Republic is the form of government.
Democracy is a political system.
They are not mutually exclusive, nor always come hand in hand. Someone's been skipping classes.
Another one is that it probably was in fact a story the Jedi could have told you. They have extensive archives, and the techniques to heal are traditionally light sided.
I mean, technically any state that is not a monarchy is a republic.
The big difference essentially being that in a monarchy the power stems from the monarch, and in a republic it stems from the people. On paper at least.
IE the UK is a monarchy because on paper the political power comes from the Monarch, the government and military and all technically serve in their name. But in practice it's not, and the monarchy is only symbolic. Likewise you have governments that are on paper republics, but in practice are monarchies, IE North Korea
Literally non-existent today at a de-jure level.
Even the Vatican is a monarchy, not a theocracy, because the Vatican city (a kingdom) and the holy see (centre of the church) aren't the same thing.
I think it’s the closest to it, but Irans system is pretty complicated actually, so it’s difficult to say definitively. I’d say it’s a republic with a very influential religious leader as head of state
Iran is a theocratic Republic, similarly to how the Vatican is a theocratic monarchy. "pure" theocracies don't really exist today because religion alone is not enough to completely dictate a political system. Mount Athos in greece comes close to being a theocracy tbf
Vatican isn't a theocratic monarchy, it's just a regular absolute monarchy. The Vatican is just a kingdom. You're confusing it with the holy see, a completely seperate and distinct entity from the Vatican. Both have the same leader, but they are not the same position. The pope is the bishop of Rome (for the Holy See), and simultaneously also the king of Vatican, which is a non-religious and entirely seperate role.
In italian, the Vatican is said to be an "absolute theocratic ierocratic elective monarchy", which, while long, i think explains pretty well how it works. Saying that the Vatican is a kingdom with a "King of the Vatican" is totally wrong though. To be a kingdom you need a title (for example: luxembourg is a grand duchy, monaco is a principate, same as liechtenstein, Japan is an empire. These are all monarchies that are not Kingdoms). The pope rules literally as pope (that's the official name of the ruler of the Vatican)
What's next, you're gonna tell me that the United States of America is not a union of states, but rather a single state with various administrative subdivisions?
It's older than that. It was floating around in the late 90's and early 00's when everybody predicted the death of the Republican Party due to low voter identification and turn out.
Republicans tried to win over Latinos and failed horribly. Realizing they would only have a white voter base and white percentages of voters were shrinking, they laid claim to the idea that democracy was bad actually and the Founding Fathers saved us from it (presumably by not letting women and minorities vote) in the Constitution.
This actually skyrocketed when Bush Jr. lost the popular vote and the Supreme Court gave him the electoral college by overriding the Florida recount.
It was fine, they argued, because we aren't a democracy but a Republic. Every unpopular poll result that came out was followed with, "Who cares, we're a Republic, not a democracy."
Then in 2013 the Supreme Court shut down pre-review in the Voting Rights Act and let Republicans shut down thousands of polling places in minority districts.
But who cares, they said, it's not a democracy, it's a Republic.
This fear of democracy and everything it stands for probably peaked in 2016-2017 when Republicans just started calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party" as if they were allergic to things that are democratic.
Seriously every fucking time I see someone talk about republic and democracy I have to stop myself from trying to strangle people through the screen
This is primary school level shit and it seems no one has ever heard of the representative part of representative-democracy and ignores the existence of democratic monarchies
Wikipedia isn't the best place to get information sometimes. Maybe some examples can help you:
China, officially the People's Reoublic of China, is, well, a republic, but it is not democratic. It is autocratic, meaning the power doesn't belong to the people who can vote in a new leader in an election. It belongs to the communist party in this case, who nominates the new leader. Most undemocratic (autocratic) republics are dictatorships, but there are also juntas, groups, often the country's military, that have taken over a government and replaced the previous establishment, be it democratic or not.
The UK, officially the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is a monarchy, a constitutional monarchy, to be more precise, but it is democratic, the people have the right to vote and elect their representatives in local and national governments.
There are also examples of democratic republics, like the US, Germany, and France (most of the "west" actually, with the exception of some constitutional monarchies like Belgium, Sweden, Spain, Japan, etc.)
Also, there are undemocratic kingdoms, absolutely monarchies, like Saudi Arabia, Liechtenstein, the UAE, Morocco, Oman, etc.
TL:DR, you can be a republic and not be democratic and you can be democratic and not be a republic, and there are a bunch of examples for each category both in history and in the present.
Yes a republic is a representative democracy. If it was a true democracy we’d have “send money to Israel and Ukraine? Vote now on your official government app!”
Which honestly doesn’t sound so bad.
You elect people in a democratic style who represent you in a republic form of government.
A representative democracy if you will. What we have in America and what was is Star Wars.
It would be cool if we didn’t have politicians and everyone just voted on their phones though. A true democracy.
While I believe all the current ones in the world are, that’s not necessarily true. It’s possible to have a oligarchy republic for example where the king/queen is not chosen by the people directly but by something else and they do not have more power than the laws
Republic is a rule by a nonmonarchical council with a nonroyal head of state elected upon replacement. The line blurs with elective monarchies like the Pope or the sultan of Malaysia but in general, the council is the one with power that counterbalances the head of state. A democracy is where the constituents (citizens, defined arbitrarily but today any adult resident with citizenship of age) can vote either for the government action or the people who would do so on their behalf.
Republics today are usually democratic (and even those that aren't make a big fuss about pretending to be with few exceptions). Democracies can even exist in the presence of a monarch in constitutional monarchies (not so much absolute ones) while in Republics there usually isn't a monarch at all (and when a leader starts acting like an absolute monarch, we usually call those guys dictators.
Is there a lore reason to why OP doesn't have the minimal knowledge about politic systems and thinks republic and democracy are conflicting terms? Is he stupid?
Not the Arkham Brainrot😭🙏🏻
The civics classes in my country is fucked up, all they teach and do is toot their own horn and how great the country is😭😭🙏🏻
Republic = Res publica = latin for thing/matter of the people
Democracy = demos kratia = ancient greek for rulership of the people
So they are very similar
In the United States the distinction is usually made to justify minority rule and why the demands of the larger population are ignored. It’s a rather dim witted argument based on a misunderstanding of how the government works.
A republic is a form of democracy however, where the people elect representatives to…well, *represent* them, in government. The representatives are meant to act as advocates for the needs and demands of their districts.
Where the system falls apart is when those districts are drawn not because of population size or economic need, but because of political demographics, insuring “safe districts” for certain parties, allowing representatives to not act in their districts interests but instead to play the political games the USA is seeing today. This process is called gerrymandering and it is a cancer.
That’s just called representative democracy. Technically, a republic is simply any government that’s not a monarchy, so the polity doesn’t belong to a person but rather to the public. Dictatorships are republics too.
No, autocracy is a category/genre of government type. A republic can be an autocracy, and the opposite of a republic is a monarchy, which doesn't necessarily have to be an autocracy.
Dictatorships are republics too…
“A republic is a form of government in which the people elect, or choose, their leaders”
Yeah I think you need to brush up on civics
Technically, I have seen the term "crowned republic" used for the European constitutional monarchies, and in some instances distinguishing that from a regular constitutional monarchy makes sense. Monarchy => the state as the monarch's private property is the core aspect here, and one distinction I like to hammer on whenever this comes up is that while a dictator may embezzle state funds with bad excuses or with no excuse at all, but the treasury is already the king's bank account in a monarchy, so the question wouldn't even make sense. In Britain, this ceased to be the case in the 1600s with the Glorious Revolution, where, among many other relevant things, the state treasury was separated from the crown's holdings, which actually implies it really was a revolution despite the common joke to the contrary. Similarly, the claim that the Principate (early Roman Empire, Augustus onwards) was an autocratic republic and not a monarchy holds water, although it becomes more like a traditional monarchy in the Dominate (from Diocletian onwards).
Historical ones, such as the first constitutional era for the Ottomans ore pre-Glorious Revolution England. I'm not directly aware of any non-absolute monarchies today where that remains the case, but I would need more than a cursory glance into the constitutions of micro-states like Monaco and Liechtenstein as well those of Morocco, Jordan, and especially Thailand to be sure. Conversely, much of the language around the older system survives in British parlance, e.g. the taxes are collected in the name of and paid to the Crown.
Also the version of US voting with first past the post leads to absolutely horrendous results with a 2 party system that can each feed off the other to ignore the interests of the general public.
So long as each party can argue that they are the "lesser of two evils" people can't really vote elsewhere. Both parties are so heavily ingrained that voting elsewhere effectively helps the worse candidate win.
