On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:34:33 +0000, actionforum(a)comcast.net
<actionforum(a)comcast.net> wrote:
But it is an abstraction in another sense. The Americans have an ideological tradition
starting with some of the founders and kept alive by conservatives, libertarians and
classical liberals, which made a specific point that the US was not a democracy, but a
republic. By republic they meant the rule of law, constitutional law, that could not be
overridden by the majority. So, while Americans can be as sloppy in its use of democracy
and as happy to call itself a democracy as the rest of the English speaking world, when
democracy is drawn in opposition to republic, not only is the word republic understood in
this context, but a less common definition of democracy is. So, by abstracting to
American english, not only is emotional distancing achieved, so are more precisely defined
and accepted meanings. In American, we know whether or not Austrailia is a republic, by
the American definition.
It is incorrect to equate a republic with democracy in Australia.
Australia has been a democracy since Federation in 1901, but only a
few constitutional scholars considered it to be a republic. This is
still the case, the great majority of Australians thinking that
because the Queen's head is on the coins, we cannot possibly be a
republic.
But the fundamental constitutional situation remains the same as a
century ago. The Constitution is the primary law, it cannot be
over-riddden by normal legislation, and if it is to be changed,
Parliament and the people, including a majority of people in a
majority of the six States, must all agree. All power stems from the
people and there is no external source.
--
Peter in Canberra