It sucks to be a hostage...
10-20-2020 | 11:20 AM
#142
Thread Starter
Perennial Reserve
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 14,183
Likes: 238
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” (Benjamin Franklin)
10-20-2020 | 11:27 AM
#143
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
I think it is important to understand that democracies come in various shapes. If that were not true then why would there be a Democracy Index published by "The Economist Intelligence Unit". https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index
I don't necessarily want to discuss the specifics of that report but it clearly shows that there are very democratic democracies and not so democratic democracies, plus hybrid systems and totalitarian regimes. Sure, that's just one way to look at it but it makes sense.
How often have I heard american politicians speaking about bringing democracy to the world in the context of past armed conflict? Why would the US want to bring democracy to other countries if it's allegedly not a democracy itself?
How a nation describes its own political system is not always a reliable indicator of the true form of government. The German Democratic Republic (East Germany) was about as democratic as China is today. And the US are a democracy and a Republic, even though the word democracy does not appear in the constitution. It's not just me who "believes" this:I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.
The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.
And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.” But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted.
Likewise, James Wilson, one of the main drafters of the Constitution and one of the first Supreme Court Justices, defended the Constitution in 1787 by speaking of the three forms of government being the “monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical,” and said that in a democracy the sovereign power is “inherent in the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives.” And Chief Justice John Marshall — who helped lead the fight in the 1788 Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution — likewise defended the Constitution in that convention by describing it as implementing “democracy” (as opposed to “despotism”), and without the need to even add the qualifier “representative.”
To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy. But where one word is used, with all the oversimplification that this necessary entails, “democracy” and “republic” both work. Indeed, since direct democracy — again, a government in which all or most laws are made by direct popular vote — would be impractical given the number and complexity of laws that pretty much any state or national government is expected to enact, it’s unsurprising that the qualifier “representative” would often be omitted. Practically speaking, representative democracy is the only democracy that’s around at any state or national level. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...r-a-democracy/
I don't necessarily want to discuss the specifics of that report but it clearly shows that there are very democratic democracies and not so democratic democracies, plus hybrid systems and totalitarian regimes. Sure, that's just one way to look at it but it makes sense.
How often have I heard american politicians speaking about bringing democracy to the world in the context of past armed conflict? Why would the US want to bring democracy to other countries if it's allegedly not a democracy itself?
How a nation describes its own political system is not always a reliable indicator of the true form of government. The German Democratic Republic (East Germany) was about as democratic as China is today. And the US are a democracy and a Republic, even though the word democracy does not appear in the constitution. It's not just me who "believes" this:I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.
The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.
And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.” But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted.
Likewise, James Wilson, one of the main drafters of the Constitution and one of the first Supreme Court Justices, defended the Constitution in 1787 by speaking of the three forms of government being the “monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical,” and said that in a democracy the sovereign power is “inherent in the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives.” And Chief Justice John Marshall — who helped lead the fight in the 1788 Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution — likewise defended the Constitution in that convention by describing it as implementing “democracy” (as opposed to “despotism”), and without the need to even add the qualifier “representative.”
To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy. But where one word is used, with all the oversimplification that this necessary entails, “democracy” and “republic” both work. Indeed, since direct democracy — again, a government in which all or most laws are made by direct popular vote — would be impractical given the number and complexity of laws that pretty much any state or national government is expected to enact, it’s unsurprising that the qualifier “representative” would often be omitted. Practically speaking, representative democracy is the only democracy that’s around at any state or national level. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...r-a-democracy/
Democracy is rule of the people. If the people elect representatives to rule for them, they are no longer a democracy. If non-elected officials can “restrain” democratic will, it is no longer a democracy. It goes from rule of the people to rule of the few, which is oligarchy. Just as if the people elect a king, that is a monarchy (rule of one), the fact that an election happened does not make it a democracy.
As you rightfully point out, what a country calls itself is not necessarily accurate nor true. Just as what a President, or other politician says does not make it true. You can quote American politicians saying they are a democracy all day, that does not change the fact that rule of the people (democracy) does not exist in the US, nor does it exist in Germany. A representative democracy is not democracy. Claiming otherwise renders the word democracy meaningless.
10-20-2020 | 11:32 AM
#144
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Weird, the people were excluded and kept in the dark in regards to the creation of the supreme law of land? How can you have rule of the people (democracy) when the people were kept ignorant of these proceedings? It’s almost as if that would be considered undemocratic.
10-20-2020 | 11:50 AM
#145
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
germanaviator, here is a hypothetical for you. Let’s say there is a king, and the people love this king. In fact, the people loved this king so much that the reason he is king is because they, the people, chose him to be king. The laws he proclaims are right and just, and in accordance with what the people want. He perfectly represents the will of the people. Would you consider this to be a democracy or a monarchy?