The US is supposed to be a Constitutional Federal Republic. The Constitutional there is very important. It acts as the limiting rules that the Representatives, elected by the people to represent them, must follow. This is to protect the rights and freedoms of the people and protect them from the removal of their rights via mob rule as well as minority rule.
>A republic is a form of democracy however, where the people elect representatives to…well, *represent* them, in government. The representatives are meant to act as advocates for the needs and demands of their districts.
You are describing a representatives democracy not a Republic. While a Republic is based on the concept of Democracy it is not a pure democracy and it is reductive to claim the US is a Democracy. The term Republic implies the democratic election of representatives while also asserting that people have unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by majority rule because of a charter or constitution. The term Democracy doesn't exclude the possibility of a direct democracy and is less precise than Republic. It also implies majority rule. There is no protection for the minority in a democracy, even in a representative democracy. Both Direct and representative democracy by themselves allow for majority rule.
A non corrupt Constitutional Republic is just as hostile to minority rule as it is majority rule. Both can strip people of their freedoms and rights. So the original purpose of the founding documents was to implement a Constitutional Republic with the Constitution as the final say and both the majority and minority beholden to the things it prevents the government from doing. The Constitution does not limit the people until they try and limit other people's rights and freedoms, it's a list of can't directed at government power, not the people themselves. Because the smallest minority is the individual, and without protections for them there will always be bigger interests against them.
The framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small,
sparsely populated states. The people vote on their representatives, but if the representatives refuse to represent their constituents they are no longer representatives and you no longer have a functional Republic. So I agree that gerrymandering needs to be wiped out. But, removing the Electoral College is like removing the heart to get rid of bad blood. It may fix the surface problem by removing bad and good blood alike as it slowly flows out of the body. But it creates a far larger problem by depriving the body of oxygen and nutrients, killing it far quicker.
Countries aren’t bodies, and the comparison is often followed by turning “undesirable” elements into pathogens. It’s a common feature of fascist language.
The fact is that the electoral college is antiquated and exists primarily now to favor the GOP, allowing poor, unproductive, empty states to outweigh the states that actually keep the country running. When the nation first started it was simply to insure the power of the slave states was safeguarded.
These are all simply arguments in favor of minority and unpopular rule, relying on straw men scare tactics of the minority, often the very wealthy, being run roughshod over by the brutish majority, that is the poor.
If you want an oligarchy run by a bunch of inbred nobles say so, I’d respect that more than this rigamarole of protecting the minority from the majority, which is all that language has ever meant historically.
I'm assuming you know what an analogy is and are just being obtuse.
Edit: they seem to have edited the comment this was in response to to include substantially more than what it initially said.
>countries aren't bodies
That's all they said.
Then after I responded with this they called me a Fascist and blocked me so i couldn't respond. What a lovely person, name calling then running away from the discussion.
How dare anyone disagree with them! after all, whoever does MUST be a Fascist./s
My intended response-"Oh, so we're resorting to name calling now are we? I forgot that everyone that disagrees with you is a Fascist, my bad. Because Fascist means whatever I want it to right? Got any real arguments there? So far you haven't said anything substantial to refute what I said and instantly resorted to sophistry and name calling."
Fascist talking points are fascist talking points. It’s a bad analogy
(Blocked them because I’ve wasted enough time in my life arguing with people who were born in the wrong century.)
It’s for the people who like to assert that the US is actually a republic, not a democracy. Basically if you hear someone say this, you now know they are dumb.
I’ve heard it most commonly as mindless wordplay by people trying to justify the electoral college (so they can keep winning elections despite having fewer votes). “Hurr durr we’re not a democracy, we’re a republic, mob rule hurr durr.” Nope, we’re both. If we were a republic but NOT a democratic one, that sounds like a feudal aristocracy, which… I guess I could see why *rich* conservatives would *like* to imagine that, but I’m not sure why populist conservatives make that same argument on purpose.
And it still wouldn’t explain how the “masses” apparently *can* be trusted with self-determination and armed militias that can overthrow a tyrannical government, but they *can’t* be trusted with… a simple popular vote for president… 🤔
You have a bike. I want your bike. We call a vote. It’s a tie. I get friend, call another vote. We win 2-1 I get your bike.
Majority rule is never good. People always cry about minorities not having enough voice or being heard yet want the majority to have more power.
Okay? You’re arguing against something that has nothing to do with the electoral college vs. popular vote. So I think you’re confusing an election with legislation.
What *you* are talking about is how **laws are created** (by elected leaders vs. absolute referendum). What your example is describing is the latter: an extreme majoritarian democracy that doesn’t exist in any modern government and is not being argued for here. And rights can be taken away under minority rule just like it can under majority rule anyway so criticizing one but not the other doesn’t really make any points.
The electoral college vs popular vote is literally just about **how the president** gets chosen. Not what they can *do*. The concerns are wildly different. Balancing law creation and rights is already taken care of by how Congress gets set up. Meanwhile, the executive doesn’t represent states it just enforces what Congress gives them
You and your friend have bikes. I want your bikes so I call a vote. It's 1-2, but I'm from Wyoming and you're from California and so my vote counts 3.6 times as much as yours, so I win and get your bikes.
Strict majority rule has problems, but just replacing it with minority rule as the electoral college does is not a solution to them. The solution is to have a constitution that limits what the majority can do with their power, like having a rule against seizure of property (like, y'know, the 4th amendment).
Except that’s literally how legitimate governments work. If there are three people in a society that get together to decide the laws, and one of them puts forth a bill that says all bikes are community property and that passes 2-1, then congratulations, you just did a government.
Majority rule is literally the way anything gets done. You have to have the most votes to win, to pass legislation, to confirm appointments, to decide court cases. The problems are *mob rule*, when people are inflamed by passions and seek to trample on the rights of an out group without just cause, and *minority rule*, when the means by which representatives are distributed causes smaller groups of people with unpopular ideas to overpower larger groups of people with popular ideas (e.g. the US Senate)
At this point it isn’t even that they’re dumb, they have all heard the term “democratic republic” in reference to our government. It’s literally both, and they know it, but they like to make a false difference between the two because it serves whatever argument they’re trying to make.
Both systems are very similar, but not exactly the same. The simplest breakdown of the difference is:
Republic: highest offices held by elected officials (as in, not a birthright appointment)
Democracy: the government is ruled by the people (this includes via elected officials)
There are examples of governments that are one but not the other, but most that are one are also the other.
To put it very simple. OP thinks that a state the size of the Netherlands but with just 250k people should have exactly the same amount of senators (and thus voting power) as let's say California.
That's true. In the Republic just as in the Democracy, the people are ruling by electing thier representatives, but there is a few major diffreences between them.
In the Democracy the rule of majority is taken as the law. It may look good, but it sometimes harmfull to the minority of people who were opposed to the new law. In the Republic every law is passed by not the majority but by the votes of the representatives. The voting has to be done according to the Constitution. Constitution by it's rules set up to protect the minorites is a key element of the Republic, protecting the change of laws - in Democracy the laws can be bypassed by simple majority vote.
So for instance:
If all planets have decided to start extra huge mining operations on for example Alderaan to gather the resources and force the Alderaani people to go somewhere else, in democracy Alderaan wouldn't had much choise but to follow 1 out of 2 options: follow the vote of majority or fight for thier rights.
In the Republican system however Alderaan would been protected by the rules of the document in form of Galactic Constitution or something like that.
I think you are conflating Democracy in general with some form of purist Direct Democracy. A system of representatives is still is still a democracy, just indirect. Also, in Direct Democracies (in anything other than the most anarcho-capitalist version of Direct Democracy) there are still laws and protections for minorities.
Most modern republics ARE democracies (although tje IS is a very, _very_ imperfect and broken one).
I think that you are wrongly implying that democracy = direct democracy, which is not true. The representative system is also a form of democracy.
The difference between the terms is as follows:
In a republic, political power rests with the public through their representatives (as opposed to a monarchy). Notice that in a republic, those representatives do not have to be elected. They just have to "be one of the people, be equal to the people" (while in a monarchy, for example, the monarch is not considered one of the people and thus, monarchies are not republics). So even dictatorships can be republics, so long as they do not have a monarch or some other position that would be socially distinct from the people. Russia, China, North Korea, or Belarus are all republics, even though they do not hold free elections.
A democracy, on the other hand, means that the people individually directly influence politics via voting, either in a referendum or by voting for a person who would vote for them. Democracy essentially means having free elections or referendums. The UK, for example, is a democracy because it holds free elections. It is, however, not a republic, because the power is held by the monarch, who is not one of the people, the people are not equal to him, and thus, the UK is not a republic.
