Yes, it is. Or, at least, if not, not for the first reason you present.
> Officially it is a republic. A democratic one, but a republic.
A democratic republic is still a democracy (usually, a representative democracy, but since any political system which isn't a monarchy can be correctly called a "republic", a direct democracy could also be a democratic republic.)
The idea that "democracy" and "republic" are mutually exclusive categories is quite wrong.
> Unofficially political power is so unevenly distributed it should be called an oligarchy.
And so connected to wealth that it should be called plutocracy, according to some, sure.
In theory, more of a federal republic whose constituent members are democratic republics than a democratic republic itself. In practice those members are more oligarchic (specifically plutocratic) than democratic, though, but most of the people saying “republic not a democracy” probably don't want to come out and say “federation of plutocracies.”
We have a representative democracy in the U.S. We also have a republic. The two terms are not contradictory.
"Representative democracy" tells you how decisions are made--we select a few citizens to make decisions on our behalf. "Republic" tells you who is sovereign--in the U.S. the individual citizens have the right and power to rule, and have used that to construct our own government.
Counter examples:
The U.K. is a representative democracy, but not a republic. It's a monarchy.
North Korea is a republic but it's not a democracy. It's an autocracy.
"""In American English, the definition of a republic can also refer specifically to a government in which elected individuals represent the citizen body, known elsewhere as a representative democracy (a democratic republic),[4] and exercise power according to the rule of law (a constitutional republic)."""
> The United States is substantively an oligarchic republic that has the superficial form of a rather distorted democratic republic
Yes, it is a _representative_ democracy, as are most democracies around the world. We could be talking about the means to achieve such representation, and the legitimacy of such means, but by definition, it is still a republic _and_ a democracy, flawed or not.
> I always thought that Replublic and Democracy are orthogonal concepts.
Yes, you're correct. I should have been more accurate and said a Republic CAN be a Democracy, or specifically said Democratic Republic. I'll edit my post to clarify.
> I have frequently observed Americans commenting on this forum and on Reddit that America is a republic but not a democracy. This confuses me so much.
It's a political talking point that often gets interpreted as fact. Democrats want a more direct Democracy, specifically things like eliminating the Electoral College. In that case, because the Electoral College is specifically setup to tamp down the power of high population states which are generally Democratic (as in the party) strong holds. To that end, you hear them claim Republics are undemocratic, and the less informed of their ranks interpret this to mean Republics are mutually exclusive with Democracy.
In more academic circles, there are arguments about the validity of a Republican (the system, not party) government, but that's rarely what you're encountering.
This pops up every now and then and is complete bullshit. A republic is a system of government with a parliament and an elected head of state. Being a republic and being a democracy are completely unrelated. There are republics that are oligarchies, dictatorships, or democracies. Similarly, there are monarchies that are oligarchies, dictatorships, or democracies.
You can discuss about legitimacy and the fact that the US is a federation of states instead of a government of citizens, but “it’s a republic not a democracy” is stupid. Using it as a way of justifying blatant undemocratic aspects of the way the US work is doubly so.
But a democratic republic or representative democracy with republican form (as opposed to, e.g., a constitutional monarchy) is both a form of democracy and a form of republic.
There are autocratic and/or theocratic republics, among others, that are not forms of democracy.
> Generally it's called a republic if there is representative government
No, if there's an elected representative government, it's generally a representative democracy. Even when (as in the case of the UK) it's also a Constitutional monarchy, and so not a republic of any kind.
The United States is substantively an oligarchic republic that has the superficial form of a rather distorted democratic republic (and representative democracy) and which likes to rhetorically appeal to democratic ideology, particularly as the entire justification for the government having any legitimate authority at all.
So, it isn’t a democracy, but it is entirely fair to criticize its failure to be one and insist that it ought to fix that proble, since its entire claim to legitimacy rests on it being a democracy as well as a republic.
This is such an awful argument. North Korea is a republic and not a democracy. China is a republic and not a democracy. Denmark is a monarchy and a democracy. Why would you want your country to be an undemocratic republic when you could be a democratic republic?
> Why the need to defend this hot mess and everything it does as democratic, when technically it is not?
If we're arguing technicalities, the US is "technically" a type of democracy - specifically a representative democracy. If we go by your more exacting standards every government decision, ordinance, or law except those by referenda isn't democratic. Which is neither technically correct, nor is it correct as generally understood by laypeople. I agree with all the problems you pointed out but those are orthogonal to the question at hand.
DPRK is not a democracy because it fails several criteria. Russia is a de jure democracy but not a de facto one.
> If you define "democracy" broadly, to include representative democracies
I don’t think this is a matter of being overly pedantic. What you have done is redefined “democracy” to “republic”.
To use a real world example you don’t find many historians that call the ancient republic of Rome a democracy, or a representative democracy.
A republic is just that, a form of government where the people are represented by elected officials/representatives.
Does the US have any characteristic besides elections that results in you calling it a democracy? Do you call China a representative democracy? They do elect representatives after all.
Yes, clearly I give democracy the narrow definition where the people directly manage the affairs of the State, not elected representatives. It’s not just out of tradition though it’s because other forms of government have other names and democracies from the beginning have nothing to do with elections or electing officials. For example in Ancient Greece, the original “democracy”, they had officials for certain purposes that were not elected, they were selected from the populace through a lottery.
> being a republic does not preclude being democratic.
No, but the particular form of the US republic does so in practice.
> The United States is a democracy.
The United States may have been built around an idea of representative democracy, but in function it is more of a plutocratic republic with quasi-democratic rituals.
> First of all, it is a republic and not a democracy.
That's like saying it's a dog not an animal; our republic is also a democracy, they are not mutually exclusive terms so please stop saying this nonsense.
> Just so you know, we are a republic. Not quite as easy as a democracy,
That's very peculiar specially American internet thing to say. In 1787 the terminology was still unsettled but it's not so today. In both political science and in the common use outside the United States democracy and republic are not excluding each other.
United States is democracy (the source of power) and republic (the structure of the democracy as opposite of monarchy) and federation (structure of the government).
Most modern representative democracies are republics. The term republic can be used to any form of government in which the head of state is not a hereditary monarch. For example many communist states are Republics.
US is also first or one of the first liberal republics.
> Those are the fundamental aspects of a republic, not of a democracy.
I was indeed referring to a republic where majority of modern democracies operate. I assumed given the context of the discussion this was obvious. Turns out, that it is not.
Yes, it is. Or, at least, if not, not for the first reason you present.
> Officially it is a republic. A democratic one, but a republic.
A democratic republic is still a democracy (usually, a representative democracy, but since any political system which isn't a monarchy can be correctly called a "republic", a direct democracy could also be a democratic republic.)
The idea that "democracy" and "republic" are mutually exclusive categories is quite wrong.
> Unofficially political power is so unevenly distributed it should be called an oligarchy.
And so connected to wealth that it should be called plutocracy, according to some, sure.
> Officially, North Korea is also a republic.
And a democratic one, too.
reply