[WikiEN-l] Queen Elizabeth II

Thu Mar 10 20:58:20 UTC 2005

Silverback 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.

This is not true (which proves my point about the problem with people who 
do not do research).  According to the Federalist 10 (penned by James 
Madison, a major contributor to our (yankees) Constitution and fourth 
president --
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of 
representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the 
cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies 
from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure 
and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: 
first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number 
of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, 
and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
They use "republic" to refer to a representative government.  Note -- this 
is (for them) a necessary but not sufficient definition of 
"republic."  They are comparing "republic" to "democracy" and thus 
emphasize the difference.  What they have in common, of course, is no monarch.

Be that as it may, Americans today use these words differently, as do 
political scientists and political theorist (although no political theorist 
to my knowledge defines "republic" as democracy+law.  They call 
democracy+law "liberal state" or "liberal democracy" (tho' I admit I am not 
a political scientist, if there is one out there, perhaps she can confirm 
or correct me)

He also says

>   A third party who doesn't understand can often be an impetous to 
> clearer explanations and understandings on their parts.

And I would again insist that the third party will not be able to suggest 
alternatives unless s/he has done research.

You don't have to be an academic to do good research.  But you just can't 
write an encyclopedia without doing research.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701