"A country can have more than one type of democracy."
"A country can have more than one type of republic."
Wow what an enlightening lesson, I feel like I truly understand the differences between the two systems now.
This is categorically wrong on every front.
Athenian democracy would be called oligarchy in the modern day. Our modern forms of representative and direct democracy simply isn't the same.
Republic is a description of who that society believes is sovereign. It means that sovereignty rests with the general public, it is the opposite of a monarchy in which sovereignty rests with one family
Democracy is one of the ways of governing a society, they're different things.
Another commenter made a good point. There are non-democratic Republics. That is, ones in which the leaders, while elected, are neither accountable to nor selected by the public as a whole.
So I'm not sure public sovereignty is inherent to a republic.
"democratic republic" seems to describe what the vast majority of us see as "modern democracies" in the developed world. The USA, UK(functionally it's absolutely not a monarchy), France, Germany, etc...
As distinct from oligarchical republics such as historical Venice or one party republics such as the PRC.
> Athenian democracy would be called oligarchy in the modern day. Our modern forms of representative and direct democracy simply isn't the same.
>
>
False. While it's true that Athenian democracy had significant differences from modern forms of democracy, it wouldn't be accurate to label it as an oligarchy in the modern day. Athenian democracy was characterized by direct participation of citizens in decision-making, where they could vote on laws and policies directly in the Assembly.
In contrast, an oligarchy is a system of government where power is concentrated in the hands of a small group of people, typically those belonging to a certain social class, political party, or economic elite. This differs significantly from Athenian democracy, where political power was distributed among a broader base of citizens, albeit with limitations such as restrictions on citizenship and participation.
Modern forms of representative democracy, where citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf, and direct democracy, where citizens participate directly in decision-making through mechanisms like referendums, are indeed different from Athenian democracy. However, none of these systems would be accurately described as an oligarchy, as they fundamentally involve broader participation and distribution of power among the population, albeit through different mechanisms.
I'll stop there since you're just a dopey little keyboard jockey fulfilling orders.
I think the point here was that membership of the citizenry in Athenian Democracy was quite restrictive, not to mention most politic offices were explicitly tied to wealth, making it more oligarchic than a mass participatory system.
That's all this loser does is argue with people and then pretend to be a genius tough guy from the safety of a screen. Meanwhile, in other posts, he's crying about having carpal tunnel and being broke.
And this is where you run and hide like the little bitch that you are. Blocking and reporting and crying about being a victim, which is all you will ever be in life.
That's all this loser does is argue with people and then pretend to be a genius tough guy from the safety of a screen. Meanwhile, in other posts, he's crying about having carpal tunnel and being broke.
Keep seeing particular bot like Reddit users post Info like this and repeatedly use the ‘we’re not a democracy’ line, guessing this continued effort is linked to certain countries.
1. You have a listing the theocratic republic and then say power is in the hands of the people.
2. You have a listing for representative democracy and then talk about laws by majority.
3. Many democracies have a constitutional foundation, so rights can’t be taken away by majority (or at least simple majority).
4. Republics don’t require a constitution.
5. Most democracies have constraints on government.
I can keep going, but this is some right wing BS.
The chart aims to distinguish between a democracy and a republic, but it contains several inaccuracies and oversimplifications:
1. “In a democracy the power is in the hands of the people. In the Republic, power is in the hands of individual citizens.” - This is misleading. Both democracies and republics derive their authority from the people, and the power is effectively in the hands of the people through various mechanisms of participation and representation.
2. “In a democratic system, laws are made by the majority. In the Republic system, laws are made by the elected representatives of the people.” - This is an oversimplification. In representative democracies, which are a common form of democracy, laws are also made by elected representatives. Direct democracy is where laws are made directly by the majority, without necessarily going through representatives.
3. “In a democracy, the will of the majority has the right to override the existing rights. In the Republic system, the will of the majority cannot be overridden since the constitution will protect those rights.” - This is incorrect. In constitutional democracies, the rights of individuals are protected by the constitution, just as in a republic. Majority rule does not mean that the rights of individuals or minorities can be overridden without regard to a constitution.
4. “In a democracy, there are no constraints on the government. In a republic there are constraints on the government.” - This is not accurate. In both systems, there can be constraints on the government. In a constitutional democracy, like in a republic, the government is constrained by the constitution and the rule of law.
5. “In a democracy, the main focus is the general will of the people. In a republic, the main focus is on the constitution.” - This distinction is misleading. In both democracies and republics, the constitution can embody the general will of the people and both can focus on the well-being of the citizens and the protection of their rights.
6. The table presents democracy and republic as mutually exclusive, which they are not. Many republics are also democracies, and the term “republic” often emphasizes the aspect of having no monarch and being concerned with the public matter (res publica), while “democracy” emphasizes rule by the people.
7. The categorizations of types of democracies and republics are oversimplified and don’t fully explain the complex variations within each system.
The concepts of democracy and republic are nuanced, and while they have distinct historical roots and theoretical underpinnings, in practice, they often overlap and inform one another.
This stinks of the *America is a republic, not a democracy* crowd, and the fact it’s a screenshot from Mastodon doesn’t do anything to dispel that.
That it uses Rome as an example, yet claims the main focus of a republic is their constitution is singularly dumb.
America is a republic, and not a democracy. Not sure there’s a specific crowd designated for a historical crowd. Also Rome did have a constitutional framework, it wasn’t formalized like modern nations, but it existed and was the cornerstone of their laws via the 12 tables that created a foundation for future legal developments.
America isn’t a democracy. Taxpayers don’t have any direct way to decide where their taxes go, and can’t directly vote on those issues. Taxpayers often have to choose between the “lesser of two evils”, both of which don’t actually represent their interests. Further, so long as corporate lobbying and SuperPACs remain as influential as they are without any meaningful regulations, political representatives have no incentive to serve the people and their constituents are the banks and corporations that finance their campaigns.
This isn't the argument. I mean, there are a dozen excellent criticisms of this chart on its merits. It's truly awful. This is an additional comment on top of all of those.
That’s not accurate - there are plenty of examples of republics that aren’t democratic.
Venice was a republic for hundreds of years without elections.
North Korea is a republic - enough said.
Eritrea is a republic and has never held an election.
*Democracy* is often best viewed as an adjective, rather than a noun.
This is a very good point I had not considered. Republics in no way inherently require popular selection of leadership.
So what, I wonder, fundamentally differentiates a republic from a representative democracy? I suppose it emphasizes your point that "democracy" as a noun is of limited utility in the first place.
That's all this loser does is argue with people and then pretend to be a genius tough guy from the safety of a screen. Meanwhile, in other posts, he's crying about having carpal tunnel and being broke.
> A republic is a subset of a democracy.
False. While there are similarities between republics and democracies, they are not the same, and one is not necessarily a subset of the other.
A democracy is a form of government in which power is vested in the hands of the people, either directly or through elected representatives. In a democracy, citizens have the right to participate in decision-making processes, such as voting in elections or referendums.
A republic, on the other hand, is a form of government in which the country's affairs are considered a "public matter," and the head of state is usually an elected or appointed president, rather than a monarch. Republics can be democratic, authoritarian, or somewhere in between. The key feature of a republic is the absence of a hereditary monarch and the presence of an elected or appointed head of state.
While some republics are democracies (e.g., the United States), others may have different forms of governance, such as authoritarian republics or hybrid systems. Therefore, while democracy and republicanism can coexist, they are not inherently interconnected, and one is not a subset of the other.
Shill harder.
Is that what you tell yourself every morning when you see your reflection in the mirror? Seriously child, go outside and touch some grass, you look like you’re about to have a coronary.
That's all this loser does is argue with people and then pretend to be a genius tough guy from the safety of a screen. Meanwhile, in other posts, he's crying about having carpal tunnel and being broke.
USA is a Democratic Republic, which is apparently not possible according to this very flawed graphic. Wikipedia (with whatever flaws it too may have) says this term describes a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy. Yep.
The "we are a Republic not a Democracy" crowd should refresh themselves on the old Miller Lite argument about "less filling" vs. "tastes great". Maybe it's both! And using the word democracy in a sentence is pretty historically common to describe our form of democratic republic in the USA.
It's pedantic to argue about the word someone uses here, and is just a convenient way to deliberately miss the actual meaning of the discussion at hand.
You can’t be both a democracy and a republic. Also no, words have meaning so discussing them isn’t pedantic. America is a republic pretending to be a democracy. A democracy would involve the taxpayers having their interests represented. The clear polarized and intensifying political fragmentation of this country makes it clear that people aren’t the constituent base of the representatives they elect.
The majority of taxpayers don’t want to finance foreign conflicts. Yet every year without fail, foreign conflicts are financed. Since COVID, poverty rates and homelessness have positively correlated with increasing inflation, higher priced basic goods, and monetary foreign aid.
> USA is a Democratic Republic, which is apparently not possible according to this very flawed graphic. Wikipedia (with whatever flaws it too may have) says this term describes a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy. Yep.
>
> The "we are a Republic not a Democracy" crowd should refresh themselves on the old Miller Lite argument about "less filling" vs. "tastes great". Maybe it's both! And using the word democracy in a sentence is pretty historically common to describe our form of democratic republic in the USA.
