A Constitutional Republic is a Democracy

Well, this discovery that US are not a democracy in the opinion of some American commentators has switched my curiosity on.

Sealing around the net I have found this article from 2006 [it's a speech] and the core of the matter seems to be:

Source: http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/NotDemocracy.html

Now, Italians consider Italy a democracy and our country is the "Republic of Italy" and it's a Constitutional Republic.

In opposition to the central argument of the quoted article, that the presence of a Constitution would indicate that the system is a Republic, not a Democracy, we think that just the Constitution grants the Democracy [so that a Republic with a Constitution is the most pure form of Democracy possible today], in fact we look at UK with a certain suspect, since that Parliamentary Monarchy [anyway a form of Democracy] hasn't got a proper Constitution, but some "basic laws" [like the Magna Charta].

So, I honestly admit that I don not grasp this conceptualization of a Constitutional Republic as something out, beyond or different from a Democracy.

 

Republic just means have a president instead of a King or Emperor. Or do you think all the People's Republics that have existed have been fine examples of democracy, like no doubt many on the left do?

 

No one disputed that our Republic is a form of democracy. However, it is STILL a Republic, not a democracy. Is that round red fruit that grows on a tree a red or a red apple? They both are red, but to be specific, one needs to clarify that the red 'thing' is an apple and not just red. Clarifying that our Constitutional Republic is being specific to what we have.

 

Democracy simply means a form of government in which the people participate.

Direct democracy-- is where the people vote for or against an issue and the majority rules. The minority have no protection from the vote of the majority.

Indirect democracy-- The US.

 

This is interesting, since we are discussing a pure matter of political science [in the real sense of the term "polis"].

So, my impression is this:

DEMOCRACY
- Republic
- Constitutional Republic
- Constitutional Monarchy
- Parliamentary Monarchy
- .....

In other words, starting from your example, a red apple is anyway and first of all an apple, then it's red. You see the matter in the other way round: you put the adjective [the skill, the quality to be red] before of the substance of the object [it's an apple].

You cannot say that a red apple is not an apple, but a red apple ... you can see that a red apple is a particular apple [it's red ...], but it's anyway an apple.

So here we come to the point:

why do you say that a form of democracy is not a democracy ?
[It would be the same if I said that a red apple is not an apple ...].

 

Ok, this is clear.

This is the way substantially all democracies, in a way or an other, work nowadays. In Western world we can observe almost only representative democracies [indirect democracies].

So, if this is the point, I could infer that when a democracy introduces mechanisms to grant rights of minorities and to limits the potentially absolute power of the majority ... that democracy, becoming indirect, in this perspective is no more a pure democracy. It becomes something else.

So is a "Republic" in the American sense a "ruled democracy"?

 

I cannot make sense of why so many americans insist that their country isn't a democracy, as if they regard the word to be bad. Quite a feat for US culture to make people look negatively upon democracy..

I'll add that Sweden fits perfectly with the description of a country with a system which "uses a democratic process to elect representatives and pass new laws, and which has limits placed on government, and chekcs and balances". Yet, Sweden is not a republic, but a democracy.

 

Texmex I feel defined the issue perfectly.

You also advanced the guts if the thing questioning the mechanics. How would a direct democracy enforce its constitution without "independent" representatives? Without the stability provided by representatives in place for terms of years, wouldn't the Democratic majority make changes on whim?

Direct democracy might work in small groups but even then..... Think Congress they are true democracies.

Cheers
Labour

 

Both, but only because they're two different concepts. So the US is a Republic and a democracy, it's not a democracy because it's a republic.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/

 

That misses the whole point of democracy because the demos refers to the people of the nation, not the elite.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly! and why that is so hard for some to understand I don't know!

 

This is shared at general level, I would say, not democratic Republics have existed end they exist. Socialist Soviet Republics have been great examples. Still today China is a Republic ...

 

I'm just pointing out each house is a direct democracy, autonomous in its function.

Cheers
Labour

 

A lot of things in history have called themselves republics but have not been. China is slowly transitioning from from a bureaucratic dictatorship to something else,exactly what else remains to be scene. The US is transitioning to a bureaucratic dictatorship. Most of Europe thanks to unicameral legislatures and the parliamentary style democracy are far closer to a pure Democracy than is the US. Majorities in Europe have a far freer hand in running things in Europe than they do in the US. The notion that Obama is any sort of a moderate is almost entirely a function of this fact.

