4 ms·
That "republic" is effectively the same as the "liberal democracy" mentioned in the article. Which, in turn, is the default meaning of "democracy" in contempora
by jltsiren 5y ago
That "republic" is effectively the same as the "liberal democracy" mentioned in the article. Which, in turn, is the default meaning of "democracy" in contemporary discussion. Democracy doesn't mean mob rule by the majority anymore. It's about elected representatives, constitutional protections, civil liberties, rule of law, separation of powers, checks and balances, and so on.
- everybodyknows 5y agoNot so. Constitutional monarchies may qualify as liberal democracies, yet are by definition not republics: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom
- jltsiren 5y agoEuropean constitutional monarchies are effectively republics with some state-sponsored celebrities. North Korea is a republic that is effectively a hereditary monarchy. Official labels don't always match reality. Anyway, my point was that "republic" effectively means "liberal democracy" in this specific context, where someone invokes the Founding Fathers and contrasts it with direct democracy. And when someone talks about present-day democracy, they usually refer to the entire Western system rather than to simple majority rule.