Republic/talk

republic or republicanism

---

I don't think the article as it now exists describes a republic. A republic is a system where political power is held by a body that represents the interests of the public. Democratic participation is the mechanism by which the governing body is made to act in the interests of the public. A republic precludes the existence of a monarch, but does not require a democratically elected head of state.

---

That's a useful point.

'Republicanism' is a little better, though still so short as to be dangerously general. I linked Roman Republic to Republic only because I thought that page had a better name, not better content. --MichaelTinkler

---

"to some the very embodiment of the concept"? Who thinks so? What philosopher or political theorist doesn't draw a distinction between a democracy and a republic? --LMS

---

Sorry, if you think that a Republic is a representative democracy, what would you call the Roman Republic or any other form of government where many citizens were not allowed to vote.

My view is supported by Merriam-Webster. --Yooden

---

Yooden, would you please be more specific about what M-W thinks about 'many' and 'not allowed'? I know how arcane Roman voting procedure was, but one part was simple - physical presence. Therefore, people not in Rome the day of the election were not able to vote (doesn't mean they weren't permitted to travel). The second thing was the bizarre system of voting by classes (not entirely fiscally based, but pretty close), which meant not that people weren't allowed to vote, but that elections were often decided before everyone voted. It was hardly a 'fair' system by modern standards, but a citizen in Rome on the day of the elections certainly was allowed to participate. Of course, then there's the inherent problem of citizenship in the ancient world.... In the descriptive sense, Rome was "representative" and Athens was "direct". In the ideal sense both left a lot to be desired. --MichaelTinkler.

---

I don't know what M-W has to say about Roman voting laws. I only meant to say that they support my view, namely that a republic is neither subgroup nor supergroup of a democracy.

As for Roman laws: Only a small fraction of the population was allowed to vote, even though a lot more were considered citizens. This is in contrast to Greek democracies, where every citizen was allowed to vote. Women, slaves and whatever other perioiks (sp?) lived in any given city just did not count.

The most obvious difference between republics and democracies can be found in Northern Europe: Norway, Sweden and Denmark are democracies and monarchies. I only mentioned Rome because they coined the term. --Yooden