# Usage and meaning of the word "Republic"



## Frank78

I´ve figured out that there are 2 definition of the word republic. 

The ancient one, based on Greeks and Romans, defines a republic as mixed constituion of Aristocratic, Monarchic and Democratic elements.

This was used in Europe up to the Renaissance. I think Machiavelli was the last using this.
On the other hand it´s still the definition used in the US today. I´ve often heard them refering to their country as "republic" not as "democracy".

In Europe it means just "Non-Monarchy" today which throws countries like China, Germany, Russia, Italy, etc. in one pot.

Now I´d like to know what the people understand  by the term "republic" in your country?


----------



## cuchuflete

How is it that you understand the U.S. definition of republic to include monarchic and aristocratic elements, when the U.S. considers itself to be a republic, and has never had a monarch or hereditary aristocracy?

The considerable overlap of definitions of democracy and republic cause confusion.
Here is a part of a U.S. dictionary entry for _democracy:

_1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people. (     Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)

Given that "the people" do not directly exercise power in voting for a head of state, but
vote for intermediaries who do the actual selection (The Electoral College), one can argue that the U.S. is a republic that generally, but not always, acts as a democracy.


----------



## Frank78

This is exactly the point: "Given that "the people" do not directly exercise power in voting for a head of state [...]"

A democracy is  direct rule by the people as in ancient Athens. The citizen meet, discuss and solve problems. Noone is being elected to speak and rule for them.


Almost all modern Western "Democracies" are "Republics" if you use the ancient definition.

                                                                            USA  vs.                             Roman Republic
Element of Monarchy: The President -                     2 Consuls
Element of Aristocracy: The Senat                          -     Senat
Element of Democracy: The people          -     concila plebis (Assembly of the people)


"Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people."

This is the difference: In Europe there are serveral forms of democracies nowadays, e.g. representative, direct, etc.

So I think a "representative democracy" is what you understand by "republic"


----------



## cuchuflete

Frank78 said:
			
		

> USA  vs.                             Roman Republic
> Element of Monarchy: The President -                     2 Consuls
> Element of Aristocracy: The Senat                          -     Senat
> Element of Democracy: The people          -     concila plebis (Assembly of the people)



Horsefeathers!

A U.S. president is elected for a maximum of 8 years (two terms of office).  That is nothing like a monarchy. Sticking the word "element" in the description doesn't change the facts.  Monarchs don't have term limits.  They "serve" until they abdicate or die or are thrown from power by a revolution or other violent opposition.

The so-called "Element of Aristocracy" for the U.S. Senate is another flawed definition.  By any English definition of the word aristocracy, it is a bogus description.  The U.S. senate has no hereditary rights, does not constitute a "ruling class", and certainly cannot qualify by any consistent, objective measure as a group that is best or most able to govern.  

The U.S. has direct democracy at the local and state levels, and for one of the three branches of the federal government, the legislative branch.  The executive (head of state and head of government combined into a single office) is chosen by indirect democratic processes, and the judiciary is appointed, though it requires approval by the democratically elected Senate.  

The U.S. is a republic, but quite different from Rome.


----------



## Sowka

Frank78 said:


> Now I´d like to know what the people understand by the term "republic" in your country?


 
Hello all 

In my opinion, this is not the question: What do individual people understand by such a term? The question is: How is this term defined in the constitution of a particular country, and how are the rules given in the constitution implemented?

The leaders of a country can give any label to that country, for instance "Paradise on Earth". This sounds a bit too exaggerated even to the most original-minded  leaders, so they choose "Republic". Therefore, in my opinion, the word in itself doesn't mean much. You have to look behind it.

By the way, what you said about the ancient Greek democracy only applied to a tiny minority of the people living in Athens at that time.

More by the way: On German territory we once had a republic that was also democratic. By its name.


----------



## sokol

Honestly, I'm a little bit confused by Frank's original question, thus I'll formulate my own thoughts at first:

Democracy - the principle of the rule of the majority of *"the people"* ruling the country.
The term itself does not define who is included with "people"; in modern democracies each citizen has the right to vote but residents of foreign citizenship haven't - thus, it is in principle pretty much the same as in ancient Athens only that there also lower classes of the autochthone people were excluded.
America and Europe do not differ in their definition of democracy.