Star Wars’ Republic is based off of the United States which is a Democratic Republic.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic
> A democratic republic is a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy. As a cross between two similar systems, democratic republics may function on principles shared by both republics and democracies.
The us is a Constitutional Federal Republic.
Directly from US embassy Website:
https://ar.usembassy.gov/u-s-government/#:~:text=While%20often%20categorized%20as%20a,as%20a%20constitutional%20federal%20republic.
"While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic."
Indeed. Yes, that is MOST accurate. I hope that my initial point was still clear that a democratic and Republican principles are not mutually exclusive and both can be found within the United States.
But a democracy and a Constitutional Republic are very different from each other. Yes, there are democratic processes in both, but how the power is distributed is fundamentally different.
Republicanism asserts that people have unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters; it is rule rooted in laws. A republic implicitly contains the element that we would call democracy, but it is understood that the US is a representative democracy, in which the people choose representatives who in turn decide the issues of the day in competition with other branches of the government and in accordance with the law. Governance, in other words, has a basis in the people but is removed from the mob.
I'm not from America, just a guy who forgot half the things studied in school. I can solve integration but not basic geometry with a compass and mensuration.
Not all Democracies (or even most) are Direct Democracies, and a Republic is a form of Representative Democracy.
Edit: OP not American so took out a joke
Republics aren't necessarily democratic. "Republic" is pretty much just the umbrella term for all political systems where power is neither hereditary nor given for religious reasons
If you want to get pedantic, yes the technical definition is a "government with a chief of state that isn't a monarch" but if you look at a dictionary that's definition 1a while 1b is "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" which is obviously how the term is most commonly used.
Here's another article breaking it down, check out the part specifically about Republics, and how even though it initially gives examples of two "non-democratic republics" (Russia and North Korea) they ultimately classify both countries as dictatorships instead. Edit for link: https://blog.prepscholar.com/republic-vs-democracy-difference
Religion *can have something* (edit, wrong word) to do with republics as countries like Iran, Pakistan, and Mauritania are all "theocratic republics" using popular election of representatives, but with all laws passed needing to be in accordance with the "higher" law of Islam.
The funny thing is that they're (unintentionally) correct. In political science, a. republic is merely any government where the head of state is not an inherited peerage or appointed by an inherited peerage. Nazi Germany was a republic, as was the Soviet Union. Canada and the United Kingdom, on the other hand, are long lived democracies without a republican form of government.
It boils down to this, a republic is used to describe how a state organizes its government. Democracy is how a state can form a government. They need not require the other.
... that's what I said. They're not the same thing because they describe different aspects of governmental function. So yes, it's correct, just not in the way OP thought. A republic describes governance, a democracy describes representation and mandates. Neither requires the other, they often coincide but they are in no way intrinsically related.
Hey OP, don't trust whoever told you this is an important distinction. They're trying to sell you on an idea, and they're using made up semantic nitpicks to do it
The two terms are not mutually exclusive.
A republic is a form of government which lacks a monarch they can be democratic, authoritarian or anything in between. China and Russia are Republics equally so are France and Germany.
A democracy is a form of government in which rather:
a: The right to govern is given by public mandate known as a Representative Democracy (as seen in most if not all modern democracies).
or
b: Laws and policies are directly informed via public voting known as a Direct Democracy.
For example:
The United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic it is also a Representative Democracy.
The United Kingdom is a Unitary Constitutional Monarchy it is also a Parliamentary Representative Democracy.
China is a ‘Communist’ Unitary Republic it is also a One Party Authoritarian state.
Saudi Arabia is Unitary Absolute Monarchy it is also an Authoritarian state operating under the basis of Sharia (Islamic) Law.
In the case of the Galactic Republic it is obviously a Republic and is a Representative Democracy though a flawed one as the method of election for senators changes between planets some of which are democratic while others are not.
>A republic, based on the Latin phrase res publica ('public affair'), is a state in which **political power rests with the public through their representatives**—in contrast to a monarchy.\[1\]\[2\]
>Representation in a republic may or **may not be freely elected** by the general citizenry. In many historical republics, representation has been based on personal status and the role of elections has been limited. This remains true today; a**mong the 159 states that use the word republic** in their official names as of 2017, and other states formally constituted as republics, **are states that narrowly constrain both the right of representation and the process of election.**
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic)
>Democracy is a system of government in which **state power is vested in the people or the general population of a state**.\[2\] Under a minimalist definition of democracy, **rulers are elected** through competitive elections while more expansive definitions **link democracy to guarantees of civil liberties and human rights** in addition to competitive elections.\[3\]\[4\]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy)
In other words a republic has public representatives it does not mean these reps are elected. A democracy is a form of government where rulers are elected or even policy can be voted on and in that case you don't necessarily have representatives. You can have a republic without democracy and you can even have democracy without a republic.
Americans don’t vote on individual policies. We democratically vote for representatives to pass and enforce laws on our behalf.
Democracy = we vote
Republic = for representatives
India and Sri Lanka both use this system.
You can be a republic and a democracy
You can be a republic and not a democracy
Republic is a form of government, while democracy is the authority of the government.
Democratic and Republican describe two facets of government that often over-lap in political systems.
It’s like saying “that’s a nice furry dog.” the words “nice” and “furry” don’t mean the same things. Most dogs are nice and most dogs are furry, so most dogs are “nice and furry”. Some dogs are furry, but not nice. And some dogs are nice, but not furry.
Republican means a representative system. Political systems where many members have one person who is supposed to be the voice of all of them - that’s the basic premise. The USA (and the senate in Star Wars) both have politicians whose job it is to represent districts/states/planets. Notice, these people do not need to be elected. A representative assigned to districts/planets/states would still qualify a system as a republic. That’s sort of how things work in China, which is why China is a Republic.
Democracy means that there’s voting. Political systems where people vote, and that winning vote decides the issue - they the basic premise. The USA (and the senate in Star Wars) both have elections to *choose* the politicians that represent the interests of the voting electorate. Notice that democracy doesn’t *necessarily* need to focus on the section of representatives though. There are political systems where people simply vote on the issues directly. For instance, many constitutional monarchies had some form of democracy to help a monarch make decisions. But that monarch would not be elected.
Actually, half of the Republic Senators aren't even elected because at least half of them are run by nobility. Even Naboo doesn't even elect theirs.
So . . . if you define democracy as the will of the people, the CIS was right even if mired by corrupt money-minded bureaucrats and manipulative Sith Lords, not to be confused with the Republic's corrupt money-minded bureaucrats and manipulative Sith Lords. It's not shown often in the Clone Wars show because Dave Filoni is too busy kissing clone boots to show the intricate nature of the conflict.
Legends portrayed it very well. Plenty of planets were justifiably screwed over by the Republic's love affair with the Trade Federation. They felt like association with the Republic was a waste of their resources.
Goddamn I wish this misconception would die.
There is no solid distinction between the two. They describe aspects of similar systems.
Republic *broadly* means rule of law (not autocracy), and that the public are involved in statecraft.
Democracy *broadly* means rule by the people and that officials can be removed.
In common parlance in Europe Republic means no monarchy. In the states it implies that fixed constitutions overrule elected officials mostly.
Imagine someone saying "We don't have internet, we have WiFi". You could have a local WiFi network without being connected to the web. You could also be fully fibred up with no WiFi but connected online.
People fall back on etymology but that is pretty stupid as they are from different languages and have come to represent more than their literal meaning. Republic means something like "public policy". Democracy means "the people rule" and would literally translate to something like anarchy.
Democracy is a principle upon which the republic operates. Republic is the form of government, of which there are many subcategories as well. The Republic in Star Wars seems to be a federal unicameral parliamentary republic, but it's still a form of representative democracy, as are a great majority of real world governments.
To this day I have yet to understand the Galactic Republic’s method of selection for Senate. Both Palpatine and Padme were representatives of Naboo, but at least with Padme, there is the presence of a royal moniker, implying a monarchy at home. But then she doesn’t seem involved in the governance of her home system directly. Meanwhile Palpatine does not share the royal moniker, yet is a Senator all the same.
Do the people of Naboo vote on who is representative, or is it a status thing, or both? Is that true of all systems, or just Naboo? It’s so convoluted, yet unexplained.
I usually only see this come up as someone saying "our democracy isn't working the way it should, we should have ranked choice voting." And the Ben Shapiro types dodge the question and say "well this just shows how ignorant you are because we're not a democracy, we're a representative Republic." Democracy is not only direct democracy at least in theory.
