wants a Republic, OR it can be the name of a US political party.
A Democrat can be anyone who wants a Democracy, OR it can be the name of a US political party.
 
Last edited:
TK4 said:
The Excited States of America is (IMO) -
Oligarchy
Form of Government
Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. These people may be distinguished by nobility, wealth, education, corporate, religious, political, or military control. Such states are often controlled by families who pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition of oligarchy.
Click to expand...

It's funny but it's the truth and we see so much division now everywhere because the real issue to distract from is corporatocracy
 
If the original question was trying to analyze US political party policies by analyzing the root word of "Republican" and "Democrat", then be aware that the platforms that each party stood for essentially flipped at the turn of the 20th century.

www.livescience.com

When did Democrats and Republicans switch platforms?

When did Democrats and Republicans switch platforms, changing their political stances — and why? The Republicans used to favor big government, while Democrats were committed to curbing federal power.
www.livescience.com www.livescience.com

Current Democratic policy of "big government" and Republic policy of "less government intervention" were actually the opposing party's policies before the 1860s.

Often used by ignorant Republicans who like to point out that Democrats were the ones fighting to own slaves before the civil war.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom