• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you get upset at the word democracy?

Does the word democracy upset you?


  • Total voters
    24
So you claim that you know the thoughts of the majority of the people when they hear the word democracy.
Uh-huh.

The term democracy dates back to Greece, and the definition is quite well established:

The term is derived from the Greek: δημοκρατία - (dēmokratía) "rule of the people",[1] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (krátos) "power", in the middle of the fifth-fourth century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.

...The term democracy first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought. The philosopher Plato contrasted democracy, the system of "rule by the governed", with the alternative systems of monarchy (rule by one individual), oligarchy (rule by a small élite class) and timocracy (ruling class of property owners).[22] Although Athenian democracy is today considered by many to have been a form of direct democracy, originally it had two distinguishing features: firstly the allotment (selection by lot) of ordinary citizens to government offices and courts,[23] and secondarily the assembly of all the citizens[24].

All citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the Assembly, which set the laws of the city-state. However, the Athenian citizenship was only for males born from a father who was citizen and who had been doing their "military service" between 18 and 20 years old; this excluded women, slaves, foreigners (μέτοικοι / metoikoi) and males under 20 years old. Of the 250,000 inhabitants only some 30,000 on average were citizens. Of those 30,000 perhaps 5,000 might regularly attend one or more meetings of the popular Assembly. Most of the officers and magistrates of Athenian government were allotted; only the generals (strategoi) and a few other officers were elected.[2]

When the term Democracy is used by itself, it tends to refer to the original form of democracy, see above.
 
It might also be called "direct democracy" or "pure democracy."
No it's not.
And let's assume you have intended to speak on Direct democracy from the beginning(which leaves me confused as to why you've simply not used the accepted term, direct democracy), how does that mean that a constitutional republic is the only form of democracy?
Or even, how does that mean that representative democracies(not direct, there is no direct democracy upon earth as to present time) that are not constitutional republics are less moral?
The above is why a constitutional republic is better than a democracy. /thread
How so?
What makes you say "Constitutional republics" and not "Representative democracies"?
After all, the US is a representative democracy and a constitutional republic, as I've proven before.
 
The term democracy dates back to Greece, and the definition is quite well established
I know the full story about the birth of Democracy, and how it was initially a direct democracy (which wasn't really direct even back then, as the only ones who were allowed to decide were the Greek property owners, and not the entire of the citizens of ancient Greece.).
That has little to do with our issue here.
Direct democracy is actually not related to our issue, at all.
When the term Democracy is used by itself, it tends to refer to the original form of democracy, see above.
Nothing above confirms that, I'm afraid.
 
What makes you say "Constitutional republics" and not "Representative democracies"?
After all, the US is a representative democracy and a constitutional republic, as I've proven before.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic]Constitutional republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power.

The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.

Don't feel bad for not knowing this, I'd say 70% of Americans don't realize it either.
 
So you claim that you know the thoughts of the majority of the people when they hear the word democracy.
Uh-huh.

Please point out where I said anything of the sort?

Now you're really making a strong argument there. :2razz:

:lol:

It is subjective by individual's eyes, not by society's eyes.
One may find a form of regime that he is aligned with its morality as the most moral of regimes.
I'm however referring to the morality code followed by the society.

What is society if not a group of individuals. Again it does not change anything and it makes it no less subjective.
 
Constitutional republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Don't feel bad for not knowing this, I'd say 70% of Americans don't realize it either.
I'd say that the majority of Americans are with you on this.

However I am still incapable of seeing how this means that a Constitutional republic cannot be a representative democracy.
You cannot compare a sub-form to its form.

And even your article states that a constitutional republic is indeed mostly a representative democracy.
 
how does that mean that a constitutional republic is the only form of democracy?

Strawman.

Or even, how does that mean that representative democracies
that are not constitutional republics are less moral?

Constitutional republics put checks on the power of any one branch of government to dominate, and guarantee the protection of rights. Democracy may or may not do that.
 
And even your article states that a constitutional republic is indeed mostly a representative democracy.

Read the article again.

Key differences:

-Representatives must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

-executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights

-no individual or group has absolute power.

In a representative democracy without these constitutional laws, the will of the majority could easily overwhelm the rights and protection of the minority. That's a HUGE difference.
 
Last edited:
Strawman.
Meant to say "The most moral form of democracy".
I'm typing fast as I have a lot of people to answer to, it would seem.
Constitutional republics put checks on the power of any one branch of government to dominate, and guarantee the protection of rights. Democracy may or may not do that.
That constitutional republic you're speaking about is a democracy.
Hence Democracy is the most moral form of regimes.
You are arguing about why constitutional republic is the most moral sub-form of Democracy (which is a different argument).
 
Meant to say "The most moral form of democracy".
I'm typing fast as I have a lot of people to answer to, it would seem.
That constitutional republic you're speaking about is a democracy.
Hence Democracy is the most moral form of regimes.
You are arguing about why constitutional republic is the most moral sub-form of Democracy (which is a different argument).

Wrong again. See my above post. A constitutional republic differs substantially from a democracy, and is more moral than a democracy, as a result, if morality is defined as having the greatest protection for individual liberties.
 
Read the article again.

Key differences:

-Representatives must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

-executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights

-no individual or group has absolute power.

In a representative democracy without these constitutional laws, the will of the majority could easily overwhelm the rights and protection of the minority. That's a HUGE difference.
Catz' Article said:
A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people(=Representative Democracy), and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
Catz Part Deux said:
Key differences:

-Representatives must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

-executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights

-no individual or group has absolute power.

In a representative democracy without these constitutional laws, the will of the majority could easily overwhelm the rights and protection of the minority. That's a HUGE difference.
A representative democracy can be a Constitutional republic, all it needs is to set those rules that enforce the representatives to follow the constitution.

The US, for example, is a representative democracy and a constitutional republic.

Proof:
Also, a representative democracy may or may not be a constitutional republic. For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."
 
Wrong again. See my above post. A constitutional republic differs substantially from a democracy, and is more moral than a democracy, as a result, if morality is defined as having the greatest protection for individual liberties.
Give an example of a constitutional republic that is not a Democracy.
 
Give an example of a constitutional republic that is not a Democracy.

This is a flawed use of logic. There are democracies that are not constitutional republics. A constitutional republic protects individual freedoms better than a democracy does. Thus, a constitutional republic > a democracy.

:doh
 
This is a flawed use of logic. There are democracies that are not constitutional republics.
Because it is a sub-form of democracy.
Some states follow other sub-forms of democracy.

/thread
 
Are you being willfully obtuse?
FC_ObtuseAng_41727_lg.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom