There is no democracy in the world right now. The US is a ,"Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition" according to the CIA http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Govt. Notice how it says federal republic meaning that the US is a republic. Yes it does say democratic tradition but that doesn't mean it is a democracy right now.
Preferred/Shunned Governments
- Thread starter dojoboy
- Start date
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Ummm, as an Australian, I must say that I'm a bit offended by your remark about all 'democratic' nations being Republics 
! Please stop being so US-centric.
As it happens, most European nations (and NZ) represent what the main difference between a 'Democracy' and a 'Republic' is. First of all, even where the nation HAS a President, AT ALL, that president is largely a figurehead with almost NO real power. Most, if not ALL, of the power in a Democracy is invested in either a Unicameral or Bicameral parliament. In a Republic, OTOH, almost all decisions made by Congress and/or the Senate are vetted/vetoed by the President IIRC. The President of a Republic is also the 'Commander in Chief' of that nations defence forces AND almost single handedly elects the judges to the highest court. In a 'democracy', these roles and decisions are spread out over many more people, with no one individual having sole authority! Another point is that all 'Democracies' have a Prime Minister, who is the nominal 'head' of the governing party(s)-though this person is the most visible part of the government of the day, they are only as powerful as what his/her cabinet will allow! A governing party or even opposition can cast out its leader at any time! How 'Democratic' a democracy is really depends on what country you look at. Most European nations use a 'Mixed Member Proportional' system, where the composition of parliament fairly accurately represents the voting intentions of the public. In Australia and the US, however, we only have two parties that can have more than 1 or 2 members in either House-courtesy of the 'Two-Party Preferred' system-which leads to a kind of 'Duopoly' arrangement of 1 Government-1 Opposition party.
Anyway, I admit that in the modern day Republics and Democracies might not LOOK very different but, at a fundamental level, they are in fact VERY different, so I feel that both examples should remain in the game. To better define things, though, we do need a combination of Modern and Classical examples of these two government types PLUS we need Social Engineering traits so that the player can better define what his government looks like. For instance, the 'Republic' in a Civ game might SOUND democratic and free, but when you look at the SE settings, you realise that both 'Sufferage' and 'Libertarianism' are set below 50% (or below 10 on a 1-20 scale), meaning that this is more of a 'Banana Republic', a fact which may well be further reinforced by a look at that civs economy and military
!
Anyway, hope this explains things a little better!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
! Please stop being so US-centric.As it happens, most European nations (and NZ) represent what the main difference between a 'Democracy' and a 'Republic' is. First of all, even where the nation HAS a President, AT ALL, that president is largely a figurehead with almost NO real power. Most, if not ALL, of the power in a Democracy is invested in either a Unicameral or Bicameral parliament. In a Republic, OTOH, almost all decisions made by Congress and/or the Senate are vetted/vetoed by the President IIRC. The President of a Republic is also the 'Commander in Chief' of that nations defence forces AND almost single handedly elects the judges to the highest court. In a 'democracy', these roles and decisions are spread out over many more people, with no one individual having sole authority! Another point is that all 'Democracies' have a Prime Minister, who is the nominal 'head' of the governing party(s)-though this person is the most visible part of the government of the day, they are only as powerful as what his/her cabinet will allow! A governing party or even opposition can cast out its leader at any time! How 'Democratic' a democracy is really depends on what country you look at. Most European nations use a 'Mixed Member Proportional' system, where the composition of parliament fairly accurately represents the voting intentions of the public. In Australia and the US, however, we only have two parties that can have more than 1 or 2 members in either House-courtesy of the 'Two-Party Preferred' system-which leads to a kind of 'Duopoly' arrangement of 1 Government-1 Opposition party.