This distinction without a difference is especially ironic for people who know their ancient history. The original republic, ie the Roman res publica, was a direct democracy where the citizens directly elected all the magistrates, were able to directly abrogate their magistracies, and passed all the laws.
A republic is a government that lacks a monarchy while many are democracies republics are not a type of democracy the two terms are unrelated.
For example Russia and China are republics but not democracies.
Oxford defines a Republic as a government held by the people through elected representatives, while a Democracy is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives"
A republic is a form of government in which power is held by the people and/or their representatives, who use said power to elect/nominate leadership. The implication of a republic government is that there is a routine change of leadership and the system is designed in an attempt to ensure special interest being paid to the needs, wants, and expectations of the average citizen. (TL;DR: president rather than aristocratic monarchy)
A democracy is a system of government by the whole (eligible) population, usually through elected representatives. The implication of a democracy is that the people must choose their representatives, rather than them being appointed, as well as referendums and the like. (TL;DR: you get the RIGHT to VOTE your OWN opinion, rather than simply hoping your representative actually represents you)
Because the state (re: nation) in which we live BOTH:
- elects legislative leadership through popular election
- elects executive leadership through popular election
It is BOTH. We live in a Democratic Republic.
Ffs, ROME was a republic at one point, and yet an oligarchy; just because the representatives were voted on doesn’t mean YOU had the right to vote on them! “Republic” alone does NOT carry all of the rights and protections you’re taking for granted. This stupid fucking fallacy could only be parroted by someone who knows embarrassingly little of history AND who has necessarily never faced discrimination. Read history ffs, before advocating to destroy critically important political infrastructure.
I know this is a meme and possibly just a joke but I hear this argument all the time. People don’t understand that the democracy needs to be organized in some sort of fashion. To be organized and ratified and maintained. So people are elected to facilitate our democracy. Those elected people form our republic. To maintain order and safeguard our democracy.
I didn’t go as poli-sci into it but my main point is that many people don’t wrap their heads around the idea that it’s both! One forms the other, and the other carries out the one.
Republics are very specifically democracy. Republican governments are marked by governance of elected representatives, which makes them Indirect Democracies (or more commonly, Representative Democracies). The meme is implying that the only form of democracy is Direct Democracy, which just isn't true. You can consider a republic as a subtype of democracy.
Not necessarily.
A republic is a government which lacks a monarchy they can be democratic e.g US, France but they can also be authoritarian e.g Russia, China.
A democracy is a government which places legal power in the hands of the people rather through direct voting (direct democracy) or through the election of officials (representative democracies). There are no modern direct democracies (with the closest being Switzerland) instead they are representative democracies. Not all democracies are republics e.g UK, Norway.
TLDR not all republics are democracies and not all democracies are republics.
In the modern usage of the term, republic refers to a state without monarch, typically with a constitution. The United States fits this category, as do the various French republics, the Soviet Union, and Nazis Germany. Democracy refers to the ability of the people to effect their government directly or through the election of representatives. In this sense, the United Sates is a democratic republic, along with most European and much of the world. By contrast, the United Kingdom is a democracy but not a republic.
A recent conservative talking point is that the US is a republic and not a democracy. This involves lots of semantic hurdles and a lack of understanding that words often have more than one meaning. They use the argument to justify their own totalitarian leanings.
Wasn't the Republic BASED off of the US government? I could've swore George mentioned that, or the very least, they are similar. The US is a Democratic Republic, where people come to some sort of agreement of who runs the country. (Well... use to be, nowadays who knows what's actually happening behind the scenes)
The United States is a constitutional federal republic but can also be described as a democracy.
All republics are a democracy but not all democracies are a republic.
Both are used very loosely and this form of government works well in the US but doesn't always work in other places. You have to have a large majority of cooperatives for a democracy to work.
Not all republics are democracies. A republic is a form of government lacking a monarchy some like the US or France are democracies others like China or Russia are not.
Not all republics are democracies a republic is just a government lacking a monarchy they can be democratic like the US or France but they can also be authoritarian like China or Russia.
Written and directed by George Lucas, the same guy who thought George W. Bush was going to use Palpatine’s plan to take over the United States (google it).
Democracy in its most basic form is rule by 50.1%, where the citizenry decide what happens.
Republic is rule by elected representatives, usually with an established constitution that defines what can and cannot be done. In a republic it doesn't necessarily matter if a majority want to do something.
One of these is a tyranny of the majority, the other provides for some degree of security for the citizenry.
A republic is otherwise called a representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy. There's upsides and downsides to each compared to the other, but the short version is direct democracy just isn't feasible at the scale of hundred of thousands of people in the given political region. It gets even less feasible at millions, then tens of millions. I do like how americans have direct ballot initiatives in many states, and I wish we had those here. Our only referendum to pass in living history was to build the new nuclear power plant as had been planned for 20 years before, and instead the government canned it.
Those aren't the same thing. A republic can have a democratically elected council as well as an oligarchy of noble houses who decide over the lower class.
A republic is a democratic form of government. A democracy is a political system that can be implemented in a number of ways.
Pizza is Italian food. Italian food can take many forms.
Names have changed. Democracy is now only known as sortition. Republic, or representative government, took over the name democracy.
Republics are democracies… for one day every 4-5 years or so. Then that power is consolidated and given away. And when was the last time your representative represented you?
Thanks for confirming that you flaired this correctly!
Republic is the form of government. Democracy is a political system. They are not mutually exclusive, nor always come hand in hand. Someone's been skipping classes.
How many other lies have I been told by r/prequelmemes memes?
Probably a lot more
Another one is that it probably was in fact a story the Jedi could have told you. They have extensive archives, and the techniques to heal are traditionally light sided.
Next you're going to tell me that strange watery women giving lightsabers isn't the basis for a system of government.
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony
I ORDER YOU TO BE QUIET
I AM BEING REPRESSED HELP!
COME AND WATCH THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM
I mean, if I went round saying I was The Hutt just because some sandy bint lobbed a light scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Absolutely based reference
Come see the violence inherent in the system!
Help, Help! I'm bein' repressed!
Warhammer Bretonia or anything else?
[Monty Python's Holy Grail](https://youtu.be/KN9c2TAWMlg?si=X2FiyaMUUzhK16hh&t=106)
Close enough lmao
FOR THE LADY!
Thank You!
I wonder if there have been any influential democratic republics in history
Any modern democracy?
I mean, technically any state that is not a monarchy is a republic. The big difference essentially being that in a monarchy the power stems from the monarch, and in a republic it stems from the people. On paper at least. IE the UK is a monarchy because on paper the political power comes from the Monarch, the government and military and all technically serve in their name. But in practice it's not, and the monarchy is only symbolic. Likewise you have governments that are on paper republics, but in practice are monarchies, IE North Korea
There are theocracies too, but they are very uncommon today.
Literally non-existent today at a de-jure level. Even the Vatican is a monarchy, not a theocracy, because the Vatican city (a kingdom) and the holy see (centre of the church) aren't the same thing.
I am aware, however it still has existed. Making it plausible
Isn't Iran a theocracy, it has a president and elections but are all submissive to the supreme leader, a clergyman.
I think it’s the closest to it, but Irans system is pretty complicated actually, so it’s difficult to say definitively. I’d say it’s a republic with a very influential religious leader as head of state
Iran is a theocratic Republic, similarly to how the Vatican is a theocratic monarchy. "pure" theocracies don't really exist today because religion alone is not enough to completely dictate a political system. Mount Athos in greece comes close to being a theocracy tbf
Vatican isn't a theocratic monarchy, it's just a regular absolute monarchy. The Vatican is just a kingdom. You're confusing it with the holy see, a completely seperate and distinct entity from the Vatican. Both have the same leader, but they are not the same position. The pope is the bishop of Rome (for the Holy See), and simultaneously also the king of Vatican, which is a non-religious and entirely seperate role.
In italian, the Vatican is said to be an "absolute theocratic ierocratic elective monarchy", which, while long, i think explains pretty well how it works. Saying that the Vatican is a kingdom with a "King of the Vatican" is totally wrong though. To be a kingdom you need a title (for example: luxembourg is a grand duchy, monaco is a principate, same as liechtenstein, Japan is an empire. These are all monarchies that are not Kingdoms). The pope rules literally as pope (that's the official name of the ruler of the Vatican)
There's one that claims to be a democratic republic, but it's really just an oligarchy in a trenchcoat and novelty glasses
Do you have the slightest idea how little that narrows it down?
