Timeline for Is there a reason why the U.S. Senate, unlike most upper chambers in liberal democracies, is still co-equal to the lower chamber?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 14, 2023 at 14:04 | comment | added | wrod | Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive terms. The US is both. "For the people" = republic. "By the people"=democracy. The literal translation of the word "republic" is public affairs or the business of the people. | |
| Mar 22, 2019 at 18:23 | history | edited | jamesqf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 700 characters in body
|
| Mar 21, 2019 at 22:31 | comment | added | Jouni Sirén | @DrunkCynic I am aware that words "democracy" and "republic" have other meanings in certain contexts, but the OP did not start this discussion in such a context. As for the USSR (I'm not that familiar with North Korea), it was constitutionally not that different from Western republics. Because there was a single ruling party, they could just circumvent any constitutional safeguards whenever it was politically desirable. | |
| Mar 21, 2019 at 12:22 | comment | added | Drunk Cynic | The contrast between democracy and republic takes on a specific meaning in a historical review of documents produced during the Ratification of the current US Constitution. It is quite literally a world apart from European models of government. It is inappropriate to try and straw man the US Constitutional Federal Republic against the 'republics' of North Korea and USSR. @JouniSirén. | |
| Mar 18, 2019 at 18:10 | comment | added | Jouni Sirén | @Deolater We are not having this discussion in that context, because the term "liberal democracy" was already used in the title. (Anyway, I guess that "republic" means roughly the same in that context as "liberal democracy" in an European context.) | |
| Mar 18, 2019 at 13:10 | comment | added | Deolater | @jounisiren In discussion of US political history, "Republic" means something like "representative democracy", and not just "doesn't have a king" like it does in other contexts. If you look at documents written by US founders, you'll see "republic" contrasted with "democracy" quite often in just the way jamesqf has. | |
| Mar 18, 2019 at 6:27 | comment | added | Jouni Sirén | "Liberal democracy" means the things people in the West often take for granted, like the rule of law, separation of powers, elected representatives, one vote per person, civil liberties, and property rights. Things the US has in common with some monarchies like Netherlands and the UK, but which separate it from certain republics like North Korea and the former USSR. | |
| Mar 18, 2019 at 5:25 | comment | added | jamesqf | @Jouni Sirén: I understand your point, but I don't think the US is, constitutionally, a liberal democracy in either sense of the word. | |
| Mar 18, 2019 at 1:51 | comment | added | Jouni Sirén | "Liberal democracy" is the form of government advocated by classical liberals, and the US was the prototypical example. The term has little to do with the current meanings of "liberal" and "democracy" in American political discourse. | |
| Mar 17, 2019 at 18:30 | history | answered | jamesqf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |