Re: Democracy in America…
Reply #31 –
Since you haven't answered in years, it isn't so surprising that you would make a number of new posts skirting the issue. I can condense it more if you like, to anglophone (mostly) countries.
Is the USA a republic (yes/no/partially)?
Is Canada a republic (yes/no/partially)?
Is Australia a republic (yes/no/partially)?
Is the UK a republic (yes/no/partially)?
If answering partially, please say which parts are unrepublican.
If answering no, please say what exactly would exclude that country from being a republic.
The USA, yes… But increasingly approaching the other alternative.
With the adoption of the 17th Amendment, the US Senate became little more than the UK's House of Lords… (The effect of "popular election" was to dissipate the influence of state legislatures and governors. Thus was the 10th Amendment, finally, obviated!) Similarly, the Executive branch has -by its numerous Agencies, Bureaus and Departments- encroached upon matters great and small, simply because they can. And, of course, there are examples of the Judiciary's excesses…
If these qualms don't give you quivers, you're either far removed from their effects or far more complaisant with their entrenchment.
Please note: When most Americans speak of our Republic, we mean: A constitutional, presidential, separation-of-powers, federalist thing-a-ma-bob…! You're excused, if you don't readily understand. And we're excused, if we can't quite make you…
Canada, no. It is a parliamentary system — the ruling party is entitled to rule! The fact that they're -usually- smarter than to allow that doesn't obviate the procedures in place; similarly, their recourse to the monarchy is problematical.
Australia is a difficult case: Much commonality (at least, terminologically…) with our system should make me say "yes" — but the 1975 episode clearly requires a "no"…
Like other Commonwealth nations, they're allowed self-government — in their kiddie-sand lot. The "adults" step in, when things get fractious.
The UK is the exemplar of parliamentary government. It is not and likely never will be a republic. Their history of class divisions will always "inform" their politics, either in ascendence, decadence or reaction.
The "problem" with parliamentary systems is that they try to approximate majority rule.
No doubt, I've not satisfied you, jax: You want me to explain our way of life — by giving a glib definition of a single term, republic… Our history shows that we've not secured such a simplistic explanation.
But, when contrasted with another often-thought-to-be synonymous term, democracy, we bristle! And you become confused… (Or think us un-sophisticated! If you're aware of that word's dirivation, you know we're not offended. ) To us, democracy is synonymous with majority rule. And that principle is odious, since it doesn't comport with liberty — except accidentally: We meant to be deliberate…