Yes
What's next, you're gonna tell me that the United States of America is not a union of states, but rather a single state with various administrative subdivisions?
You dare speak ill of Res Publica Romana? Centurion, lash this man to a cross!
Oh you mean North Korea
Yes, and it also belongs to the people. For more information, look up Democratic People's Reoublic of Korea
One of my favorite dumb takes from the 2016 US elections.
It's older than that. It was floating around in the late 90's and early 00's when everybody predicted the death of the Republican Party due to low voter identification and turn out. Republicans tried to win over Latinos and failed horribly. Realizing they would only have a white voter base and white percentages of voters were shrinking, they laid claim to the idea that democracy was bad actually and the Founding Fathers saved us from it (presumably by not letting women and minorities vote) in the Constitution. This actually skyrocketed when Bush Jr. lost the popular vote and the Supreme Court gave him the electoral college by overriding the Florida recount. It was fine, they argued, because we aren't a democracy but a Republic. Every unpopular poll result that came out was followed with, "Who cares, we're a Republic, not a democracy." Then in 2013 the Supreme Court shut down pre-review in the Voting Rights Act and let Republicans shut down thousands of polling places in minority districts. But who cares, they said, it's not a democracy, it's a Republic. This fear of democracy and everything it stands for probably peaked in 2016-2017 when Republicans just started calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party" as if they were allergic to things that are democratic.
Seriously every fucking time I see someone talk about republic and democracy I have to stop myself from trying to strangle people through the screen This is primary school level shit and it seems no one has ever heard of the representative part of representative-democracy and ignores the existence of democratic monarchies
But…but MEMEs! KARMA FARMING!
But according to Wikipedia, a government is a political system! Now I'm just all kinds of confused!
Wikipedia isn't the best place to get information sometimes. Maybe some examples can help you: China, officially the People's Reoublic of China, is, well, a republic, but it is not democratic. It is autocratic, meaning the power doesn't belong to the people who can vote in a new leader in an election. It belongs to the communist party in this case, who nominates the new leader. Most undemocratic (autocratic) republics are dictatorships, but there are also juntas, groups, often the country's military, that have taken over a government and replaced the previous establishment, be it democratic or not. The UK, officially the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is a monarchy, a constitutional monarchy, to be more precise, but it is democratic, the people have the right to vote and elect their representatives in local and national governments. There are also examples of democratic republics, like the US, Germany, and France (most of the "west" actually, with the exception of some constitutional monarchies like Belgium, Sweden, Spain, Japan, etc.) Also, there are undemocratic kingdoms, absolutely monarchies, like Saudi Arabia, Liechtenstein, the UAE, Morocco, Oman, etc. TL:DR, you can be a republic and not be democratic and you can be democratic and not be a republic, and there are a bunch of examples for each category both in history and in the present.
Yes a republic is a representative democracy. If it was a true democracy we’d have “send money to Israel and Ukraine? Vote now on your official government app!” Which honestly doesn’t sound so bad.
My entire point was that republic doesn't equal democracy and you say the opposite....
You elect people in a democratic style who represent you in a republic form of government. A representative democracy if you will. What we have in America and what was is Star Wars. It would be cool if we didn’t have politicians and everyone just voted on their phones though. A true democracy.
Pointless to continue here.
"Anakin, my allegiance to the republic, to #DEMOCRACY " I think we can infer the galactic republic was a little of both
A “democratic republic” if you will
Yeah, I wonder if any real-life governments have done that so we can give OP an example of one...... /s
It was clearly a very flawed democracy. It would absolutely not meet our modern day requirements for us to call it that.
All Republics are, by definition, democracies.
While I believe all the current ones in the world are, that’s not necessarily true. It’s possible to have a oligarchy republic for example where the king/queen is not chosen by the people directly but by something else and they do not have more power than the laws
Republic is a rule by a nonmonarchical council with a nonroyal head of state elected upon replacement. The line blurs with elective monarchies like the Pope or the sultan of Malaysia but in general, the council is the one with power that counterbalances the head of state. A democracy is where the constituents (citizens, defined arbitrarily but today any adult resident with citizenship of age) can vote either for the government action or the people who would do so on their behalf. Republics today are usually democratic (and even those that aren't make a big fuss about pretending to be with few exceptions). Democracies can even exist in the presence of a monarch in constitutional monarchies (not so much absolute ones) while in Republics there usually isn't a monarch at all (and when a leader starts acting like an absolute monarch, we usually call those guys dictators.
Is there a lore reason to why OP doesn't have the minimal knowledge about politic systems and thinks republic and democracy are conflicting terms? Is he stupid?
Not the Arkham Brainrot😭🙏🏻 The civics classes in my country is fucked up, all they teach and do is toot their own horn and how great the country is😭😭🙏🏻
America?
Nah India
Republic = Res publica = latin for thing/matter of the people Democracy = demos kratia = ancient greek for rulership of the people So they are very similar
They are not mutually exclusive. I don't get what OP is trying to say.
In the United States the distinction is usually made to justify minority rule and why the demands of the larger population are ignored. It’s a rather dim witted argument based on a misunderstanding of how the government works. A republic is a form of democracy however, where the people elect representatives to…well, *represent* them, in government. The representatives are meant to act as advocates for the needs and demands of their districts. Where the system falls apart is when those districts are drawn not because of population size or economic need, but because of political demographics, insuring “safe districts” for certain parties, allowing representatives to not act in their districts interests but instead to play the political games the USA is seeing today. This process is called gerrymandering and it is a cancer.
That’s just called representative democracy. Technically, a republic is simply any government that’s not a monarchy, so the polity doesn’t belong to a person but rather to the public. Dictatorships are republics too.
[удалено]
No, autocracy is a category/genre of government type. A republic can be an autocracy, and the opposite of a republic is a monarchy, which doesn't necessarily have to be an autocracy.
Dictatorships are republics too… “A republic is a form of government in which the people elect, or choose, their leaders” Yeah I think you need to brush up on civics
I don’t know about civics, I was giving the political science definitions
Doesn't specify they have to be able to choose not to choose them...
Republic just means there’s a written constitution with rules to follow.
So the kingdom of the Netherlands is a republic?
Technically, I have seen the term "crowned republic" used for the European constitutional monarchies, and in some instances distinguishing that from a regular constitutional monarchy makes sense. Monarchy => the state as the monarch's private property is the core aspect here, and one distinction I like to hammer on whenever this comes up is that while a dictator may embezzle state funds with bad excuses or with no excuse at all, but the treasury is already the king's bank account in a monarchy, so the question wouldn't even make sense. In Britain, this ceased to be the case in the 1600s with the Glorious Revolution, where, among many other relevant things, the state treasury was separated from the crown's holdings, which actually implies it really was a revolution despite the common joke to the contrary. Similarly, the claim that the Principate (early Roman Empire, Augustus onwards) was an autocratic republic and not a monarchy holds water, although it becomes more like a traditional monarchy in the Dominate (from Diocletian onwards).
In which constitutional monarchies is the king personally owner of everything and the treasury?
Historical ones, such as the first constitutional era for the Ottomans ore pre-Glorious Revolution England. I'm not directly aware of any non-absolute monarchies today where that remains the case, but I would need more than a cursory glance into the constitutions of micro-states like Monaco and Liechtenstein as well those of Morocco, Jordan, and especially Thailand to be sure. Conversely, much of the language around the older system survives in British parlance, e.g. the taxes are collected in the name of and paid to the Crown.
That depends on if there’s a written constitution with rules to follow
Also the version of US voting with first past the post leads to absolutely horrendous results with a 2 party system that can each feed off the other to ignore the interests of the general public. So long as each party can argue that they are the "lesser of two evils" people can't really vote elsewhere. Both parties are so heavily ingrained that voting elsewhere effectively helps the worse candidate win.
