You're viewing a single thread.
Technically republic is subset of democracy. Also called representative democracy.
No. A republic is the opposite to a monarchy.
What form of democracy is used doesn't matter.
Also democracy is opposite of monarchy. And anarchy. Republic is "a state in which political power rests with the public through their representatives" which is also called representative democracy, while democracy includes both representative democracy(duh) and direct democracy.
Also democracy is opposite of monarchy.
It isn't. Look at the monarchy's in Europe(Great Britain,Denmark,Belgium). They all have democratic monarchys. A monarchy just means, that the head of state is a king, that isn't elected. This doesn't necessarily mean,that he has any say in politics.
They all have democratic monarchys.
A monarchy just means, that the head of state is a king, that isn't elected.
I'll leave your quotes here here.
The head of state doesn't necessarily has a say in politics. All laws are still made by elected politicians.
Then it's republic.
No. Just look at Great Britain as an example. They are a parlamentaric monarchy. The head of state is the King/queen. He doesn't has a say in politics, but represents the country. He isn't elected. All laws passed in the UK are worked out and passed by the elected Parlament.
Being a republic just means, that the head of state isn't a king/queen. It has nothing to do with democracy.
He doesn't has a say in politics, but represents the country.
So is he monarch or honorable pensioner?
"Rests with the public" means "doesn't rest with a monarch". If you're a monarchy, you're not a republic.
So the UK is not a republic. Norway is not a republic. Canada is not a republic. (But they are representative democracies.)
On the other hand, Iran is a republic. North Korea is a republic. Russia is a republic. (Are they functional democracies? That doesn't matter.)
Americans are brought up to think "monarchy bad, republic good", but in practice, mileage varies.
If you're a monarchy, you're not a republic.
Where did I say opposite? The only thing I said was that republic is one of types of democracy. That's it.
It's not hard to understand when some subset is member of superset and that superset doesn't contain another set, said subset doesn't contain such set either. When I say "bus is one of types of vehicles" and get response "but horse is not a bus", the only reaction is "no shit, Sherlock". But when I say "representative democracy(AKA republic) is one of types of democracies" I get what appears to be swarm of angry Americans.
Americans are brought up to think "monarchy bad, republic good", but in practice, mileage varies.
Looking at what I see about America, they look very monarchy-happy. Did you want to say French?
You said republics are also called representative democracies. You also said the monarchy is the opposite of democracy.
Those are both incorrect statements.
You said republics are also called representative democracies. You also said the monarchy is the opposite of democracy.
If you're a monarchy, you're not a republic.
Where did I say opposite?
I asked where did I say opposite. Not where we said same thing.
I am not saying the same thing as you.
You're saying monarchy is the opposite of democracy.
I'm saying monarchy is the opposite of republic.
This isn't a matter of opinion. You're just wrong. Monarchies can be representative democracies. The UK is a monarchy and it's a representative democracy.
(But it's not republic, because republic is the opposite of monarchy.)
I'm saying monarchy is the opposite of republic.
Monarchies can be representative democracies.
I'll leave it here.