Republic - this by definition (Latin "res publica"), thus: historically, just means an organisational principle by which the public should benefit, and not a king or dictator; but in modern times "republic" just means the opposite of "monarchy", as Frank already says.

However, I do not see how in the US "republic" (in modern use) should mean something else than in Europe - in fact, as far as I'm concerned (and WR dictionary  Republic), this meaning is valid both in the US and in Europe.

Both in the USA and in Europe "republic" and "democracy" for the most part are synonyms, with some notable exceptions like "People's Republic - Volksrepublik" where a democratic body actually exists (and works) but where national doctrines of these republics are restricting their powers significantly, as is the case with "Islamic Republics - Islamischen Republiken" where existing democratic institutions have to work inside the reference frame of laws as set by Qur'an.

But playing devil's advocate one might also claim that even in Western democracies some "frame of reference" exists - namely Western culture, only that this frame of reference is not written down in a book or set up by an elite, but it is rather a historical frame of reference which couldn't be overstepped grossly in Western republics.
(One I've left out - there's also the kind of republic where there's a democratically elected body but where an oligarchy of economical leaders in fact dominates political decisions.)

So even between Western Republic, People's Republic and Islamic Republic there isn't such a great difference (although certainly there is one, quite noticably so).

But as far as the USA and Europe are concerned I do not see a grave difference; sure, presidential and parliamental democracies work different, but France too has a constitution where the president has considerable powers, while England has a parliamental democracy but with an election system similar to the one applied in US which works towards two-party-parliaments.

So all in all - I don't quite see the point behind the original question. A "republic", in modern use, is just the opposite of monarchy, and to use the term "republic" alone does not mean that this describes a particularly "democratic" regime.


(And a footnote: Austria is called "Republik Österreich", and we *do *like to refer to our country with "Republik" alone, just as US citizens do.  - The same was the case once in Germany, before 1991 it was extremely common to refer to Western Germany as the "Bundes*republik*".)


----------



## Valeria Mesalina

Frank78 said:


> A democracy is  direct rule by the people as in ancient Athens. The citizen meet, discuss and solve problems. Noone is being elected to speak and rule for them.
> 
> Almost all modern Western "Democracies" are "Republics" if you use the ancient definition.



Oh no they´re not!

If you use the ancient definition no country nowadays is a Democracy.

Only the Athens wealthy male aristocrats could meet and vote. 

The rest of the population, women, Jews, slaves, poor, serfs... were not even considered citizens.


----------



## Frank78

cuchuflete said:


> Horsefeathers!
> 
> A U.S. president is elected for a maximum of 8 years (two terms of office).  That is nothing like a monarchy. Sticking the word "element" in the description doesn't change the facts.  Monarchs don't have term limits.  They "serve" until they abdicate or die or are thrown from power by a revolution or other violent opposition.
> 
> The so-called "Element of Aristocracy" for the U.S. Senate is another flawed definition.  By any English definition of the word aristocracy, it is a bogus description.  The U.S. senate has no hereditary rights, does not constitute a "ruling class", and certainly cannot qualify by any consistent, objective measure as a group that is best or most able to govern.
> 
> The U.S. has direct democracy at the local and state levels, and for one of the three branches of the federal government, the legislative branch.  The executive (head of state and head of government combined into a single office) is chosen by indirect democratic processes, and the judiciary is appointed, though it requires approval by the democratically elected Senate.
> 
> The U.S. is a republic, but quite different from Rome.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_government

By the way this is not exclusivly valid for the US. Every "Western Democracy" is based on the thought of mixed government/republicanism.

My question is rather simple. I believe in Europe nowdays just the modern definion of "Republic" is used: the head of state is *NOT* a monarch. Which is a negative definition.
While I think the poeple in the US still use the older positiv definiton which I pointed out earlier. If this is wrong let me know. I´m just asking because I have heard several people from the US saying "Oh no we are not a democracy, we are a republic".  Since I studied political science I know what they meant but others surely would have look at them and say: "Eh???".

And I´m still interested what the rest of the world understands by "republic"


----------



## Frank78

Valeria Mesalina said:


> Oh no they´re not!
> 
> If you use the ancient definition no country nowadays is a Democracy.
> 
> Only the Athens wealthy male aristocrats could meet and vote.
> 
> The rest of the population, women, Jews, slaves, poor, serfs... were not even considered citizens.



Those who were able to buy their weapons themselves were considered "citizen" in Athens to be correct. 

