actionforum(a)comcast.net wrote:
------------- Original message --------------
Sorry... I'm totally confused. We have a
constitution, we elect our
government (the populace elects them), in fact we MUST elect our
government as this is compulsory and we have equality before the
law and due process under the rule of law! So in what way are we
*not* a democracy?
Is there some weird American definition of democracy I'm not aware
of? May I suggest looking at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#.22Democracy.22_versus_.22republic.22
and if necessary update it?
Sorry, I was under the impression that you did not consider
Austrailia a republic, and that republic meant "democracy" in
Austrailian english. It was the discussions on [[Austrailia]] and
the far more substantial article on [[republicanism]] that gave me
this impression. The short blurb you point to on in the Democracy
article, says the head of state must be elected. This appears at
odds with the republicanism article which states only that he must
serve a limited term, but also talks about many other issues,
including the sovereignty lying with the people.
Now I have heard people argue that a representative democracy is not
a democracy, but I don't take that position.
-- Silverback
Ummm... no. Don't know about the talk page of [[Australia]], but most
Australians realise that a republic is a democracy, but other forms of
govt like, for instance, constitutional monarchies, can also be
democracies. After all, we do live in one!
AFAICS, the person who argued that point on [[Talk:Australia]] (now in
the archives) was talking up a VERY odd viewpoint. This is NOT how
Australians view republics! It seems to me that this person was a person
who spent quite a bit of time around academics who like to argue strange
positions. As Skylaw shows us, sometimes academics argue against general
opinion, as
http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=927
shows:
"This changed when Prime Minister Paul Keating's policy for the 1996
general election included a proposal to conduct an indicative plebiscite
on the question of whether Australia should have an Australian head of
state, obviously intending thereby to enquire whether Australians wished
to abolish their links with the monarchy and become a republic. The
question was based on the premise that our present head of state is the
Queen, who is British. Thereupon, several monarchists, led by Sir David
Smith, developed the argument that Australia did not need a republic to
achieve an Australian head of state; it already had one - the
governor-general. Initially, Sir David argued that "we have two heads of
state - a symbolic head of state in the Sovereign, and a constitutional
head of state in the Governor-General". But, as the republic debate
intensified, the Queen's role was increasingly diminished until she was
virtually invisible. (Even Australians for Constitutional Monarchy
became the "no republic" group, as reflected in the address of their
website.) Now the Queen has been relegated to being merely "the
sovereign". Monarchists - especially Sir David Smith and David Flint -
have pursued this argument unceasingly since 1996, refusing to
acknowledge any doubt on the subject.
"Since republicans wish to abolish Australia's constitutional links with
the monarchy, whether or not the monarch is "head of state", debate over
the identity of Australia's head of state is an arid and ultimately
irrelevant battle over nomenclature. However, since it forms part of the
nationally important republican debate, it is appropriate to enquire as
to who actually is our head of state, an issue on which the Constitution
is silent."
As you can see, academics can argue interesting and novel viewpoints to
try to force a point through to win a larger argument.
Incidently, I note that the person arguing that we are a republic never
signed their comments (it's now in an archive). Many MANY people
disagreed with them, and told them he/she was wrong.
TBSDY