Anyway, I admit that in the modern day Republics and Democracies might not LOOK very different but, at a fundamental level, they are in fact VERY different, so I feel that both examples should remain in the game. To better define things, though, we do need a combination of Modern and Classical examples of these two government types PLUS we need Social Engineering traits so that the player can better define what his government looks like. For instance, the 'Republic' in a Civ game might SOUND democratic and free, but when you look at the SE settings, you realise that both 'Sufferage' and 'Libertarianism' are set below 50% (or below 10 on a 1-20 scale), meaning that this is more of a 'Banana Republic', a fact which may well be further reinforced by a look at that civs economy and military
!Anyway, hope this explains things a little better!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
dojoboy
Tsalagi
WillJ said:
Right, but who is going to be running a despotic regim in the late 1800s. Despotism is a shunned government form for a few civs I believe, same goes for a monarchy. However preferred/shunned governments are implemented, it ought to be based upon a continuum of some sort.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
This is true but, as I said above, the clear difference is how much power is invested in ONE individual official. In Europe, NZ and Australia, the power is spread out over a much greater number of officials than in a Republic. Also, in some Democracies, there is a process called 'Citizen Initiated Referendums' where a large enough petition can get an issue placed on a referendum, which is then voted on by the general public!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
"Republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive (unless you have a different system of vocabulary than mine), so unless the CIA explicitly says that the USA is not a democracy, there isn't a reason to assume that it isn't.Dr. Broom said:
Who said all democracies are republics? I don't think Dr. Broom, me, not anyone else did.Aussie_Lurker said:Ummm, as an Australian, I must say that I'm a bit offended by your remark about all 'democratic' nations being Republics
As it happens, most European nations (and NZ) represent what the main difference between a 'Democracy' and a 'Republic' is. First of all, even where the nation HAS a President, AT ALL, that president is largely a figurehead with almost NO real power. Most, if not ALL, of the power in a Democracy is invested in either a Unicameral or Bicameral parliament. In a Republic, OTOH, almost all decisions made by Congress and/or the Senate are vetted/vetoed by the President IIRC. The President of a Republic is also the 'Commander in Chief' of that nations defence forces AND almost single handedly elects the judges to the highest court. In a 'democracy', these roles and decisions are spread out over many more people, with no one individual having sole authority! Another point is that all 'Democracies' have a Prime Minister, who is the nominal 'head' of the governing party(s)-though this person is the most visible part of the government of the day, they are only as powerful as what his/her cabinet will allow! A governing party or even opposition can cast out its leader at any time! How 'Democratic' a democracy is really depends on what country you look at. Most European nations use a 'Mixed Member Proportional' system, where the composition of parliament fairly accurately represents the voting intentions of the public. In Australia and the US, however, we only have two parties that can have more than 1 or 2 members in either House-courtesy of the 'Two-Party Preferred' system-which leads to a kind of 'Duopoly' arrangement of 1 Government-1 Opposition party.
Anyway, I admit that in the modern day Republics and Democracies might not LOOK very different but, at a fundamental level, they are in fact VERY different, so I feel that both examples should remain in the game. To better define things, though, we do need a combination of Modern and Classical examples of these two government types PLUS we need Social Engineering traits so that the player can better define what his government looks like. For instance, the 'Republic' in a Civ game might SOUND democratic and free, but when you look at the SE settings, you realise that both 'Sufferage' and 'Libertarianism' are set below 50% (or below 10 on a 1-20 scale), meaning that this is more of a 'Banana Republic', a fact which may well be further reinforced by a look at that civs economy and military
Anyway, hope this explains things a little better!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Of course, you're entitled to your personal interpretation of "republic" implying power being in the hands of one person moreso than in a democracy, but that's not how I use the word, nor have I heard anyone else use it that way.
A republic, at least by my main definition, is a government in which officials are elected, and a democracy is a government in which the will of the majority of the population is upheld in one way or another. If you disagree, then fine, but there's no real point in arguing over it any further, since it's just semantics.
Oh, and I think the source of our disagreement might be you thinking of the leadership instead of the voting base. Yes, in a republic, the power is often in the hands of a few, because not everyone necessarily has to be able to vote. But a democracy can be led by a few or by one person too, if these few or this one person is/are elected by everyone (with reasonable exceptions).
Yeah, I guess I see your point.dojoboy said:
Once again, there is such a thing as "representative democracy."Dr. Broom said:
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
What I am saying is that both 'Republics' and 'Democracies' have the same, underlying democratic principles behind them. That is to say that, in theory at least, they represent the overall will of their people through the electoral process. Where they differ, though, is that Republics tend more towards investment of power in an individual or, at best, a few people. Wheras democracies rely more heavily on the whole government or, even better, the whole parliament.
