Introduction
Republics are often linked with equality, which seems custom if one acknowledges the denotation of the appearance from which the word “republic” originates (from Latin: res publica – for people). This involvement between “republic” and “democracy” is nevertheless far from a broad realization, even if acknowledging that there are several forms of democracy. This section tries to give an outline of which concepts of democracy are associated with which natures of republics.
As a basing remark, the concept of “one equal vote per adult” did not become a generically-conventional principle in democracies until around the middle of the 20th century: before that in all democracies the right to vote depended on one’s financial position, sex, race, or an amalgamation of these and other factors. Lots forms of government in previous times termed “democracy “, including for occurrence the Athenian democracy, would, when transplanted to the early 21st century be described as plutocracy or a broad oligarchy, because of the rules on how votes were counted.
Democracy within the realm of a republic
The phrase “democratic republic” may be correct semantically, however, the two schemes of government are quite dissimilar in their origin. The two systems have been in conflict since antique times, and are of special evidence in the actual and in the philosophic histories of antique Greece, particularly in the writings of Plato and Aristotle.
Western forms of government come from the Middle East – the Egyptians, Persians, and the later Romans and Greeks. The results were the Renaissance; and, the Republican movements – attempted in Germany, France, England, brought to momentary fruition in America, and resident for 700 years in Switzerland.
Unluckily, several of the major powers upon the creation of current civic structures all declined, or were not powered by the Filioque doctrine.
The term “Democratic Republic“ has formed official names of several states. In spite of the term’s semantic value, lots of “Democratic Republics” are not regarded liberal democracies; lots of republics that are regarded democratic do not use the title of “Democratic Republic” in their official names.
Both present-day and obsolete Democratic Republics have comprised states that had little or nothing in general with each other. This reasons why states call themselves Democratic Republics are also very dissimilar from case to case, but the ordinary denominator seems to be that all these states were originated as a result of a revolution or war of independence against a domestic or foreign government that was widely noted as oppressive, repressive and undemocratic. Thus the new state gave itself the title of “Democratic Republic” in order to replicate the idea that a dictatorial regime had been defeated and a new, democratic one was put in its place.
This may be the reason why Democratic Republics tend to be either ex-colonies (Congo, Sri Lanka, Algeria, etc.) who achieved independence after breaking away from an imperialist power, or communist states that were created after the overthrow of a capitalist regime (since communists regard capitalism as inherently undemocratic). In particular, the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) gave themselves the title of “Democratic Republics” as a way of implying that their rivals – West Germany, South Vietnam and South Korea as not democratic.
While these communist states are widely regarded as being dictatorships themselves, their use of democratic rhetoric and the term “Democratic Republic” are often cited as proof that democracy forms an integral part of communist ideology, and that even a dictatorship must claim to be democratic if it wants to call itself communist.
Conclusion
Usually, political researchers try to analyze underlying realities, not the names by which they go: whether a political leader calls himself “king” or “president”, and the state he governs a “monarchy” or a “republic” is not the essential features, whether he exercises power as a dictator is. In this sense political analysts may say that the First World War was, in many respects, the death knell for monarchy, and the organization of republicanism, whether de facto and/or de jure, as being necessary for a modern state. The Austro-Hungarian Empire and the German Empire were both eliminated by the terms of the peace treaty after the war, the Russian Empire overthrown by the Russian Revolution of 1917. Even within the victorious states, emperors were slowly being stripped of their authorities and privileges, and more and more the direction was in the hands of elected bodies whose majority party headed the executive. Nonetheless post-World War I Germany, a de jure republic, would develop into a de facto autocracy by the mid 1930s: the new peace treaty, after the Second World War, took more precaution in making the terms thus that also de facto (the Western part of) Germany would remain a republic.
References
- Wilhelm Herzog From Dreyfus to Petain “The Struggle of a Republie” Creative Age Press, New York. 1947
- Miguel Ángel Centeno Democracy within reason Technocratic Revolution in Mexico Pennsylvania State University Press. University Park, PA. 1997
- Derek Shaffer Answering Justice Thomas in Saenz: Granting the Privileges or Immunities Clause Full Citizenship within the Fourteenth Amendment. Stanford Law Review. Vol, 52. Issue: 3. 2000.
- Richard C. Reuben Democracy and Dispute Resolution: The Problem of Arbitration. Law and Contemporary Problems. Vol., 67 Issue: 1. 2004