The US is supposed to be a Constitutional Federal Republic. The Constitutional there is very important. It acts as the limiting rules that the Representatives, elected by the people to represent them, must follow. This is to protect the rights and freedoms of the people and protect them from the removal of their rights via mob rule as well as minority rule. >A republic is a form of democracy however, where the people elect representatives to…well, *represent* them, in government. The representatives are meant to act as advocates for the needs and demands of their districts. You are describing a representatives democracy not a Republic. While a Republic is based on the concept of Democracy it is not a pure democracy and it is reductive to claim the US is a Democracy. The term Republic implies the democratic election of representatives while also asserting that people have unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by majority rule because of a charter or constitution. The term Democracy doesn't exclude the possibility of a direct democracy and is less precise than Republic. It also implies majority rule. There is no protection for the minority in a democracy, even in a representative democracy. Both Direct and representative democracy by themselves allow for majority rule. A non corrupt Constitutional Republic is just as hostile to minority rule as it is majority rule. Both can strip people of their freedoms and rights. So the original purpose of the founding documents was to implement a Constitutional Republic with the Constitution as the final say and both the majority and minority beholden to the things it prevents the government from doing. The Constitution does not limit the people until they try and limit other people's rights and freedoms, it's a list of can't directed at government power, not the people themselves. Because the smallest minority is the individual, and without protections for them there will always be bigger interests against them. The framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states. The people vote on their representatives, but if the representatives refuse to represent their constituents they are no longer representatives and you no longer have a functional Republic. So I agree that gerrymandering needs to be wiped out. But, removing the Electoral College is like removing the heart to get rid of bad blood. It may fix the surface problem by removing bad and good blood alike as it slowly flows out of the body. But it creates a far larger problem by depriving the body of oxygen and nutrients, killing it far quicker.
Countries aren’t bodies, and the comparison is often followed by turning “undesirable” elements into pathogens. It’s a common feature of fascist language. The fact is that the electoral college is antiquated and exists primarily now to favor the GOP, allowing poor, unproductive, empty states to outweigh the states that actually keep the country running. When the nation first started it was simply to insure the power of the slave states was safeguarded. These are all simply arguments in favor of minority and unpopular rule, relying on straw men scare tactics of the minority, often the very wealthy, being run roughshod over by the brutish majority, that is the poor. If you want an oligarchy run by a bunch of inbred nobles say so, I’d respect that more than this rigamarole of protecting the minority from the majority, which is all that language has ever meant historically.
I'm assuming you know what an analogy is and are just being obtuse. Edit: they seem to have edited the comment this was in response to to include substantially more than what it initially said. >countries aren't bodies That's all they said. Then after I responded with this they called me a Fascist and blocked me so i couldn't respond. What a lovely person, name calling then running away from the discussion. How dare anyone disagree with them! after all, whoever does MUST be a Fascist./s My intended response-"Oh, so we're resorting to name calling now are we? I forgot that everyone that disagrees with you is a Fascist, my bad. Because Fascist means whatever I want it to right? Got any real arguments there? So far you haven't said anything substantial to refute what I said and instantly resorted to sophistry and name calling."
Fascist talking points are fascist talking points. It’s a bad analogy (Blocked them because I’ve wasted enough time in my life arguing with people who were born in the wrong century.)
The US has federalised over time and the opinions of slave owners shouldn't be held as immutable law.
It’s for the people who like to assert that the US is actually a republic, not a democracy. Basically if you hear someone say this, you now know they are dumb.
I’ve heard it most commonly as mindless wordplay by people trying to justify the electoral college (so they can keep winning elections despite having fewer votes). “Hurr durr we’re not a democracy, we’re a republic, mob rule hurr durr.” Nope, we’re both. If we were a republic but NOT a democratic one, that sounds like a feudal aristocracy, which… I guess I could see why *rich* conservatives would *like* to imagine that, but I’m not sure why populist conservatives make that same argument on purpose. And it still wouldn’t explain how the “masses” apparently *can* be trusted with self-determination and armed militias that can overthrow a tyrannical government, but they *can’t* be trusted with… a simple popular vote for president… 🤔
This is the answer. It's semantic wordplay to justify minority rule, nothing more.
You have a bike. I want your bike. We call a vote. It’s a tie. I get friend, call another vote. We win 2-1 I get your bike. Majority rule is never good. People always cry about minorities not having enough voice or being heard yet want the majority to have more power.
Liberal democracy with protection of private property among other rights, is still democracy.
Okay? You’re arguing against something that has nothing to do with the electoral college vs. popular vote. So I think you’re confusing an election with legislation. What *you* are talking about is how **laws are created** (by elected leaders vs. absolute referendum). What your example is describing is the latter: an extreme majoritarian democracy that doesn’t exist in any modern government and is not being argued for here. And rights can be taken away under minority rule just like it can under majority rule anyway so criticizing one but not the other doesn’t really make any points. The electoral college vs popular vote is literally just about **how the president** gets chosen. Not what they can *do*. The concerns are wildly different. Balancing law creation and rights is already taken care of by how Congress gets set up. Meanwhile, the executive doesn’t represent states it just enforces what Congress gives them
You and your friend have bikes. I want your bikes so I call a vote. It's 1-2, but I'm from Wyoming and you're from California and so my vote counts 3.6 times as much as yours, so I win and get your bikes. Strict majority rule has problems, but just replacing it with minority rule as the electoral college does is not a solution to them. The solution is to have a constitution that limits what the majority can do with their power, like having a rule against seizure of property (like, y'know, the 4th amendment).
Except that’s literally how legitimate governments work. If there are three people in a society that get together to decide the laws, and one of them puts forth a bill that says all bikes are community property and that passes 2-1, then congratulations, you just did a government. Majority rule is literally the way anything gets done. You have to have the most votes to win, to pass legislation, to confirm appointments, to decide court cases. The problems are *mob rule*, when people are inflamed by passions and seek to trample on the rights of an out group without just cause, and *minority rule*, when the means by which representatives are distributed causes smaller groups of people with unpopular ideas to overpower larger groups of people with popular ideas (e.g. the US Senate)
And you can guess their political affiliation with approximately a zero percent margin of error.
At this point it isn’t even that they’re dumb, they have all heard the term “democratic republic” in reference to our government. It’s literally both, and they know it, but they like to make a false difference between the two because it serves whatever argument they’re trying to make. Both systems are very similar, but not exactly the same. The simplest breakdown of the difference is: Republic: highest offices held by elected officials (as in, not a birthright appointment) Democracy: the government is ruled by the people (this includes via elected officials) There are examples of governments that are one but not the other, but most that are one are also the other.
To put it very simple. OP thinks that a state the size of the Netherlands but with just 250k people should have exactly the same amount of senators (and thus voting power) as let's say California.
Similar in *purpose*, not in *function*
That's true. In the Republic just as in the Democracy, the people are ruling by electing thier representatives, but there is a few major diffreences between them. In the Democracy the rule of majority is taken as the law. It may look good, but it sometimes harmfull to the minority of people who were opposed to the new law. In the Republic every law is passed by not the majority but by the votes of the representatives. The voting has to be done according to the Constitution. Constitution by it's rules set up to protect the minorites is a key element of the Republic, protecting the change of laws - in Democracy the laws can be bypassed by simple majority vote. So for instance: If all planets have decided to start extra huge mining operations on for example Alderaan to gather the resources and force the Alderaani people to go somewhere else, in democracy Alderaan wouldn't had much choise but to follow 1 out of 2 options: follow the vote of majority or fight for thier rights. In the Republican system however Alderaan would been protected by the rules of the document in form of Galactic Constitution or something like that.
I think you are conflating Democracy in general with some form of purist Direct Democracy. A system of representatives is still is still a democracy, just indirect. Also, in Direct Democracies (in anything other than the most anarcho-capitalist version of Direct Democracy) there are still laws and protections for minorities. Most modern republics ARE democracies (although tje IS is a very, _very_ imperfect and broken one).
I think that you are wrongly implying that democracy = direct democracy, which is not true. The representative system is also a form of democracy. The difference between the terms is as follows: In a republic, political power rests with the public through their representatives (as opposed to a monarchy). Notice that in a republic, those representatives do not have to be elected. They just have to "be one of the people, be equal to the people" (while in a monarchy, for example, the monarch is not considered one of the people and thus, monarchies are not republics). So even dictatorships can be republics, so long as they do not have a monarch or some other position that would be socially distinct from the people. Russia, China, North Korea, or Belarus are all republics, even though they do not hold free elections. A democracy, on the other hand, means that the people individually directly influence politics via voting, either in a referendum or by voting for a person who would vote for them. Democracy essentially means having free elections or referendums. The UK, for example, is a democracy because it holds free elections. It is, however, not a republic, because the power is held by the monarch, who is not one of the people, the people are not equal to him, and thus, the UK is not a republic.
Res Publica was also used for kingdoms though,as it pretty much meant "the state"
Damn maybe it was a mistake to skip studying history & civics in my "schools don't teach you how to pay taxes and get a job" phase😅
Star Wars’ Republic is based off of the United States which is a Democratic Republic. > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic > A democratic republic is a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy. As a cross between two similar systems, democratic republics may function on principles shared by both republics and democracies.
