Democratic Principles: Help

Started by Admiral Akbar3 pages

Originally posted by Bardock42
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.

You're right, sorry. I wasn't really sure what the topic question was because I didn't really write it down, but then got it from a friend, I think it went something like this:
Are democratic principles attainable in a large diverse republic?
Hopefully that clarifies things.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You crazy weirdo.
I know, I'm not used to normal KMC debates. I believe in staying on-topic.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I know, I'm not used to normal KMC debates. I believe in staying on-topic.
You dragged it off with your nonsense. You oddball. It's cute though, keep it up.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
You're right, sorry. I wasn't really sure what the topic question was because I didn't really write it down, but then got it from a friend, I think it went something like this:
Are democratic principles attainable in a large diverse republic?
Hopefully that clarifies things.
I think they are. Depends on how you define democratic principles of course.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You dragged it off with your nonsense. You oddball. It's cute though, keep it up.

I think they are. Depends on how you define democratic principles of course.

Principles befitting the common people.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Principles befitting the common people.
You mean, in this debate, democratic principles are principles that benefit the common people. And the question is whether republics can have those.

So, paraphrased, the question is whether Republics benefit the common people?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You mean, in this debate, democratic principles are principles that benefit the common people. And the question is whether republics can have those.

So, paraphrased, the question is whether Republics benefit the common people?

Yes the first response you posted. Whether those principles can be accomplished in a republic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You dragged it off with your nonsense. You oddball. It's cute though, keep it up.

I think they are. Depends on how you define democratic principles of course.

Are you ever gonna reveal the difference between a republic and a dictatorship?

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Principles befitting the common people.

I think a constitution and independent judiciary are much more responsible for the benefits enjoyed by the common man, both of which are somewhat "anti-democratic"

Originally posted by lord xyz
Are you ever gonna reveal the difference between a republic and a dictatorship?

Dictatorship -> Individual or party rule of nation

Republic -> Country without a monarch with some semblance of citizen access to the political mechanism.

Iran would be a republic that is also a dictatorship

Originally posted by inimalist
I think a constitution and independent judiciary are much more responsible for the benefits enjoyed by the common man, both of which are somewhat "anti-democratic"

Dictatorship -> Individual or party rule of nation

Republic -> Country without a monarch with some semblance of citizen access to the political mechanism.

Iran would be a republic that is also a dictatorship

Does that mean the UK is a dictatorship?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Does that mean the UK is a dictatorship?

monarchy

and yes, Canada as well

EDIT: but only in the most literal or technical sense of the term. The monarch is for all extents and purposes ceremonial.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, take the old USSR for example, that was a Republic by definition, but we all know that it was a dictatorship, too.

It was my understanding that the USSR had the opposite problem. A true, stable dictatorship would have been a breath of fresh air compared to what they had.

Half a dozen politicians at a time had absolute power over something and nobody had power over everything. I get the impression that the USSR wanted their people to think they were a republic (which is why they called it a republic), they wanted other countries to think they were a dictatorship (which explains the way they negotiated with American presidents and European prime ministers), and in all reality they were just a bunch of countries with a fake ruler.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Are you ever gonna reveal the difference between a republic and a dictatorship?

Yes, in the last two posts I did. I can do it again if you want.

Republic is a form of government where the people vote for the head of state, be it through Democratic elections or fake ones.

A dictatorship is a system where the absolute power lies with the leader of the state.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Does that mean the UK is a dictatorship?

No, the power doesn't lie with the monarch, does it? The UK is a democratic monarchy, not a dictatorship.

Originally posted by Quark_666
It was my understanding that the USSR had the opposite problem. A true, stable dictatorship would have been a breath of fresh air compared to what they had.

Half a dozen politicians at a time had absolute power over something and nobody had power over everything. I get the impression that the USSR wanted their people to think they were a republic (which is why they called it a republic), they wanted other countries to think they were a dictatorship (which explains the way they negotiated with American presidents and European prime ministers), and in all reality they were just a bunch of countries with a fake ruler.

Maybe, I just used it as an obvious example...the theoretical idea works anyways.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Yes the first response you posted. Whether those principles can be accomplished in a republic.

I think they can be. Republics can and oftentimes are immensely beneficial to the people in it. That it is of course not always the case is clear.

Originally posted by inimalist
monarchy

and yes, Canada as well

EDIT: but only in the most literal or technical sense of the term. The monarch is for all extents and purposes ceremonial.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, in the last two posts I did. I can do it again if you want.

Republic is a form of government where the people vote for the head of state, be it through Democratic elections or fake ones.

A dictatorship is a system where the absolute power lies with the leader of the state.

No, the power doesn't lie with the monarch, does it? The UK is a democratic monarchy, not a dictatorship.

Maybe, I just used it as an obvious example...the theoretical idea works anyways.

I think they can be. Republics can and oftentimes are immensely beneficial to the people in it. That it is of course not always the case is clear.

Contradictions!

Originally posted by lord xyz
Contradictions!

Yeah, see, that happens with two different people.

The UK is not a dictatorship though. Not sure what inimalist was getting at.

Well, a dictator is someone who has absolute rule, form what I know. So, I guess the queen isn't a dictator.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, a dictator is someone who has absolute rule, form what I know. So, I guess the queen isn't a dictator.
Basically what I said, eh?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Basically what I said, eh?
yes. I did agree with him at first, then I realised the Queen is just a figure-head.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think they can be. Republics can and oftentimes are immensely beneficial to the people in it. That it is of course not always the case is clear.

Do you have any examples in mind?

The techniucal term for the UK (and by extension, Commonwealth countries) is 'Constitutional Monarchy'.

As a description it is apt to cause confusion has the UK has no codified Constitution, but the term refers to a situation where the Head of State is a Monarch but the country is ruled, and hence the Monarch limited, by democratic means.

In just about every use of the word Democracy as we use it, we refer to representative Democracy, where the only power the people have is to be able to elect those who represent them, not having direct power in of themselves. This is so much the case that we note the exceptions as different, and treat representation as the standard definition of Democracy.

Although it is a word where it is very difficult to get everyone to agree on a definition, the term 'Republic' often refers to a coalition of smaller states forming a larger one, generally in a democratic manner. Its historical roots certainly come from this and it is certainly the point at which the US started using the term universally. Its hazy interaction with the words 'Commonwealth' and 'Federation' does not help, especially as that ties us back to Constitutional Monarchy.

You won't find a single objective definition of Republic though. Basically, it is what countires claiming to be one say it is, and bearing the history of the term in mind.

Its only real link with being somewhere without a monarchy is that it was the name places tended to use after they stopped being one. No other logic there at all.

The linguistic root of the word is 'public interest'. Which is basically no help at all as all Governments strive to do that, again with us noting the exceptions. Unless you are a conspiracy nut.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Contradictions!

haha

I hate your queen

she is a fascist pig