The other point of differention between republics and democracies is that election of a president is often a kind of glorified 'Popularity Contest', wheras here we only vote for parties, not personalities.
Now, I realise that you guys also elect your senate and your congress but, from what I gather, it feels that the presidential election is the 'main game in town'!
You are right, though, when you say that within democratic systems there is a 'gradation' of democracy-this is why Civics, aka Social Engineering, would be such a great feature for civ4, because it would allow you to reflect this fact!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
The other point of differention between republics and democracies is that election of a president is often a kind of glorified 'Popularity Contest', wheras here we only vote for parties, not personalities.
Now, I realise that you guys also elect your senate and your congress but, from what I gather, it feels that the presidential election is the 'main game in town'!
You are right, though, when you say that within democratic systems there is a 'gradation' of democracy-this is why Civics, aka Social Engineering, would be such a great feature for civ4, because it would allow you to reflect this fact!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Customizable government? That would be an awesome additon, perhaps one of the best they could make. The best in my opinion would be somehow making it so that territorially smaller civs can compete with territorially large ones in technology, production, military and economy somehow but I suppose that is another topic. Another good feature would be less anarchy between government transition if it is less of a transition. Monarchy->Facism less anarchy than Monarchy->Communism.
Not sure if you're addressing me or Dr. Broom, but in either case, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Neither of those two things have anything to do with whether a government is a democracy or a republic IMO.Aussie_Lurker said:
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Hi Dr. Boom,
Customizable governments is basically what I'm talking about in my discussion over in the Civics thread. In that, a government might CALL itself a republic, but actually be highly undemocratic or just very punative in a legal sense-or BOTH! Government choice, though, would effect the minimum and maximum settings for your various 'Civics' settings, but there should be some room for adjustments.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Customizable governments is basically what I'm talking about in my discussion over in the Civics thread. In that, a government might CALL itself a republic, but actually be highly undemocratic or just very punative in a legal sense-or BOTH! Government choice, though, would effect the minimum and maximum settings for your various 'Civics' settings, but there should be some room for adjustments.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
I think I am in agreement with WillJ in the subject of democracies and republics. What I got from looking up in some places is that a republic is anything which allows for elected representatives ruling the state as opposed to a monarch. To that extent, US is a republic and so is China but UK is not.
On the other hand, democracy is where the will of the majority translates into policies - either directly (ancient Greece) or by the use of a body of elected representatives. UK is a democracy, even though it is not a republic. On the other hand, if the head of state is elected but he can take autocratic decisions - without consulting the majority, then it is not a democracy. In this regard, US is less democratic than UK because the President of US has more power (read, more autocratic) than the Queen of UK. One example of non-democratic republic could probably what Iraq was during Saddam Hussein's reign or some of the Eastern European countries during their Communist rulers. China probably is about 50% democratic as they do have some amount of group decision making through their politburo.
On the other hand, democracy is where the will of the majority translates into policies - either directly (ancient Greece) or by the use of a body of elected representatives. UK is a democracy, even though it is not a republic. On the other hand, if the head of state is elected but he can take autocratic decisions - without consulting the majority, then it is not a democracy. In this regard, US is less democratic than UK because the President of US has more power (read, more autocratic) than the Queen of UK. One example of non-democratic republic could probably what Iraq was during Saddam Hussein's reign or some of the Eastern European countries during their Communist rulers. China probably is about 50% democratic as they do have some amount of group decision making through their politburo.
Mgoering
Chieftain
In Switzerland, we vote 4 times a year about different things, such as laws, spending, taxes; every times, there are at least 3 subject to vote for. That is making a least 12 important subjects we vote on every years (it usually comes arround the 15). Elections are in addition to that. And that's only on the national level. There also are the region and community levels.
The one and only thing that we don't directly vote on is our 7 persons national council. On those 7 persons, 1 is the president during ... 1 year. One can be impeached if he made aa terrible mistake, without taking a long processus. They all do have a lot of power, but they can't do what they want with it. In the end, the people are taking the deicsions. Because EVERY thread they discuss on (laws, project, dimplomacy, aso), can be disputed by a group of person and get to be judged by the population. And the fact is that it take a double majority to be accepted. The population's (50+ % of the persons) and the region's (50+ % of the 26 regions; cantons in french).