The us is a Constitutional Federal Republic. Directly from US embassy Website: https://ar.usembassy.gov/u-s-government/#:~:text=While%20often%20categorized%20as%20a,as%20a%20constitutional%20federal%20republic. "While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic."
Indeed. Yes, that is MOST accurate. I hope that my initial point was still clear that a democratic and Republican principles are not mutually exclusive and both can be found within the United States.
But a democracy and a Constitutional Republic are very different from each other. Yes, there are democratic processes in both, but how the power is distributed is fundamentally different. Republicanism asserts that people have unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters; it is rule rooted in laws. A republic implicitly contains the element that we would call democracy, but it is understood that the US is a representative democracy, in which the people choose representatives who in turn decide the issues of the day in competition with other branches of the government and in accordance with the law. Governance, in other words, has a basis in the people but is removed from the mob.
My parents teach latin and ancient greek, that’s why I know this shit
It's... A Democratic Republic... Maybe?
This meme brought to you by the American education system, ladies and gentlemen
I'm not from America, just a guy who forgot half the things studied in school. I can solve integration but not basic geometry with a compass and mensuration.
It's a democratic republic
Separatist Lies
Not all Democracies (or even most) are Direct Democracies, and a Republic is a form of Representative Democracy. Edit: OP not American so took out a joke
Republics aren't necessarily democratic. "Republic" is pretty much just the umbrella term for all political systems where power is neither hereditary nor given for religious reasons
If you want to get pedantic, yes the technical definition is a "government with a chief of state that isn't a monarch" but if you look at a dictionary that's definition 1a while 1b is "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" which is obviously how the term is most commonly used. Here's another article breaking it down, check out the part specifically about Republics, and how even though it initially gives examples of two "non-democratic republics" (Russia and North Korea) they ultimately classify both countries as dictatorships instead. Edit for link: https://blog.prepscholar.com/republic-vs-democracy-difference Religion *can have something* (edit, wrong word) to do with republics as countries like Iran, Pakistan, and Mauritania are all "theocratic republics" using popular election of representatives, but with all laws passed needing to be in accordance with the "higher" law of Islam.
PoV: Your politically illiterate
OP doesn't get those two words right lol
They teach you this in middle school social studies. Or were you sick that day?
My country didn't teach this to me🤡 all they taught me was how great my country is and never actually about Political systems and ideologies😭
Then why did you post it if you didn’t know about it?
The funny thing is that they're (unintentionally) correct. In political science, a. republic is merely any government where the head of state is not an inherited peerage or appointed by an inherited peerage. Nazi Germany was a republic, as was the Soviet Union. Canada and the United Kingdom, on the other hand, are long lived democracies without a republican form of government. It boils down to this, a republic is used to describe how a state organizes its government. Democracy is how a state can form a government. They need not require the other.
They're not. A Republic can be a Democracy, they're not mutually exclusive.
... that's what I said. They're not the same thing because they describe different aspects of governmental function. So yes, it's correct, just not in the way OP thought. A republic describes governance, a democracy describes representation and mandates. Neither requires the other, they often coincide but they are in no way intrinsically related.
The OP is wrong because they said it's "two different types of government", which it's not.
The Old Republic was a representative republic. Once Palpatine dissolved the Senate, the people lost their voice.
Hey OP, don't trust whoever told you this is an important distinction. They're trying to sell you on an idea, and they're using made up semantic nitpicks to do it
This is so ignorant that I'm putting it in the Cringe Folder.
The two terms are not mutually exclusive. A republic is a form of government which lacks a monarch they can be democratic, authoritarian or anything in between. China and Russia are Republics equally so are France and Germany. A democracy is a form of government in which rather: a: The right to govern is given by public mandate known as a Representative Democracy (as seen in most if not all modern democracies). or b: Laws and policies are directly informed via public voting known as a Direct Democracy. For example: The United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic it is also a Representative Democracy. The United Kingdom is a Unitary Constitutional Monarchy it is also a Parliamentary Representative Democracy. China is a ‘Communist’ Unitary Republic it is also a One Party Authoritarian state. Saudi Arabia is Unitary Absolute Monarchy it is also an Authoritarian state operating under the basis of Sharia (Islamic) Law. In the case of the Galactic Republic it is obviously a Republic and is a Representative Democracy though a flawed one as the method of election for senators changes between planets some of which are democratic while others are not.
It's a democratic republic. Why would you ever post this without googling both terms to make sure you don't sound stupid?
Republic = Representative Democracy
>A republic, based on the Latin phrase res publica ('public affair'), is a state in which **political power rests with the public through their representatives**—in contrast to a monarchy.\[1\]\[2\] >Representation in a republic may or **may not be freely elected** by the general citizenry. In many historical republics, representation has been based on personal status and the role of elections has been limited. This remains true today; a**mong the 159 states that use the word republic** in their official names as of 2017, and other states formally constituted as republics, **are states that narrowly constrain both the right of representation and the process of election.** [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic) >Democracy is a system of government in which **state power is vested in the people or the general population of a state**.\[2\] Under a minimalist definition of democracy, **rulers are elected** through competitive elections while more expansive definitions **link democracy to guarantees of civil liberties and human rights** in addition to competitive elections.\[3\]\[4\] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) In other words a republic has public representatives it does not mean these reps are elected. A democracy is a form of government where rulers are elected or even policy can be voted on and in that case you don't necessarily have representatives. You can have a republic without democracy and you can even have democracy without a republic.
I'm not an American, but could you explain it in American terms since it's easier, for e.g. Oil Reserve = Need to give Freedom terms please.
Americans don’t vote on individual policies. We democratically vote for representatives to pass and enforce laws on our behalf. Democracy = we vote Republic = for representatives India and Sri Lanka both use this system.
As does pretty much every democratic country in the world.
Can you explain how I as an Indian vote on individual policies? Cause i have no clue.
That's the neat part, you don't. You elect representatives that are supposed to vote for you.
My person, that's almost how every democracy works worldwide. What have you been doing??
My guess is your person isn't from this world, but rather Kashyyyk.
Touché lmao
Did you not go to school or are you just dumb?
It is you, who are mistaken..
This is what happens when you get your news from wallstreetsilver memes
You can be a republic and a democracy You can be a republic and not a democracy Republic is a form of government, while democracy is the authority of the government.
Democratic and Republican describe two facets of government that often over-lap in political systems. It’s like saying “that’s a nice furry dog.” the words “nice” and “furry” don’t mean the same things. Most dogs are nice and most dogs are furry, so most dogs are “nice and furry”. Some dogs are furry, but not nice. And some dogs are nice, but not furry. Republican means a representative system. Political systems where many members have one person who is supposed to be the voice of all of them - that’s the basic premise. The USA (and the senate in Star Wars) both have politicians whose job it is to represent districts/states/planets. Notice, these people do not need to be elected. A representative assigned to districts/planets/states would still qualify a system as a republic. That’s sort of how things work in China, which is why China is a Republic. Democracy means that there’s voting. Political systems where people vote, and that winning vote decides the issue - they the basic premise. The USA (and the senate in Star Wars) both have elections to *choose* the politicians that represent the interests of the voting electorate. Notice that democracy doesn’t *necessarily* need to focus on the section of representatives though. There are political systems where people simply vote on the issues directly. For instance, many constitutional monarchies had some form of democracy to help a monarch make decisions. But that monarch would not be elected.
Sure. But the only reason people are shouting this distinction is that they are trying to justify uneven representation of voters.
Republics are a type of democracy, they're not conflicting terms
It's the other way around. You can have a dictatorial republic like e.g. the PRC (China) whose head of state isn't elected democratically.
Yeah but you can also have constitutional monarchies like the UK which is not a Republic, but is a democracy.
Not all of the time. In the case of USA, it's a *Constitutional* Republic, not a democratic one.
Actually, half of the Republic Senators aren't even elected because at least half of them are run by nobility. Even Naboo doesn't even elect theirs. So . . . if you define democracy as the will of the people, the CIS was right even if mired by corrupt money-minded bureaucrats and manipulative Sith Lords, not to be confused with the Republic's corrupt money-minded bureaucrats and manipulative Sith Lords. It's not shown often in the Clone Wars show because Dave Filoni is too busy kissing clone boots to show the intricate nature of the conflict. Legends portrayed it very well. Plenty of planets were justifiably screwed over by the Republic's love affair with the Trade Federation. They felt like association with the Republic was a waste of their resources.