>
> It's pedantic to argue about the word someone uses here, and is just a convenient way to deliberately miss the actual meaning of the discussion at hand.
This is coolguides, take that pol shit where it belongs.
That's all this loser does is argue with people and then pretend to be a genius tough guy from the safety of a screen. Meanwhile, in other posts, he's crying about having carpal tunnel and being broke.
Cool guide. You got botted which is unfortunate. A lot of companies spend money on reddit to astroturf socialism, so if you express a sentiment that is negative to democracy you wind up getting botted. There's also a small segment of reddit who are just absolute losers, and run a few sock puppets and will try to downvote you early if your views don't align. Inferior genetics kind of stuff.
Haha no I'm actually an adult contributing to society and so I can see clearly which path is better for the middle class. Your a need keyboard warrior that has his mommy pay his bills so doesn't actually know anything
Between the last 2 presidents, it's been clear as day for anyone that will look with an open mind. Inflation was lower with trump, we were energy independent, no war in urkraine or Palestine and on and on and on. I'll never understand how people can't see how the Pelosi family made their money off the stock market, how biden is literal mentality incapable tight now and couldn't pass a cognitive test if they gave him one, and biden hasn't been able to raise a son that's worth anything so how is he capable of being president
This is terrible.
"A country can have more than one type of democracy." "A country can have more than one type of republic." Wow what an enlightening lesson, I feel like I truly understand the differences between the two systems now.
This is categorically wrong on every front. Athenian democracy would be called oligarchy in the modern day. Our modern forms of representative and direct democracy simply isn't the same. Republic is a description of who that society believes is sovereign. It means that sovereignty rests with the general public, it is the opposite of a monarchy in which sovereignty rests with one family Democracy is one of the ways of governing a society, they're different things.
Another commenter made a good point. There are non-democratic Republics. That is, ones in which the leaders, while elected, are neither accountable to nor selected by the public as a whole. So I'm not sure public sovereignty is inherent to a republic. "democratic republic" seems to describe what the vast majority of us see as "modern democracies" in the developed world. The USA, UK(functionally it's absolutely not a monarchy), France, Germany, etc... As distinct from oligarchical republics such as historical Venice or one party republics such as the PRC.
> Athenian democracy would be called oligarchy in the modern day. Our modern forms of representative and direct democracy simply isn't the same. > > False. While it's true that Athenian democracy had significant differences from modern forms of democracy, it wouldn't be accurate to label it as an oligarchy in the modern day. Athenian democracy was characterized by direct participation of citizens in decision-making, where they could vote on laws and policies directly in the Assembly. In contrast, an oligarchy is a system of government where power is concentrated in the hands of a small group of people, typically those belonging to a certain social class, political party, or economic elite. This differs significantly from Athenian democracy, where political power was distributed among a broader base of citizens, albeit with limitations such as restrictions on citizenship and participation. Modern forms of representative democracy, where citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf, and direct democracy, where citizens participate directly in decision-making through mechanisms like referendums, are indeed different from Athenian democracy. However, none of these systems would be accurately described as an oligarchy, as they fundamentally involve broader participation and distribution of power among the population, albeit through different mechanisms. I'll stop there since you're just a dopey little keyboard jockey fulfilling orders.
I think the point here was that membership of the citizenry in Athenian Democracy was quite restrictive, not to mention most politic offices were explicitly tied to wealth, making it more oligarchic than a mass participatory system.
Don't speak for other people.
Sure
That's all this loser does is argue with people and then pretend to be a genius tough guy from the safety of a screen. Meanwhile, in other posts, he's crying about having carpal tunnel and being broke.
Yeh I saw that, no interesting conversation to be had there. Kind of sad, really.
If you were worth talking to, I would put more effort in to my responses.
Ok big boy
Scorned like the psy fg you are.
And this is where you run and hide like the little bitch that you are. Blocking and reporting and crying about being a victim, which is all you will ever be in life.
Yawn. Another day of being a fgt on your agenda huh.
[That's amazing lol](https://youtu.be/2sRS1dwCotw)
I would take anything you endorsed as a sure sign of it being shit, tbh.
I endorse you fully
Well that's not how endorsements work, dimwit. You would be condemning me.
HAHAHAHA
That's all this loser does is argue with people and then pretend to be a genius tough guy from the safety of a screen. Meanwhile, in other posts, he's crying about having carpal tunnel and being broke.
Smells like bullshit
Keep seeing particular bot like Reddit users post Info like this and repeatedly use the ‘we’re not a democracy’ line, guessing this continued effort is linked to certain countries.
