republican (NOT democratic!) hairsplitting
By Thoreau
I notice that a Hit and Run thread has gotten sidetracked onto the “republic, not a democracy!” tangent. I find this tangent particularly annoying but sadly common, so I will repost my response here, and then bookmark it for the next time it comes up.
I’ve seen multiple definitions for “republic” and “democracy.” If you insist that the real meaning of “democracy” is basically “unlimited democracy” where 50.0001% can do ANYTHING at all, then, certainly, we are not a democracy. And if you insist that the real meaning of “republic” is a system of representation coupled with protection of rights (i.e. limits on what that 50.0001% or representatives thereof can do) then certainly we are (or at least ought to be) a republic.
But when you look at actual usages, and even consult dictionaries, you find a wide variety of meanings for both terms. In at least one major dictionary, the word “republic” can refer to any system of government in which the leader is not a hereditary monarch. So even countries in which the public has little or no say in its governance count as “Republics.” (e.g. “People’s Republic”, “Islamic Republic”, etc.)
Meanwhile, you find that many people, and even at least one major dictionary, use the word “democracy” to mean any system of government subject to free, fair, and frequent elections. This can encompass a wide variety of forms of government, including our form of government (or at least the form of government that most Americans claim to support).
Now, because of the variety of usages out there, linguistic precision is certainly desirable. There are at least 2 ways to approach this:
1) Insist on your preferred definitions for each term, and recite “republic, NOT a democracy” at anybody who uses the word “democracy.”
2) When somebody uses one of those terms, ask the person to elaborate.
The second approach leads to dialogue and further communication, in which people discuss the role and power of government, the proper limits on its powers, and the proper uses of elections. You know, interesting topics of great significance. The first approach , however, tends to short-circuit interesting discussion and degenerate into “my definition is better than yours.”
Comment by Kieran —
August 30, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
I’m partial to Adam Przeworski’s definition: democracy is a system where governments lose elections.
Comment by Bill —
August 30, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
Well part of the reason for the “republic not a democracy” crowd is to prop up the idea of american exceptionalism.
“America is the only truly free country because our freeedoms aren’t subject to the tyranny of the majority blah blah blah….”
Looks to me that right now you would be better off with the kind of democracy where you could get rid of an unpopular and dangerous government, but thats just my opinion.
Comment by Iain Coleman —
August 31, 2007 @ 3:43 am
Of course, the appropriate term to describe a system of democratic government coupled with protection for rights is “liberal democracy”. Beats me why right-wing Americans don’t use that term to describe their country.
Comment by digamma —
August 31, 2007 @ 4:13 am
My definition: democracy refers to any government structures and policies favored by the speaker. Fascism refers to all the others.
Comment by josephdietrich —
August 31, 2007 @ 5:12 am
I think it is fair to say that, while the reverse of #1 doesn’t come up as often, the same should also be true of it (i.e., we’re a democracy NOT a republic). At the end of the day, no nation is a platonic ideal form of a Republic or a Democracy so the whole argument is somewhat silly and should be avoided.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 31, 2007 @ 7:45 am
Yeah, it is rather silly, but it comes up surprisingly often, so it’s worth having a rebuttal. Besides, I’ve even heard it from a few people who are (to the best of my ability to discern) NOT from the right.
Another example of the multitude of usages for “republic”: I’ve heard anti-monarchists in the UK and various Commonwealth countries referred to as “republican.” The UK and many commonwealth countries are without a doubt functioning representative republics, democratic republics, liberal democracies, or whatever term one prefers. Yet they use the term “republican” to describe opposition to even a purely figurehead monarch.
Comment by Bill —
August 31, 2007 @ 8:51 am
No they’re not, they are constitutional monarchies.
If you replace the hereditary monarch with an elected preident then you are a republic.
