I always wonder what distance people think they are getting out of statements like this. How often to you hear people saying, "The US isn't a democracy--it's a republic!" What can they possibly mean and what difference can it make?
After all, our own founding fathers fought fiercely against democracy, preferring a liberal republic to avoid the dangers of mob rule.
Both conservatives and liberals perpetuate the concept, but I think they use it for different purposes.
Liberals seem to use it to condemn the founders for not being progressive enough.
Conservatives use it to deny the value of popular self-government, i.e. that we shouldn't trust common people because the were excluded at the founding.
I am not a political theorist, but I challenge anyone to describe a relevant difference between republics and democracies.
Let me take a quick survey of the problem:
From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law:
re·pub·lic:
1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
2 : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
de·moc·ra·cy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
These are fair enough definitions. So, what's the difference?
If we take the first definition of republic as providing the most important distinction, then virtually every nation in the world is a republic--including all those European democracies we admire so much. France, Germany, Canada, South Africa--none of these countries have monarchs.
So, what's the distinction between the second definition of a republic and the second part of the first definition of a democracy?
Supreme power residing in citizens and not "the people"?
This can't be that dispositive. Again, it would apply to every "democratic" nation in the world: I know of no nation that allows non-citizens to vote in elections. There are flexible conceptions of citizenship, however. It is true that citizens of Australia can vote in UK elections when they reside in the UK, but that right to vote is granted in the broader concept of Commonwealth citizenship which Australians hold.
Elected representatives and officers?
The definiton of democracy allows for elected representatives. Elected officers may be a sufficient distinction, but again, most modern "democracies" have elected officers: In France, the president has the ability to select the Prime Minister, and the executive departments can make laws independent of the legislature. Why wouldn't France then be considered a republic?
It is clear to me that there is no substance to the distinction between a republic and a democracy. We should stop trying to force something between the ideas.
Reece
3 comments:
Hey dogs. Interesting stuff you are writing here.
I am typically one of those who argues that there is a real distinction between democracies and republics, though I'll agree it is only slight. I guess the real reason I hang on to this distinction is because what our current Governator is up to. Since he can't get his way with the representatives, he proposes putting issues on the ballot where the "people" can decide.
So regardless of what you call either, there is a distinction. However, I think the more interesting point to consider is whether "the people" really choose in either system. That is for another night and another glass of wine...
It seems to me that whether "the people" choose in either system isn't a matter of the system, but of the electoral methods and procedure within the government.
I personally think our electoral systems are not as representative as they could be, and that we could do a better job in translating the "will" of "the people" into legislation. Nonetheless, I'm not sure that those two things directly implicate the type of system that we have.
In order to say that, however, I have to set aside the issues of how legislative procedure is related to representation, namely, how decision-making powers are allocated among the various parts of the government.
And I have to set that aside because I think if there is any real distinction between a republic and a democracy, the distinction can only exist in the manner of allocating decision making power.
--Reece
eh, I could be going in circles there, but somehow it doesn't seem like it.
What I mean is this:
If we mean anything by "republic," we mean a system where the executive gets to make legislative decisions.
And if we mean anything different by "democracy," we mean a system in which the people directly or indirectly make legislative decisions.
That could be a functional distinction. [Set aside for a second that the US would be a democracy under that distinction.]
In both cases, we would worry about representation, because elections are probably going to be the method of determining either the executive or the represenatives.
So, in either situation we could have worries about whether the people get to choose. But at the same time, we can affect the degree to which the people get to choose by changing and reforming electoral systems.
In reality, our decision-making power here in the US isn't allocated just to one governmental body or another--the executive or the legislative bodies--so we have internal issues regarding decision-making that also may improve or mitigate the people's choice in policy. So, those sorts of issues can be important in addition to electoral issues.
Maybe that's not clearer.
-- Reece
Post a Comment