Switzerland had no voting rights for women until the 1970s but it was for sure a Democracy.


----------



## Valeria Mesalina

Frank78 said:


> Those who were able to buy their weapons themselves were considered "citizen" in Athens to be correct.



Oh well, not many men could afford them, anyway.



> Switzerland had no voting rights for women until the 1970s but it was for sure a Democracy.


Not from a woman´s point of view. 

But I´m leaving the discussion, I´m not sure my opinion counts. It is not representative of my country.


----------



## piraña utria

Frank78 said:


> Now I´d like to know what the people understand by the term "republic" in your country?


 
Hi, Frank.

As regards most Colombians -it would be the same concerning Latin American countries- nothing rather than a component of our oficial name: "República de Colombia".

This is not my field of expertise, but I daresay that in constitutional law terms probably a more accurate and "up-to-date" criterion so to speak would be to sort a regime as a democratic one or not. 

Regards,


----------



## ireney

Well, to me, looking at the modern meaning/usage of "democracy" and "republic" with their original meaning of  times long ago in our minds is as wrong as passing judgment to other eras by today's standards . 
Anyway, nobody in Greece, as far as I know, see "republic" as meaning anything different from "democracy". After all, the official name of Greek is "Hellenic Democracy" in Greek and "Hellenic Republic" in English 
I should note though that the word "republic" is not used in Greek (and therefore my above comment refers only to these Greeks that speak another language containing this word) except when it comes to the Republican party of the United States. 
While enough people who have studied ancient history find it interesting that the conservative party opted for "republican" as "opposed" (you know what I mean) "democratic", no one, as far as I know, believes that a) the nomenclature has anything to do with each party's polices of b) that the Republican party is not really democratic.


----------



## elirlandes

Frank78 said:


> "Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people."
> 
> This is the difference: In Europe there are serveral forms of democracies nowadays, e.g. representative, direct, etc.
> 
> So I think a "representative democracy" is what you understand by "republic"



Government by the people does not necessarily equate even to the modern concept of Democracy. In Europe, all of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Norway and Sweden are democracies that are not republics - they each have a monarchy.

In Ireland, we often refer to the country as "the Republic", as opposed to "the North" which is a part of the nation which is not in the Republic of Ireland.

Proving the importance of words in conflict, "Republic" and "Republican" have taken on new and influential meanings in the context of Irish politics, with "Republican" having connotations of terrorism and Irish nationalism. I have often wondered what a British person from Northern Ireland who does not believe in Monarchy can call himself...as "Republican" does not mean merely "not in favour of having a monarch", but rather "in favour of an independent Irish nation state".


----------



## Frank78

elirlandes said:


> Government by the people does not necessarily equate even to the modern concept of Democracy. In Europe, all of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Norway and Sweden are democracies that are not republics - they each have a monarchy.


 
I know what you mean. To go even more in detail we have to distinguish between forms of government (only republic and monarchy) and forms of ruling (democracy, dictatorship, aristocracy, theocracy etc.)


----------



## elirlandes

Frank78 said:


> forms of government (only republic and monarchy)



I think that my point is that whether a country is a republic or a monarchy has no bearing on whether it is a democracy or not... That is more a question of the constitutional make up of the country.

UK = Monarcy & Democracy
Saudi Arabia = Monarchy & Autocracy
Ireland = Republic & Democracy
Iraq under Saddam Hussein = Republic & Dictatorship


----------



## piraña utria

sokol said:


> Republic - this by definition (Latin "res publica"), thus: historically, just means an organisational principle by which the public should benefit, and not a king or dictator; but in modern times "republic" just means the opposite of "monarchy", as Frank already says.
> quote]
> 
> I concur.
> 
> In fact, most of Latin American countries' names included this word "república" that historically emerged as the best way to differenciate them from their former role as Spanish colonies and obviously its monarchical regime.


----------



## Judica

Republic and Democracy are not synonyms in my opinion.

The origin of Democracy: Greece
The origin of Republic: Rome

The US is more like Rome having officials who are elected speak on issues and laws for the people. At one time, similar to Greece, only landowners could vote; no women, slaves, serf, natives, etc. This changed when the definition of "citizen" changed and not without much protest mind you. 

In reality, to me, the US is a Republic with democratic tendencies. It is not a true Democracy and never has been.

So, I guess I could say "Republic" simply means a form of government where people are elected to govern instead of appointed by chance of birth (monarchy).


----------



## piraña utria

Hi, there.

From the standpoint of a common citizen in your countries, I mean excluding scholars or experts in constitutional law which as far as I've understood is the sense of the first question, Is there actually any difference in usage and meaning between "republic" and "democracy"?


----------



## Hulalessar

piraña utria said:


> Is there actually any difference in usage and meaning between "republic" and "democracy"?


 
Not all republics are democracies.

Not all democracies are republics.


----------



## piraña utria

Hulalessar said:


> Not all republics are democracies.
> 
> Not all democracies are republics.


 
Yes, I do know it. It is in fact a pretty obvious notion for those who has chosen law or political science as a professional field, but what about the rest of inhabitants of a country, at least mine? As I've written before, "republic" is nothing else but an equivalent of democracy, or a part of its official name.


----------



## manon33

piraña utria said:


> Yes, I do know it. It is in fact a pretty obvious notion for those who has chosen law or political science as a professional field, but what about the rest of inhabitants of a country, at least mine? As I've written before, "republic" is nothing else but an equivalent of democracy, or a part of its official name.


 
A republic is a state which has got rid of its monarchy (or never had one).
A democracy is a state whose adult citizens are enfranchised.

Some states are both democracies and republics; some are neither; some are one but not the other.

The two terms are not synonymous, despite what the country may call itself!


----------



## piraña utria

manon33 said:


> The two terms are not synonymous, despite what the country may call itself!


 
Yes, you are right: North Korea is a very significative example of the validity of your position. However, the original question was written as follows:

_Now I´d like to know what the people understand by the term "republic" in your country?_ 

Kind regards,


----------



## ac552

I will try to answer the question.
Let me tell you that Chile is a Republic. As someone said before, Chile is a republic, as similar as other countries in Latin America, to emphasize our independence from the Spanish Empire. So, at first, it was just a word used to get a difference from the kingdom.
However, it does not mean that Chile was a democratic country at all. For a long time the vote was limited to a few aristocratic people. Just starting the XX century everybody was able to take part in elections and be elected, except women, who got that right just around '50s.
Today Chilean Constitution said “Chile is a democratic republic…”. But, what is it mean? An appropriate answer is difficult. Just let me remind you that the Constitution was adopted in 1980, in the middle of a dictatorship.
-    As a democracy we are not a direct democracy. Who can even try today? Maybe a local organization, but it is impossible for running a country. There are some technophiles that think we can be a direct democracy by using Internet and electronic devices. But, it is another story. We are an indirect democracy, it mean, people elect their main authorities  (President, Senator and Representatives). Of course we are such kind of government just after the dictator; so, we have been again a democracy since 1989.
-     As a republic we does not have a king. However, some authors used the concept republic to speak about a politic system with a real commitment with the public issues, where public deliberation is fomented, authorities elected by people, and authorities are responsible before the people and courts. In this sense, republic is used as a reference to the public matter  -as in the Latin etymology of the word res public- rather than in the first meaning of the word.
Salu2,
A.


----------



## Frank78

manon33 said:


> A republic is a state which has got rid of its monarchy (or *never had one*).



Do you have any example of a state founded as republic? I think there is none. Because the most basic form of a society is that in which people elect a chieftain (similar to an elective monarchy) which later becomes the monarch.

Republics or Democracies always emerge through revolution not peacefully as a monarchy.

Even the Amercian colonies were monarchies because they were part of European monachies.


----------



## ac552

"Do you have any example of a state founded as republic? ...Even the Amercian colonies were monarchies because they were part of European monachies. 		 		  		  		 		  		  		  		  		 			 			 			  "

Well, but no one colonies was a state during Spanish times. So, when the new states of Americas, included Latin America, were founded, they were founded as Republics -Argentina, Chile y Perú, among others-, except some few exceptions, that were founded as a Monarchy, such as Mexico and Brazil.


----------



## cuchuflete

Frank78 said:


> Do you have any example of a state founded as republic? I think there is none. Because the most basic form of a society is that in which people elect a chieftain (similar to an elective monarchy) which later becomes the monarch.
> 
> Republics or Democracies always emerge through revolution not peacefully as a monarchy.
> 
> Even the Amercian colonies were monarchies because they were part of European monachies.