Its just semantics as you pointed Thoreau
Comment by Doctor Slack —
August 31, 2007 @ 9:01 am
The “republic-not-a-democracy” hairsplitting is one of the more intriguing “tells” about the deep weirdness of current American politics. America used to advertise itself as the cradle of “democracy,” but all of a sudden — and in a pretty specific part of the political spectrum — the d-word is anathema. Is it the same part of the political spectrum that’s turned its back on all the other things that supposedly used to set America apart? I’ve found it often is.
Comment by Doctor Slack —
August 31, 2007 @ 9:01 am
cradle of “democracy”
Modern democracy, that is.
Comment by Bill Woolsey —
August 31, 2007 @ 11:30 am
“Republic, not a Democracy,” is an old slogan. The John Birch Society promoted it quite a bit during the sixties. It spread more broadly in conservative circles. It is continues to be used to this day. It is especially common among “Constitutionalists.”
To some degree it was a rejoinder to the claim that the the Federal government should regulate some activity because, “this is a democracy, majority rules.” No, this is a Republic, not a democracy. So, some activities are subject to state jurisdiction and the Federal government has only limited powers. Libertarians tend to emphasize this notion.
There is also a less savory aspect to this argument. Hardly any black people could vote in the South in the first half of the 19th century. This was inconsistent with America’s “democratic principles.” So the Federal government should pass the voting rights act. But, America is a Republic, not a Democracy. States have jurisdiction over voting, and limiting voting to those who are literate or pay taxes, or whatever, is perfectly consistent with republican principles.
I am certain that many of those using these arguments in opposition to the voting rights act were sincere. This wasn’t just an excuse to keep blacks from voting. Advocates of this approach didn’t want illiterate white people voting, and did not support efforts to keep sucessful (literate, property owning) black people from voting.
Anyway, I use the term “democracy” to include unlimited democracy but also to include systems where elected governments have only limited powers. And, I use the term republic to mean something other than monarchy. It is quite possible to have a republic that is an unlimited democracy. Or to have a republic where the government is a totalitarian despotism.
I think the better lingo would be, “this is a constitutional democracy, its elected governments have only limited powers.”
Comment by Mona —
August 31, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
I usually call us a Republic precisely to avoid the annoying pedants. But when I forget them — count on it — the same sermon Thoreau complains of greets me. Life is too damn short for dealing with them.
Comment by abb1 —
August 31, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
If it’s not a democracy, isn’t it time for the USAF to bomb it back into the stone age?
Comment by 流水线 —
August 31, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
Hello Good website, I love, I hope you do better! !
Comment by Anonymo —
August 31, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
I think the analogy is calling America a democracy is like calling a tomato a vegetable. Sure, it’s a fruit (or if you wanna out-douche the douches, a berry, but no one who includes tomatoes among vegetables means to contradict the botanists. “Vegetable”, in colloquial uses, means it’s an edible plant that isn’t particularly sweet; “democracy”, in colloquial uses, is synonymous with “a free country”.
Comment by Doctor Slack —
September 1, 2007 @ 1:26 am
So the “republic-not-a-dmoecracy” thing started out as a meme of the wackiest part of the Right. Colour me fucking shocked.
Comment by Matt Austern —
September 1, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
One of the other reasons that “a republic, not a democracy” is not a useful slogan is that people disagree about what that distinction is supposed to be.
I’ve never heard that line about “republic” meaning limitations on government power. I have heard people say that the US is a “republic” because we have representative government instead of 300-million-people town meanings. (What a useless idea, to reserve the word “democracy” solely for a form of government that’s physically impossible.) I have heard people say that we are a “republic” because we have unequal representation, instead of having a government system where everyone’s vote counts equally.
I’ve also never heard anyone say that spreading democracy is a bad idea. For example, I’ve never heard anyone say that it would be evil for Iraq to have democracy. I don’t think very many people who make this fussy distinction make it consistently,
Comment by dsquared —
September 3, 2007 @ 3:05 am
I would refer to the USA as a People’s Democratic Republic.
Comment by Kevin Carson —
September 3, 2007 @ 3:10 am
Wasn’t it the Birchers who started that whole thing? I know back in the early ’60s it was a big Birch Society talking point for letters to the editor.