Can you critique it? I am interested in your arguments
1. You have a listing the theocratic republic and then say power is in the hands of the people. 2. You have a listing for representative democracy and then talk about laws by majority. 3. Many democracies have a constitutional foundation, so rights can’t be taken away by majority (or at least simple majority). 4. Republics don’t require a constitution. 5. Most democracies have constraints on government. I can keep going, but this is some right wing BS.
Thank you, learnt something new today
A republic is a democracy. Direct democracy is NOT the only form of "real democracy".
The chart aims to distinguish between a democracy and a republic, but it contains several inaccuracies and oversimplifications: 1. “In a democracy the power is in the hands of the people. In the Republic, power is in the hands of individual citizens.” - This is misleading. Both democracies and republics derive their authority from the people, and the power is effectively in the hands of the people through various mechanisms of participation and representation. 2. “In a democratic system, laws are made by the majority. In the Republic system, laws are made by the elected representatives of the people.” - This is an oversimplification. In representative democracies, which are a common form of democracy, laws are also made by elected representatives. Direct democracy is where laws are made directly by the majority, without necessarily going through representatives. 3. “In a democracy, the will of the majority has the right to override the existing rights. In the Republic system, the will of the majority cannot be overridden since the constitution will protect those rights.” - This is incorrect. In constitutional democracies, the rights of individuals are protected by the constitution, just as in a republic. Majority rule does not mean that the rights of individuals or minorities can be overridden without regard to a constitution. 4. “In a democracy, there are no constraints on the government. In a republic there are constraints on the government.” - This is not accurate. In both systems, there can be constraints on the government. In a constitutional democracy, like in a republic, the government is constrained by the constitution and the rule of law. 5. “In a democracy, the main focus is the general will of the people. In a republic, the main focus is on the constitution.” - This distinction is misleading. In both democracies and republics, the constitution can embody the general will of the people and both can focus on the well-being of the citizens and the protection of their rights. 6. The table presents democracy and republic as mutually exclusive, which they are not. Many republics are also democracies, and the term “republic” often emphasizes the aspect of having no monarch and being concerned with the public matter (res publica), while “democracy” emphasizes rule by the people. 7. The categorizations of types of democracies and republics are oversimplified and don’t fully explain the complex variations within each system. The concepts of democracy and republic are nuanced, and while they have distinct historical roots and theoretical underpinnings, in practice, they often overlap and inform one another.
Thanks for the Chat GPT output
This stinks of the *America is a republic, not a democracy* crowd, and the fact it’s a screenshot from Mastodon doesn’t do anything to dispel that. That it uses Rome as an example, yet claims the main focus of a republic is their constitution is singularly dumb.
You're right Wu-Tang Clan said it better
Fash rule everything around me
Very much has that vibe
America is a republic, and not a democracy. Not sure there’s a specific crowd designated for a historical crowd. Also Rome did have a constitutional framework, it wasn’t formalized like modern nations, but it existed and was the cornerstone of their laws via the 12 tables that created a foundation for future legal developments. America isn’t a democracy. Taxpayers don’t have any direct way to decide where their taxes go, and can’t directly vote on those issues. Taxpayers often have to choose between the “lesser of two evils”, both of which don’t actually represent their interests. Further, so long as corporate lobbying and SuperPACs remain as influential as they are without any meaningful regulations, political representatives have no incentive to serve the people and their constituents are the banks and corporations that finance their campaigns.
My favorite thing that Redditors do is when they just say that you come off as right wing & that is their argument
I mean it's a bad look sooooo
This isn't the argument. I mean, there are a dozen excellent criticisms of this chart on its merits. It's truly awful. This is an additional comment on top of all of those.
A republic is a subset of a democracy. Democracy is a very broad term that includes many different types of governments.
That’s not accurate - there are plenty of examples of republics that aren’t democratic. Venice was a republic for hundreds of years without elections. North Korea is a republic - enough said. Eritrea is a republic and has never held an election. *Democracy* is often best viewed as an adjective, rather than a noun.
This is a very good point I had not considered. Republics in no way inherently require popular selection of leadership. So what, I wonder, fundamentally differentiates a republic from a representative democracy? I suppose it emphasizes your point that "democracy" as a noun is of limited utility in the first place.
That's all this loser does is argue with people and then pretend to be a genius tough guy from the safety of a screen. Meanwhile, in other posts, he's crying about having carpal tunnel and being broke.
What did you actually consider, because it seems like you were talking out of your ass.
