Talk:Republican democracy

United States

The article contains this paragraph:

The United States is the most famous Republican Democracy, although, depending on which party has the most control, it fluctuates from leaning to slightly more democratic (people or state run) to being slightly more republican (central government run)which is why each of the 2 main parties refer to themselves in such a way. Though it may be sometimes slightly less centrally led, it remains a Republican Democracy.

I have several problems with this. (1) there is no citation for the claim; (2) is the author claiming that the US' form of government changes, even slightly, depending upon which party is in power? (3) While I have not researched the consensus of political scientist in this regard, I think that both political parties have, in recent years, advocated very strong centralized governmental powers, but historically (over the last 70 years), the general view is that the Republican Party has been less in favor of central power (therefore perhaps less 'republican' than has the Democratic Party). However this has often been an issue-by-issue thing. It is my impression that, while their rhetoric may change, neither party favors anything close to a direct democracy on the federal level, while both utilize elements of direct democracy where available in the states (e.g. the ballot proposal process in California and other states).

The paragraph also seems to be confusing issues of Federalism with issues of Republican democracy implying that favoring states’ rights is somehow more ‘democratic.’ As the states themselves are republican democracies, I am unsure whether this is true, although perhaps an argument could be made as many states do have more elements of direct democracy available under their constitutions. Even assuming this to be true, I would also question whether either party could be seen as more protective of states’ rights presently. Both use states’ rights arguments on certain issues and not on others (e.g. The Democrats are pro-States’ Rights on gay marriage, but not on other civil rights issues. The Republicans recently have been in favor of central control on gay marriage, the 'right to die' (Terri Schiavo) and drinking age, but not on environmental, racial discrimination and other issues). While I cannot cite a reference for this, I think that neither party is more ‘democratic’ than the other but that both make the argument on an issue by issue basis, based upon a political calculus of which argument is more likely to win on a given issue.

What do others think? Franklin Moore 15:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are quite correct in your analyis, but I am not sure what implications that should have for the paragraph in question. Can you suggest a better phrasing? Or just make the edit?--Bhuck 08:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The proper analysis of the United States' Republican Democracy should focus on the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The "highest law of the land" derives its authority from the people, establishes a representative form of government with limited authority over the governed and state governments, and specifies how certain rights are protected, but then stipulates other rights are still reserved by the people and states. The comments regarding how the political parties view the role of a federal government is convoluted, and does not represent either party properly.--User:Paul Spause 08:01, 01 Aug 2006 (UTC)

First, the United States is a federal republic with a democratic tradition--it is not and never has been a democracy of any kind. It is a republic that utilizes democratic processes for selecting executives/representatives and in many states, citizens can vote in referendums. So, you could say that the U.S. is a republic that uses elements of representative democracy and direct democracy within its otherwise republican system. To jump to a conclusion that this political combination forms the term "republican democracy" is a leap... UNLESS... you have a number of sources for this term with a definition resembling what I just said. At any rate, until sources are provided, I even doubt that this term is real. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph in question, (which seems to be a recent addition by an anon), as ineffably silly. As Franklin Moore pointed out above, the structural nature of the US system doesn't waver back and forth from election to election. The bit about why the "parties refer to themselves in such a way" is equally goofy - and also implies that the Republicans are the "central government run" ones (not the ticket I remember Ronald Reagan running on), while the Democrats are the "democratic (people or state run)" ones (someone forgot to tell FDR).

I tweaked the first paragraph as well to:

• changed "which has democracy" to "which has democratic forms of government", as much to make the definition less circular as to (hopefully accurately) illuminate the "democracy" half.
• remove the "thing for the people" definition, which seems to provide little to the meaning at hand, and isn't contrasted to the second definition, or referenced at all. -

Some more improvements to the wording could be made, and better interconnection with the other related articles, but I want to see what, for instance, republic has to say. David Oberst 05:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Constitutional democracy

I discovered something interesting at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional republic 2 AfD discussion. Not only is there a constitutional republic article which covers similar ground to this one, but there is also constitutional democracy, of which this could be considered a subset. I would suggest that this article be merged to constitutional democracy, which can be upgraded to indicate whatever republic/non-republic division might exist. Since all of these articles share most of their important characteristics from liberal democracy, this will prevent duplication (and possible contradiction) of that content. - David Oberst 02:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As the AfD for constitutional republic (here) came to no consensus, I've proposed adding it as a merge and redirect candidate to constitutional democracy as well. Since there are now two, it would probably be better to centralize the discussion at the Talk page there. - David Oberst 21:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably a dead discussion (almost three years later), but I support a merge with Constitutional democracy, the meaning is more or less the same and this article contains little useful content. Without objections, I will redirect soon. --Leivick (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Now almost a year later, I agree with the proposed merger. Franklin Moore (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)