Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Is this a Republic or a Democracy?
Message-ID: <1448@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Mar-85 18:42:59 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.1448
Posted: Thu Mar  7 18:42:59 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Mar-85 20:24:43 EST
References: 
Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 53
Summary: 


>John, the important difference between a republic and democracy as
>far as this country goes is that a republic is a rule of LAW, whereby
>democracy is a rule of people, who could arbitrarily change the law
>at whim or in the heat of passion. In the really far out sense 
>democracy is nothing but mob rule.
>
>Fortunately, this country still maintains some sembelance of
>being a republic, and at least the Bill of Rights in the Constitution
>hasn't been changed.
>
>One can argue the petty differences in representative democratic
>processes vs. direct participation, etc., but I believe it
>very important that we realize that our country is supposed to
>be ruled by law, the Constitution, and not the whims of
>the masses.  Especially with TV around that can make or break
>an opinion overnight.  That's why there are so many groups out
>there with slogans like "This is a Republic, not a Democracy.
>Let's keep it that way!"
>
>Tom Buckley

Apart from a few years about 330 years ago, England has never been
a republic, but it boasts of being the home of the rule of LAW. Law
is stronger than the King, stronger than any person.  England has
also never had a written constitution, so the constitution cannot
be changed easily.  You can't imagine an effort to bring in an
English constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, for example.
There are pluses and minuses in this approach.  The framers of the
US Consitution tried to arrange something similar to the way
the English consitution seemed to be at the time -- a reasonably
balanced set of powers among the King (President), Parliament (Congress)
and the Courts.  Now, in England and the rest of the British Commonwealth,
the King (Queen) has lost almost all power to Parliament, whereas
in the US the King (President) has gained power relative to Parliament
(Congress).

Why do you relate the rule of law to being a republic?  Which system
is currently more democratic, monarchy or republic?  Which is more
law-abiding?  Which is more litigious (using the law for personal
advantage)?

If you want more examples of democratic monarchies, look at Belgium,
Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden.  I don't know which have written
constitutions, but all of them are pretty democratically run, and
governed by law.  For a good example of an autocratic republic, look
at France.  The President's whim counts for more even than it does
in the US.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt