Democratic Principles: Help
So basically our class is having a debate tommorow. We are debating whether there are "democratic" principles in a republic, and if so what kind. So I thought I would start this thread so I can get some ideas flowing, see both sides of the argument so I can choose, because at this point I really don't know what to chose.
Originally posted by Admiral AkbarThat makes no sense.
Well the word republic is refering to Democracy, since our goal is to spread Democracy it makes us a republic. That's what I meant.
As for democratic principles I just need examples, if there are any present in a republic.
I recall having a lengthy debate about the terms Republic and Democracy (I was of course right)
A republic doesn't necessarily need to be democratic. They can be and I am sure many are, but a republic can also have phony elections...they basically just need a head of state that's not head by birthright (like in a monarchy). But just theoretically there don't need to be any democratic principles in a republic. Just as much as there can be democratic principles in a monarchy.
Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Well the word republic is refering to Democracy, since our goal is to spread Democracy it makes us a republic. That's what I meant.
As for democratic principles I just need examples, if there are any present in a republic.
lol
if "republic" refers to "democracy" this debate of yours would be the equivalent to arguing over the chemical composition of water.
I agree with Bardock about republics pretty much. It depends on whether or not citizen access to the mechanism of power is a necessary component of a republic. I would say it is, but the democratic principals of that mechanisms could be usurped. Possibly creating a tyrannical republic....
Originally posted by Bardock42That mens a dictatorship is a republic.
That makes no sense.I recall having a lengthy debate about the terms Republic and Democracy (I was of course right)
A republic doesn't necessarily need to be democratic. They can be and I am sure many are, but a republic can also have phony elections...they basically just need a head of state that's not head by birthright (like in a monarchy). But just theoretically there don't need to be any democratic principles in a republic. Just as much as there can be democratic principles in a monarchy.
Originally posted by inimalist
wouldn't a dictatorship not be a republic by default? A dictatorship doesn't usually define itself by citizen access to politics.lol, I'm getting that citizen access stuff from Wikipedia, so if its off, just ignore me.
Well, take the old USSR for example, that was a Republic by definition, but we all know that it was a dictatorship, too.
Originally posted by lord xyz
I know it doesn't mean a republic isn't a dictatorship. Why would you tell me that?How does a dictatorship NOT be a republic?
...military dictatorships created by revolution are the first that come to mind, though I am sure there are plenty more examples.
First sentence is nonsense, I didn't say that.
Originally posted by Bardock42But they still have a head of state.
...military dictatorships created by revolution are the first that come to mind, though I am sure there are plenty more examples.
Originally posted by Bardock42
they basically just need a head of state that's not head by birthright (like in a monarchy).
Originally posted by Bardock42
First sentence is nonsense, I didn't say that.
Originally posted by Bardock42And I said that I didn't say republic is a dictatorship. Well, I said isn't, but it's one of those occasions where a double negative still means a negative.
Not quite. It means a dictatorship could be a republic. Not that a republic is a dictatorship.I learned that in logic 101.
Originally posted by lord xyz
But they still have a head of state.Yes you did.
And I said that I didn't say republic is a dictatorship. Well, I said isn't, but it's one of those occasions where a double negative still means a negative.
There is no double negative in any one sentence, therefore the first and last sentence are negative.....😄
Originally posted by lord xyz
But they still have a head of state.
Yes, my definition was to simplify matters, it's not quite correct, other factors do need to apply. Like the voted by the populous, for example.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes you did.
No I did not.
You said "I know it doesn't mean a republic isn't a dictatorship. Why would you tell me that?"
Besides being extremely confusing that means "It does mean a republic is a dictatorship" I actually said quite the opposite. You need to watch your double negatives.
Originally posted by lord xyzNo, it is not, you can't chose whether it is a negative or not, the way you said it here it meant a positive. You are not black either, so be conscious of your grammar.
And I said that I didn't say republic is a dictatorship. Well, I said isn't, but it's one of those occasions where a double negative still means a negative.
In fact, all in all, you should work on the way you say things to make them have less than 3 meanings. Also so people can be sure what your point is, that would be common courtesy. So go ahead now, formulate your point in a sensible manner and we can discuss it from there.
Originally posted by Bardock42Don't need to we've already met a compromise. Except from the differences between a republic and a dictatorship.
Yes, my definition was to simplify matters, it's not quite correct, other factors do need to apply. Like the voted by the populous, for example.No I did not.
You said "I know it doesn't mean a republic isn't a dictatorship. Why would you tell me that?"
Besides being extremely confusing that means "It does mean a republic is a dictatorship" I actually said quite the opposite. You need to watch your double negatives.
No, it is not, you can't chose whether it is a negative or not, the way you said it here it meant a positive. You are not black either, so be conscious of your grammar.
In fact, all in all, you should work on the way you say things to make them have less than 3 meanings. Also so people can be sure what your point is, that would be common courtesy. So go ahead now, formulate your point in a sensible manner and we can discuss it from there.
In a democracy, at least in the truest sense of the word, the majority rules, without any real regard to the minority. In a republic, the rule of law must take into account the rights of the minority as well. Sort of a no voice unheard thing. But, in America, we have a fusion of principles from a number of governmental models. Here, the majority is often ignored in favor of a minority. Or an over riding principle, like equality. Today in America, however, you have to have the money to back it up, or it's ignored and dismissed. This is what politics in America today are all about.