10-20-2020 | 03:09 PM
#147
777 - ret
Joined: Apr 2020
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
From: Waco CG-4 center seat
germanaviator, here is a hypothetical for you. Let’s say there is a king, and the people love this king. In fact, the people loved this king so much that the reason he is king is because they, the people, chose him to be king. The laws he proclaims are right and just, and in accordance with what the people want. He perfectly represents the will of the people. Would you consider this to be a democracy or a monarchy?
10-21-2020 | 12:28 AM
#148
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
From: Bizjet Captain
germanaviator, here is a hypothetical for you. Let’s say there is a king, and the people love this king. In fact, the people loved this king so much that the reason he is king is because they, the people, chose him to be king. The laws he proclaims are right and just, and in accordance with what the people want. He perfectly represents the will of the people. Would you consider this to be a democracy or a monarchy?
A monarchy can be a democracy if it is what is called a constitutional monarchy. The constitution could be written or unwritten.
Some of the things that characterize a democracy are free elections, free press, an (independent) judicial system, a constitution of sorts. You get the idea. So a monarch who is typically in power for life and who makes all the decisions, laws etc is not a democracy. A monarch who is elected by the people and who has to run for re-election after a term is up and who is bound by a constitution could be considered a representative democracy as it would be the people who choose their representative and the people who could remove that representative from power. All that goes against the definition of what a Monarch is, though. So a Monarchy can really only be a democracy if the Monarch has very limited real power and the important decisions such as law making are made by elected representatives, or, less likely and less desirable, directly by the people. Most democracies around the world are a representative democracy and some may also have a monarch as the formal head of state but with little to no real political powers.
10-21-2020 | 06:24 AM
#149
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Ok, I'll try. But it is very hypothetical. Typically a king is not chosen by the people. In fact I think that is part of the definition of a king and queen that they are not elected. Having said that, there are many forms of monarchy including democracies where the monarch has only ceremonial functions or very limited real political power. Canada is an example. There are many others.
In fact, Hamilton argued for an elective monarch (for life) to rule the newly formed United States.
A monarchy can be a democracy if it is what is called a constitutional monarchy. The constitution could be written or unwritten.
Some of the things that characterize a democracy are free elections, free press, an (independent) judicial system, a constitution of sorts. You get the idea.
A constitution does not make a democracy, rule of the people does. You can have a constitution with a democracy, oligarchy, or monarchy. It does not transform all into democracy.
So a monarch who is typically in power for life and who makes all the decisions, laws etc is not a democracy. A monarch who is elected by the people and who has to run for re-election after a term is up and who is bound by a constitution could be considered a representative democracy as it would be the people who choose their representative and the people who could remove that representative from power. All that goes against the definition of what a Monarch is, though.
So a Monarchy can really only be a democracy if the Monarch has very limited real power and the important decisions such as law making are made by elected representatives, or, less likely and less desirable, directly by the people. Most democracies around the world are a representative democracy and some may also have a monarch as the formal head of state but with little to no real political powers.
The issue here is that the word democracy has lost its meaning. Most do not associate democracy with its meaning, rule of the people, but rather with a notion of what is good and what is consented to. Consent of the people is not the same as rule of the people. Consent is required for any government to rule, but who rules determines the type of government that exists.
Democracy: rule of the people
Oligarchy: rule of the few (this is your “representative democracy”)
Monarchy: rule of one
10-21-2020 | 06:42 AM
#150
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,888
Likes: 684
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Yes. You can have a constitutional monarchy, with rules (ie Magna Carta) and democratic (or at least republican) trappings but it's still a monarchy if the the monarch has any actual authority.
But most modern monarchs are in fact simply nostalgic figureheads with ceremonial duties, who are re-imbursed for expenses incurred in their official capacity. The US could choose to have the Queen of England as our monarch tomorrow and it wouldn't change how we operate one little bit. Or we could go with the Emperor of Japan, same result.
Notable exception: The King of Thailand still has some power in a constitutional monarchy, but not very much.
The issue here is that the word democracy has lost its meaning. Most do not associate democracy with its meaning, rule of the people, but rather with a notion of what is good and what is consented to. Consent of the people is not the same as rule of the people. Consent is required for any government to rule, but who rules determines the type of government that exists.
I would argue that the accepted (and published if you go look) definition of Oligarchy is rule by the few, without many constraints by the people. A republic is not an oligarchy. Some people like to complain that the US is an oligarchy because of the freedoms enjoyed by our financial class but I don't think that's really the case because if we the people get sufficiently annoyed we can easily regulate the hell out of the money-men (might even see that in 2021, the way things are trending). Apathetic is not the same as powerless. Lazy and content is also not the same as powerless.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