 

Read the other thread on this I already explained it all in painful detail. If Democracy and a Constitutional republic were the same thing then there would be no distinction between the two. Americans tell you its not a democracy because the document the country is based on states the form of government is a republican form of government. The part people cant grasp is that we vote representatives into office in a democratic process. After elected, officials NOT THE PEOPLE vote on matters also in a democratic process. Our president is elected on electoral vote NOT the general popular vote. Even though our voting process is carried out in a democratic manner, the United States is not a democracy. It is literally defined by the defining document as a republic. It defined as a republic because that's exactly how it works.
"And to the republic for which it stands"
See also
See Article IV Section 4.

I challenge anyone to let me know where and when I can cast my personal vote to immediately repeal Obamacare. If you cant then you have illustrated to yourself the difference.

 

Again, also Italian Constitution defines Italy as a Republic, but this country is a democracy.

The form of government is not strictly related to the kind of political system.

Otherwise, since a certain number of Socialist Republic have existed and exist, I could infer that ...

The United States are a Socialist State [and actually I being to suspect something about ...].

P.S. Indirect democracy is still democracy [you are saying that an American human being is not a human being, but an American human being!].

- - - Updated - - -

Have you ever read the first section of the Italian Constitution?

 

Don't really care what Italy thinks they are. The United States IS a Republic. I asked where I could vote to repeal Obamacare. You didn't answer. Please let me know where in the U.S. I can vote myself to repeal it.

 

You cannot. So what? That's doesn't make the United States something different from a democracy.

There are democracies where direct legislative vote is available for the people and others where it isn't. And at different levels:

in Switzerland there is the active referendum [the electors can vote to approve a law].
In Italy there is only the negative referendum [we can vote to abrogate a law, totally or partially, but we cannot approve directly a law. We can collect signature to propose a law to the parliament for approval].

But this doesn't define a democracy. Science is science, also in the United States. You cannot state [simply because you are the "Big Guy"] that a Republic is automatically different from a democracy.

 

When are you going to understand that a representative dmocracy is still a democracy? Your personal vote for or against obamacare is Totally Irrelevant to wheter the US is a democracy or not.

 

If democracy means to vote for the government you want, then many countries qualify.

Britain isn't parliamentary monarchy. It's a constitutional monarchy the difference is that we have a variety of laws which make up the constitution of the UK rather than a single document.
And if you've been to London you'll know that we have a street named after such a thing.
The power of the crown has been steadily curbed since the 1640's and realistically the monarch has very little power over politics in the UK.

Actually I think the Swiss have the purest possible form of democracy as the public can automatically overturn any bill passed with a petition.

 

Swiss defines itself a "Confederation". And it has got a "Federal Constitution".
That constitution makes reference to democracy and it requires [art. 51 that any canton has to have a democratic constitution].

This point actually makes me note that not democratic constitutions can exist ...

 

Yes I know that's why it's internet code is .CH
I don't understand that last sentence.

 

It's the Swiss constitution to make that thought come to mind: why should a democratic confederation require to all the regions [cantons] in it to have a "democratic" constitution?

It could be enough to require a constitution.

And actually, I'm mindless: Italian Fascism didn't abrogate the Constitution of the Kingdom [the so called "Statuto Albertino"], Fascists modified it or ignored some parts of it ... but also Fascist Italy had a constitution ...

 

I'd imagine that the cantons prerequisite for a democratic constitution would mean that it would have to have the right for the public to vote in order prevent one canton from being dominant and unequal to the rest within the confederation.

I suspect that the Italian legal system was somewhat loose at the time. One good example was the "trial" of Omar Mukhtar
If I believe rightly the Statuto Albertino was dissolved in 1948 after 100 years of use.

I think I know what you're getting at.
The mere existence of a constitution doesn't actually mean that the state is a democracy. Although a constitution is what's known as a "democratic value"
It is entirely possible for the vast majority of governments to form a constitution be they democratic or not.

 

Did you notice that I spoke of Europe and not necessarily Italy? And please note I'm not talking about ethnic minorities but political minorities. European liberals have had representation in relatively small numbers in many Parliaments. in spite of that they have had essentially no real way to bring their views to the table let alone get them enacted.

 

If you want, you can summarize the conceptualization of "democracy" in a fascist mind with the sentence

"I am really democratic, with whom thinks exactly like me!".

Regarding legality it was the same, may be worse.

The Italian Republic has kept the penal code of Fascist era alive [we have abrogated and substituted it some decades ago] just because it was suitable to pursuit and fight terrorism. It imposed an inquisitive juridic procedure in which the public prosecutor [state's attorney] was a judge [!!!!], absolutely superior to any possible legal defense. Imagine ...