A colony is not a state.  It is a territory and population subject to the rule of an external power.  Thus your comment that the American colonies were monarchies is false.   The lands were "discovered" by non-natives, and the rule of distant monarchies was imposed.  The colonial residents did not have the same rights as citizens of the monarchies that controlled them.  

The U.S.A.—as a state—was founded as a republic.  The change in status was not from a monarchy to a republic, but from a group of colonial territories to a republic.


----------



## TitTornade

Hello,
According to _thefreedictionary_: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/republic,
the word "republic" in English comes directly from the french word: République. I don't know if it's true or not and when this word was borrowed.
So, if the English word come from French, let's have a look on the French meaning.

The french Republic was first created after the 1789 Revolution as an opposition to the ancient absolut monarchy.
According to french wikipedia (  ), Republic means that the state is not a Monarchy, not a Theocraty, i.e. (rapid translation and summary of the web-page):
- In a monarchy, the State, the territory and the people are private properties (lat. _res-privata_). But different "levels" of government can exist from the absolut monarchy (Louis XVIth, King of France, said: "I'm the State"!!) to monarchy that contains many concepts of the republic (parlementary monarchy)
- In a theocraty, the State, the territory and the people are properties of God.
- In a republic, the State, the territory are the property of the people (lat. _res-publica = _thing of the people).

According to TLFi: http://atilf.atilf.fr/dendien/scripts/tlfiv5/advanced.exe?8;s=1403789790;, the Republic, in French, corresponds to a political system of a State in which the power is non hereditary, shared and lead by persons (that are generally elected) who represents all (or a part) of the people.

(I hope my English is understandable)


----------



## HUMBERT0

What a remember from my class of law at high school, in spanich República from Res(cosa) Pública = cosa pública

I remember that our teacher made the case that we were not a democracy but in indeed we were a Republic, also that our states were not "Libres y Soberanos" becuse of the federal pact, only the country it-self was "free and sovereign".

Times have change, I remember when he said it sounded radical, against the regime, not all people voiced those opinions in public back then.
I guess with free democratic elections in recent years, we are now a young imperfect democracy.


----------



## sokol

I am very much surprised by the answers so far, and I finally do understand why Frank was asking this question in the first place.

I still do *not *see however why the US should not be a democracy: even though it seems that some, or probably many US citizens think that their nation is a republic, but not a democracy, I find this notion very ... well: strange.

Here's what English Wiki gives, which I hope helps to loose this Gordian knot (my emphasis):
"In the United States *Founding Fathers* like James Madison *defined **republic *in terms of *representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy*, and this usage is still employed by many viewing themselves as "republicans". In *modern political science, republicanism refers to a specific ideology* that is based on civic virtue and is considered distinct from ideologies such as liberalism."
 
It seems that conflicting definitions are employed.
The definition of "republic = representative democracy" vs. (democracy I think?) = "direct democracy" seems to be responsible for the confusion.

I do not think that Europeans, in general, would say that a republic is a "representative democracy", or even I always learned (at school and university)*) that both representative and direct democracy are just democracies, while a republic is something altogether different and not defined through the electional modus.

*) By Frank's posts I guess it is safe to say that this at least is true for Austria and Germany, but I'd go further - I think at least all of "Continental Europe" defines the term like that; probably Great Britain and Ireland are an exception here, of that I'm not sure (I always thought Brits use the same definition as we "Continentals" do, but now that I've learned that Americans - or some Americans - don't I'm not so sure anymore).


----------



## Frank78

cuchuflete said:


> A colony is not a state.  It is a territory and population subject to the rule of an external power.  Thus your comment that the American colonies were monarchies is false.   The lands were "discovered" by non-natives, and the rule of distant monarchies was imposed.  The colonial residents did not have the same rights as citizens of the monarchies that controlled them.
> 
> The U.S.A.—as a state—was founded as a republic.  The change in status was not from a monarchy to a republic, but from a group of colonial territories to a republic.



 I again have to disagree. Since these colonies were part of European monarchies, they are monarchies itself. Central America for example was the "Vice-*Royalty* of Newspain".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viceroyalty_of_New_Spain

It´s not important if the colonists could participate politically as the men in the homecountry. Even in states like Britain, Spain,etc. were people excluded from participation. Mainly all in the times of absolutism. 

What else should be their status if not monarchy??? Democracy? Theocracy? Anarchism?