> A republic is a subset of a democracy. False. While there are similarities between republics and democracies, they are not the same, and one is not necessarily a subset of the other. A democracy is a form of government in which power is vested in the hands of the people, either directly or through elected representatives. In a democracy, citizens have the right to participate in decision-making processes, such as voting in elections or referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a form of government in which the country's affairs are considered a "public matter," and the head of state is usually an elected or appointed president, rather than a monarch. Republics can be democratic, authoritarian, or somewhere in between. The key feature of a republic is the absence of a hereditary monarch and the presence of an elected or appointed head of state. While some republics are democracies (e.g., the United States), others may have different forms of governance, such as authoritarian republics or hybrid systems. Therefore, while democracy and republicanism can coexist, they are not inherently interconnected, and one is not a subset of the other. Shill harder.
Do much hostility, go outside and touch some grass.
> Do much hostility, go outside and touch some grass. Ok, how much abuse are you asking for? Are you paying like usual?
Child, unlike you I see no need to engage in arguments with know nothings. I have better things to do. You do you boo.
> Child, unlike you I see no need to engage in arguments with know nothings Well you met a genius today, idiot - since you've been in an argument.
Is that what you tell yourself every morning when you see your reflection in the mirror? Seriously child, go outside and touch some grass, you look like you’re about to have a coronary.
That's all this loser does is argue with people and then pretend to be a genius tough guy from the safety of a screen. Meanwhile, in other posts, he's crying about having carpal tunnel and being broke.
This! Here
For “This! Here” reddit has provided an upvote button. Just click on it and avoid the non sense comment
Wow this is crap
Canada, despite not being a republic, has some characteristics of a republic.
Your eyes while not being oranges, has some characteristics of oranges.
They're not mutually exclusive, Einstein. The post is bullshit.
All the things I like should be a democracy so I can choose. All the things I don’t like should be a republic so people who disagree can’t choose.
USA is a Democratic Republic, which is apparently not possible according to this very flawed graphic. Wikipedia (with whatever flaws it too may have) says this term describes a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy. Yep. The "we are a Republic not a Democracy" crowd should refresh themselves on the old Miller Lite argument about "less filling" vs. "tastes great". Maybe it's both! And using the word democracy in a sentence is pretty historically common to describe our form of democratic republic in the USA. It's pedantic to argue about the word someone uses here, and is just a convenient way to deliberately miss the actual meaning of the discussion at hand.
You can’t be both a democracy and a republic. Also no, words have meaning so discussing them isn’t pedantic. America is a republic pretending to be a democracy. A democracy would involve the taxpayers having their interests represented. The clear polarized and intensifying political fragmentation of this country makes it clear that people aren’t the constituent base of the representatives they elect. The majority of taxpayers don’t want to finance foreign conflicts. Yet every year without fail, foreign conflicts are financed. Since COVID, poverty rates and homelessness have positively correlated with increasing inflation, higher priced basic goods, and monetary foreign aid.
> USA is a Democratic Republic, which is apparently not possible according to this very flawed graphic. Wikipedia (with whatever flaws it too may have) says this term describes a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy. Yep. > > The "we are a Republic not a Democracy" crowd should refresh themselves on the old Miller Lite argument about "less filling" vs. "tastes great". Maybe it's both! And using the word democracy in a sentence is pretty historically common to describe our form of democratic republic in the USA. > > It's pedantic to argue about the word someone uses here, and is just a convenient way to deliberately miss the actual meaning of the discussion at hand. This is coolguides, take that pol shit where it belongs.
No politics here, just fact.
That's all this loser does is argue with people and then pretend to be a genius tough guy from the safety of a screen. Meanwhile, in other posts, he's crying about having carpal tunnel and being broke.
It's drivel actually. That's a fact.
Someone did not pay attention in world government
Cool guide. You got botted which is unfortunate. A lot of companies spend money on reddit to astroturf socialism, so if you express a sentiment that is negative to democracy you wind up getting botted. There's also a small segment of reddit who are just absolute losers, and run a few sock puppets and will try to downvote you early if your views don't align. Inferior genetics kind of stuff.
I'll never understand democrats
How do you mean?
They mean that they are in middle school
Haha no I'm actually an adult contributing to society and so I can see clearly which path is better for the middle class. Your a need keyboard warrior that has his mommy pay his bills so doesn't actually know anything
Adults don't include the last sentence. It throws away your credibility.
Between the last 2 presidents, it's been clear as day for anyone that will look with an open mind. Inflation was lower with trump, we were energy independent, no war in urkraine or Palestine and on and on and on. I'll never understand how people can't see how the Pelosi family made their money off the stock market, how biden is literal mentality incapable tight now and couldn't pass a cognitive test if they gave him one, and biden hasn't been able to raise a son that's worth anything so how is he capable of being president