So, as good as it might not be the original deffinition of democracy, I think it is the actual best system in the world.
The one and only thing that we don't directly vote on is our 7 persons national council. On those 7 persons, 1 is the president during ... 1 year. One can be impeached if he made aa terrible mistake, without taking a long processus. They all do have a lot of power, but they can't do what they want with it. In the end, the people are taking the deicsions. Because EVERY thread they discuss on (laws, project, dimplomacy, aso), can be disputed by a group of person and get to be judged by the population. And the fact is that it take a double majority to be accepted. The population's (50+ % of the persons) and the region's (50+ % of the 26 regions; cantons in french).
So, as good as it might not be the original deffinition of democracy, I think it is the actual best system in the world.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
To stay off-topic:
As far as I understand the terms of republic and democracy, the one (republic) describes the state form, the other (democracy) the governmental form.
That way, a republic always is based on democratic principles as the leaders have to be legitimated (spelling??) by someone's expressed will. If they would have been determined by the head of the state, it would be a monarchy, or autocracy or whatever. If they would have been determined by "divine law", it would have been a theocracy or a monarchy or a feudalistic regime. But, as they are in a republic (res publica = public matter/affair) they have been determined by the people, thus by a democratic principle.
Now, a republic can be more or less directly be democratic. At the Federal Republic of Germany (quite a good description in the state name already), it is an indirect democracy, as people are not going to elect people, but parties. The parties in turn determine their represantatives at the various levels (communal, regional, federal).
Now, democracy originates from the Greek demos kratein (rule of the people). This describes the way, in which decisions are made - by the people.
In our modern understanding, even the Greek city states never have been democratic, though. Only males over a certain age were allowed to take part actively and passively in the elections, no slaves were allowed to express their will, no serfs and so on.
So, the terms republic and democracy are very closely linked, yet don't mean the same.
As far as I understand the terms of republic and democracy, the one (republic) describes the state form, the other (democracy) the governmental form.
That way, a republic always is based on democratic principles as the leaders have to be legitimated (spelling??) by someone's expressed will. If they would have been determined by the head of the state, it would be a monarchy, or autocracy or whatever. If they would have been determined by "divine law", it would have been a theocracy or a monarchy or a feudalistic regime. But, as they are in a republic (res publica = public matter/affair) they have been determined by the people, thus by a democratic principle.
Now, a republic can be more or less directly be democratic. At the Federal Republic of Germany (quite a good description in the state name already), it is an indirect democracy, as people are not going to elect people, but parties. The parties in turn determine their represantatives at the various levels (communal, regional, federal).
Now, democracy originates from the Greek demos kratein (rule of the people). This describes the way, in which decisions are made - by the people.
In our modern understanding, even the Greek city states never have been democratic, though. Only males over a certain age were allowed to take part actively and passively in the elections, no slaves were allowed to express their will, no serfs and so on.
So, the terms republic and democracy are very closely linked, yet don't mean the same.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
This might be true for 'Republics' like the US, but how do you explain some of the 'Banana Republics' that sprung up throughout Latin America? This proves that not ALL Republics are based on 'Democratic Principles' and that, when they are, concentrating so much power in the hands of a single person can allow for those principles to be suberverted!
Anyway, just a thought.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Anyway, just a thought.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Ryth
Chieftain
What would you call a nation which is considered a republic from the outside, and we do elect reps, and they do vote in laws and stuff, but the people mostly just ignore them and go thier own way - if it doesn't hurt anyone I'm fairly directly connected to, well, then it doesn't matter.
We are a small (4mill) country, and, yeah, everyone knows everyone else.
Yay NZ!! (boo Australia...)
We are a small (4mill) country, and, yeah, everyone knows everyone else.
Yay NZ!! (boo Australia...)
dojoboy
Tsalagi
Aussie_Lurker said:
And, what about the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Elections are held, representatives are selected.
Saddam's Iraq had elections and "representatives of the people" took posts. So did many other nations that today we call brutal dictatorships.
This suggests to me that any definition made by an existing political entity is suspect, including both Saddam's Iraq and Bush's USA.
This suggests to me that any definition made by an existing political entity is suspect, including both Saddam's Iraq and Bush's USA.
Similar threads