----------



## ac552

Frank78 said:


> I again have to disagree. Since these colonies were part of European monarchies, they are monarchies itself. Central America for example was the "Vice-*Royalty* of Newspain".
> ...
> 
> What else should be their status if not monarchy??? Democracy? Theocracy? Anarchism?



Don't confuse things. Central America was the Vice-Royalty of Newspan, but it does not mean too much if we are talking about republic or democracy. It's legal status was a colony. No one decision was made  in the colony, but in the Spanish Empire's metropolis.


----------



## ireney

Moderator's note: The terms "republic" and "democracy" have different meanings in different countries. Please explain exactly what you mean by the term when answering the initial question: "*Now I´d like to know what the people understand by the term "republic" in your country?" *. This way the answers will remain on topic and within the scope of this forum  since discussions on whether the definition of either "democracy" or "republic" in any given language are right or wrong are off the scope of this forum.


----------



## Athaulf

sokol said:


> I still do *not *see however why the US should not be a democracy: even though it seems that some, or probably many US citizens think that their nation is a republic, but not a democracy, I find this notion very ... well: strange.



A lot of this confusion stems from the fact the the original U.S. Constitution adopted in 1787 specified in great detail the workings of the federal government, but left a lot of latitude for the internal political organization of individual states. Basically, it prohibited the establishment of monarchy and titles of nobility, as well as a few other things such as bills of attainder or _ex post facto_ laws, but that was it. Certainly, dramatic limitations of franchise by individual states were perfectly compatible with it (see e.g. Luther v. Borden from 1849). Thus, it's fair to say that the original Constitution incorporated certain democratic elements, as well as many other non-democratic ones. Even at the federal level, senators (and thus indirectly also the judiciary  confirmed by them) were elected by state legislatures, which in turn could be assembled in a highly non-democratic way. 

Things have changed since then dramatically with the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibited race-based restrictions of franchise (it didn't really work in practice in the South before the 1960s), the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the direct election of senators, the Nineteenth Amendment, which guaranteed women's franchise, some aspects of the development of the incorporation doctrine, etc. All these were steps in the democratic direction at both federal and state level. Still, numerous theoretical and practical barriers to unlimited democracy remain, most notably the judicial review of legislation -- I'd say more so than in other Western countries. The enumerated powers principle and the Ninth and Tenth Amendment are also still theoretically in force, although they are mostly dead in practice, and they can also be viewed as non-democratic republican constitutional provisions.

Of course, it would also be interesting to analyze the practical functioning of the present U.S. and other Western governments, and see to what extent it's actually influenced by the democratic process in practice (as opposed to the way it's supposed to be in theory). But that would be a topic for some other forum.


----------



## Jacobtm

In the United States, we think of ourselves as a Democratic Republic, "Democratic" being the adjective and "Republic" being the noun. The phrase democratic republic was used by our founding fathers as a contrast to direct democracy, where the citizen body is in effect the legislature. 

In many states though, most notably California, there is a system of direct democracy, which makes lawmakers in California much less powerful than elsewhere, since they're restrained by rules citizens have decided. 

In my mind then, a country like the Russian Federation wouldn't really be a Republic, because the regional governors are appointed by the President and all legislators are selected from a list system, with a 7% threshold, which doesn't guarantee that all areas and interests are represented.


----------



## Frank78

Jacobtm said:


> In my mind then, a country like the Russian Federation wouldn't really be a Republic, because the regional governors are appointed by the President and all legislators are selected from a list system, with a 7% threshold, which doesn't guarantee that all areas and interests are represented.



I´m really surprised that someone from a first-past-the-post election system is calling a treshold undemocratic. 
If legaslative is elected by the plurality voting system like in Britain or the US 49% of the people are not represented in the worst case. If you have more than 2 candidates it can be even a higher percentage if the winner just needs a simple majority, e.g. candidate A wins with 40% while B and C have 30 % each.

A lot of western democracies have such thresholds to avoid getting a parliament with 30 or 40 tiny parties which makes governing almost impossible.


----------



## ewie

As far as I'm aware, Frank, people in the UK would define a _republic_ as 'any country whose head of state is *elected*, i.e. not a hereditary monarch'.
This would rule out countries like North Korea, which (if we thought about it at all) we'd call a _hereditary dictatorship/autocracy_.

Sorry if I'm just repeating stuff here: I was too lazy to read the whole thread.