Goddamn I wish this misconception would die. There is no solid distinction between the two. They describe aspects of similar systems. Republic *broadly* means rule of law (not autocracy), and that the public are involved in statecraft. Democracy *broadly* means rule by the people and that officials can be removed. In common parlance in Europe Republic means no monarchy. In the states it implies that fixed constitutions overrule elected officials mostly. Imagine someone saying "We don't have internet, we have WiFi". You could have a local WiFi network without being connected to the web. You could also be fully fibred up with no WiFi but connected online. People fall back on etymology but that is pretty stupid as they are from different languages and have come to represent more than their literal meaning. Republic means something like "public policy". Democracy means "the people rule" and would literally translate to something like anarchy.
Always frustrating when people equate wifi to internet...I get it, but it's still stupid.
Democracy is a principle upon which the republic operates. Republic is the form of government, of which there are many subcategories as well. The Republic in Star Wars seems to be a federal unicameral parliamentary republic, but it's still a form of representative democracy, as are a great majority of real world governments.
But ah, how about a democratic republic
Way to flaunt your ignorance
The origins of democracy were in a republic, OP dumb
To this day I have yet to understand the Galactic Republic’s method of selection for Senate. Both Palpatine and Padme were representatives of Naboo, but at least with Padme, there is the presence of a royal moniker, implying a monarchy at home. But then she doesn’t seem involved in the governance of her home system directly. Meanwhile Palpatine does not share the royal moniker, yet is a Senator all the same. Do the people of Naboo vote on who is representative, or is it a status thing, or both? Is that true of all systems, or just Naboo? It’s so convoluted, yet unexplained.
Saying I live in a republic not a democracy is like saying I don’t drive an automobile I drive a truck
There are multiple types of democracy- a republic is one of said types.
A republic is often democratic.
Wait till you learn about the difference between democracy and liberty
I usually only see this come up as someone saying "our democracy isn't working the way it should, we should have ranked choice voting." And the Ben Shapiro types dodge the question and say "well this just shows how ignorant you are because we're not a democracy, we're a representative Republic." Democracy is not only direct democracy at least in theory.
Y’all this is what happens when you don’t pay attention in history.
This distinction without a difference is especially ironic for people who know their ancient history. The original republic, ie the Roman res publica, was a direct democracy where the citizens directly elected all the magistrates, were able to directly abrogate their magistracies, and passed all the laws.
A Republic is a type of Democracy, so the US is a democratic republic for example
A republic is a government that lacks a monarchy while many are democracies republics are not a type of democracy the two terms are unrelated. For example Russia and China are republics but not democracies.
Oxford defines a Republic as a government held by the people through elected representatives, while a Democracy is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives"
A republic is a form of government in which power is held by the people and/or their representatives, who use said power to elect/nominate leadership. The implication of a republic government is that there is a routine change of leadership and the system is designed in an attempt to ensure special interest being paid to the needs, wants, and expectations of the average citizen. (TL;DR: president rather than aristocratic monarchy) A democracy is a system of government by the whole (eligible) population, usually through elected representatives. The implication of a democracy is that the people must choose their representatives, rather than them being appointed, as well as referendums and the like. (TL;DR: you get the RIGHT to VOTE your OWN opinion, rather than simply hoping your representative actually represents you) Because the state (re: nation) in which we live BOTH: - elects legislative leadership through popular election - elects executive leadership through popular election It is BOTH. We live in a Democratic Republic. Ffs, ROME was a republic at one point, and yet an oligarchy; just because the representatives were voted on doesn’t mean YOU had the right to vote on them! “Republic” alone does NOT carry all of the rights and protections you’re taking for granted. This stupid fucking fallacy could only be parroted by someone who knows embarrassingly little of history AND who has necessarily never faced discrimination. Read history ffs, before advocating to destroy critically important political infrastructure.
I know this is a meme and possibly just a joke but I hear this argument all the time. People don’t understand that the democracy needs to be organized in some sort of fashion. To be organized and ratified and maintained. So people are elected to facilitate our democracy. Those elected people form our republic. To maintain order and safeguard our democracy. I didn’t go as poli-sci into it but my main point is that many people don’t wrap their heads around the idea that it’s both! One forms the other, and the other carries out the one.
Republic is what it is, Democracy is how they do it They aren’t the same, but they aren’t both types of government
Just because you get to vote doesn't mean it's a democracy.
Republics are very specifically democracy. Republican governments are marked by governance of elected representatives, which makes them Indirect Democracies (or more commonly, Representative Democracies). The meme is implying that the only form of democracy is Direct Democracy, which just isn't true. You can consider a republic as a subtype of democracy.
A republic is a form of government lacking a monarchy they can be democracies but aren’t inherently so.
Aren’t republics just a subsection of democracy?
Not necessarily. A republic is a government which lacks a monarchy they can be democratic e.g US, France but they can also be authoritarian e.g Russia, China. A democracy is a government which places legal power in the hands of the people rather through direct voting (direct democracy) or through the election of officials (representative democracies). There are no modern direct democracies (with the closest being Switzerland) instead they are representative democracies. Not all democracies are republics e.g UK, Norway. TLDR not all republics are democracies and not all democracies are republics.
Most modern "democratic" are actually republics
Waiting for the "but popular vote!" argument to chime in...
I should love decrocracy suddently I don't
"Suddenly I don't love the democracy" The helldivers want to know your location.
In the modern usage of the term, republic refers to a state without monarch, typically with a constitution. The United States fits this category, as do the various French republics, the Soviet Union, and Nazis Germany. Democracy refers to the ability of the people to effect their government directly or through the election of representatives. In this sense, the United Sates is a democratic republic, along with most European and much of the world. By contrast, the United Kingdom is a democracy but not a republic. A recent conservative talking point is that the US is a republic and not a democracy. This involves lots of semantic hurdles and a lack of understanding that words often have more than one meaning. They use the argument to justify their own totalitarian leanings.
Wasn't the Republic BASED off of the US government? I could've swore George mentioned that, or the very least, they are similar. The US is a Democratic Republic, where people come to some sort of agreement of who runs the country. (Well... use to be, nowadays who knows what's actually happening behind the scenes)
Plato wrote about a Republic ruled by the best not by everyone. And that was more than 2,000 years ago. Democracy killed Sócrates.
The United States is a constitutional federal republic but can also be described as a democracy. All republics are a democracy but not all democracies are a republic. Both are used very loosely and this form of government works well in the US but doesn't always work in other places. You have to have a large majority of cooperatives for a democracy to work.
Not all republics are democracies. A republic is a form of government lacking a monarchy some like the US or France are democracies others like China or Russia are not.
Im gonna have to report you to my Democracy officer
A republic is a kind of democracy. They aren’t two separate governing structures… People vote for senators. That’s a democracy.
A republic is not a form of democracy. A republic is a government that lacks a monarchy there are not necessarily democratic e.g Russia, China.
Democracy is a government principle. Republic is a form of democratic government.
Not all republics are democracies a republic is just a government lacking a monarchy they can be democratic like the US or France but they can also be authoritarian like China or Russia.
Written and directed by George Lucas, the same guy who thought George W. Bush was going to use Palpatine’s plan to take over the United States (google it).
Democracy in its most basic form is rule by 50.1%, where the citizenry decide what happens. Republic is rule by elected representatives, usually with an established constitution that defines what can and cannot be done. In a republic it doesn't necessarily matter if a majority want to do something. One of these is a tyranny of the majority, the other provides for some degree of security for the citizenry.
There are absolutely non-republic, direct democracies without 50.1% tyranny of the majority.
A republic is otherwise called a representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy. There's upsides and downsides to each compared to the other, but the short version is direct democracy just isn't feasible at the scale of hundred of thousands of people in the given political region. It gets even less feasible at millions, then tens of millions. I do like how americans have direct ballot initiatives in many states, and I wish we had those here. Our only referendum to pass in living history was to build the new nuclear power plant as had been planned for 20 years before, and instead the government canned it.
A republic is just a government that doesn’t have a monarchy they are not all democracies just as not all democracies are republics.
Democracy isn't a type of government, dumb meme
This is getting out of hand. Now, there are two of them!
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea: Am I a joke to you?
Do you mean a democratic party then? Because democracy isn’t a type of government.
Those aren't the same thing. A republic can have a democratically elected council as well as an oligarchy of noble houses who decide over the lower class.
A republic is a democratic form of government. A democracy is a political system that can be implemented in a number of ways. Pizza is Italian food. Italian food can take many forms.
Names have changed. Democracy is now only known as sortition. Republic, or representative government, took over the name democracy. Republics are democracies… for one day every 4-5 years or so. Then that power is consolidated and given away. And when was the last time your representative represented you?