----------



## Sepia

Frank78 said:


> Do you have any example of a state founded as republic? I think there is none. Because the most basic form of a society is that in which people elect a chieftain (similar to an elective monarchy) which later becomes the monarch.
> 
> Republics or Democracies always emerge through revolution not peacefully as a monarchy.
> 
> Even the Amercian colonies were monarchies because they were part of European monachies.



There is a good deal of states that emerged as republics and some of them proceded to become parts of larger federal entities. Lets start in America: With the exception of those that were British colonies or, liberated themselves from the Mexicans or were bought from the Russians were autonomous Republics before they joined one or the other federation. And what about Germany: Hamburg was an autonomous republic remaind that way for a very long time.


----------



## Miguel Antonio

Frank78 said:


> Now I´d like to know what the people understand  by the term "republic" in your country?


In Spain today the issue is clear-cut.

The Republic is seen by some as a form of government that last came into force having being proclaimed after interpreting the results of the municipal elections of April 12, 1931 as the will of the majority of Spain's voters back then, and further sanctioned by general elections. It was suppressed by a military coup followed by nearly four decades of dictatorship. The reinstatement of monarchy back to the twice ousted royal family was the unilateral decision of the dictator in his will and testament.


----------



## Jacobtm

Frank78 said:


> I´m really surprised that someone from a first-past-the-post election system is calling a treshold undemocratic.
> If legaslative is elected by the plurality voting system like in Britain or the US 49% of the people are not represented in the worst case. If you have more than 2 candidates it can be even a higher percentage if the winner just needs a simple majority, e.g. candidate A wins with 40% while B and C have 30 % each.
> 
> A lot of western democracies have such thresholds to avoid getting a parliament with 30 or 40 tiny parties which makes governing almost impossible.



My point isn't that a list system w/ a threshold is *undemocratic*, but that a nationwide legislative election where 100% of legislators are selected from party lists doesn't guarantee that all areas of the country will be represented. This is especially true in Russia, which has huge areas with very few people living there, such that parties are much more able to appeal only to urban/suburban voters.

The system that the US uses assures that all parts of all 50 states are represented in our Senate and House of Representatives. Even if the election for Wyoming's seat in the House of Representatives is split 51-49, Wyoming still has representation. 

So our system actually gives relatively more political power to states w/ small populations, wheras any national list system helps focus power on densely populated areas. That's why I'd say the US is more of a "Republic", because our government is neessarily made up of representatives from all the regions of our country.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Frank78 said:


> I again have to disagree. Since these colonies were part of European monarchies, they are monarchies itself.



I can't speak for the Spanish colonies but for the American colonies the issue is clear cut, they were never states and therefore never monarchies. They were however ruled over _by _a monarch. While they may have considered themselves Englishmen, they were never legally so, the only way they could have been considered English was to legally become part of the Kingdom of England (later Great Britain). This never happened.

Therefore the U.S. did not transform from a monarchy into a republic. It was founded as a republic.


----------



## Brioche

Jacobtm said:


> My point isn't that a list system w/ a threshold is *undemocratic*, but that a nationwide legislative election where 100% of legislators are selected from party lists doesn't guarantee that all areas of the country will be represented. This is especially true in Russia, which has huge areas with very few people living there, such that parties are much more able to appeal only to urban/suburban voters.
> 
> The system that the US uses assures that all parts of all 50 states are represented in our Senate and House of Representatives. Even if the election for Wyoming's seat in the House of Representatives is split 51-49, Wyoming still has representation.
> 
> So our system actually gives relatively more political power to states w/ small populations, wheras any national list system helps focus power on densely populated areas. That's why I'd say the US is more of a "Republic", because our government is neessarily made up of representatives from all the regions of our country.



The US is a federation of states. 
The House of Representatives is based on population, but in the Senate all States get equal representation.

Australia, which is not officially a republic, uses the same system. We have a House of Representatives, where representation is based on population, and a senate, where each state has the same number of senators.

Officially Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy, but the Queen exercises absolutely no power.  The powers of the Queen - essentially ceremonial - are exercised by the Governor-General, who is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister.

The Queen cannot refuse the "advice" of the Prime Minister, so in reality the Governor-General is appointed by the PM for a term of 5 years. If the PM wanted to get rid of the Governor-General, he could "advise" the Queen to terminate the appointment. That has never been done.


----------

