Like Living in a Communist/Fascist Country?

[imron]

I can't speak for anywhere else in China, but it's not too uncommon here in Hebei. 13 might be a bit on the young side by a year or two, but a large number of schools here are all boarding schools, with 6-8 students crammed into a dormitory about as big as my bedroom - so it's not quite as exotic as one might imagine.

[mystico_tala]

In my experience, being a foreigner in China you are given so many more rights than the Chinese. Foreigners want to stay in and a lot of students I know want to get out. They always seem surprised when they here that we want to stay, they just can't understand because our experiences are so much different than their lives.

[Long Zhiren]

And if you listen closely my friends, you will hear a tiny thud as another piece of democracy dies and hits the floor

The United States may have facets of democracy, however, it was never intended to be a democracy but a republic. That is why, in times past, the term "democrat" was, in its inception, actually an insult.

To understand this paradox, one quotes Benjamin Franklin who described the situation as roughly: "A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting that vote." In other words, the danger of a democracy is that it becomes government by mob rule or mob justice [which is no justice]. So as a result, the US, by design is intended to be a republic rather than a democracy. To quote Benjamin Franklin again, the key to keeping a republic is for its citizens to be active well-armed lambs.

I wonder if these key words will draw the attention of the internet censors...

However, these distinctions between a democracy and a republic are important for people to bear in mind. When certain protestors demand democracy, do they know what they are asking? In fact, the US education system used to remind children that it is a "republic" not a "democracy." [reference: Pledge of Allegiance] Strangely enough, the Democrats have pretty much erradicated that "republic" education and continue to actively "disarm the lambs" by trying to poo-poo the notion of a Republic (ie the electoral college and other curbs against rule from urban elitists). One could also fear that "mob justice" by popular sentiment is beginning to take hold very much in the US.

At the same time, the Republicans are not entirely upholding the concept of a Republic.

Which leaves to question what is republic about the People's Republic of China or the Republic of China.

[Lu]

Long Zhiren: living in a democratic country myself, I might be mistaken about this, but as far as I know a republic (in which the people vote who's going to be in power) and a democracy (in which the people vote who's going to be in power) are not mutually exclusive. In fact I don't understand how a country could be a republic without being democratic. (Well, China calls itself a republic, but that's not really what the US is aspiring to be.)

[gato]

http://en.wikilib.com/wiki/Republic

Republics are often associated with democracy, which seems natural if one acknowledges the meaning of the expression from which the word "republic" derives (see: res publica).

In a broad definition, a republic is a state whose political organization rests on the principle that the citizens or electorate constitute the ultimate root of legitimacy and sovereignty. Several definitions, including that of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, stress the importance of autonomy and the 'rule of law' as part of the requirements for a Republic.[1] Nonetheless, in practice most nations that do not have a hereditary monarchy call themselves a Republic, and in its broadest sense the idea of a Republic can include almost any form of government that is not a Monarchy.

[Lu]

In a broad definition, a republic is a state whose political organization rests on the principle that the citizens or electorate constitute the ultimate root of legitimacy and sovereignty. Several definitions, including that of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, stress the importance of autonomy and the 'rule of law' as part of the requirements for a Republic.

And how is all this different from a democracy?

[gato]

"In a broad definition, a republic is a state whose political organization rests on the principle that the citizens or electorate constitute the ultimate root of legitimacy and sovereignty." Notice how broad this definition is. Some so-called Republics don't hold election or at least don't hold "free" elections, yet they still point to the various limited ways their citizens can participate in the government to bolster their legitimacy. Republics are not necessarily very democratic (though they should allow for some public participation), and democracies are not necessarily republican.

The wikipedia entry also suggests that some political scientists limit the use of the term to those governments that are restricted in their powers by a constitution.

[md1101]

You talk like a libertarian and not a Democrat. A stronger intelligence community is here to stay--it was shortsighted by both parties to not keep a closer tab on subversives. If you aren't guilty of anything they why worry about surveillance? I'd be more concerned about censorship and false prosecutions--neither of which has occured or the Patriot Act wouldn't have been renewed (by a wide bipartisan vote at that).

this is exactly the attitude that the government wants. first its okay to introduce surveillance.. you must then worry about what you say or do with the fear that your actions may be intepreted as unlawful by agency officials. then certain actions which may not be illegal but perhaps odd or embarassing or socially unacceptable in their own way will also be watched.. which brings blackmail into the equation. by allowing the government to randomly keep surveillance on people you are simply giving up one more freedom and the list will go on all under the name of "protecting you from terrorism". out of fear people continue to allow basic freedoms to be taken away. next will be freedom of speech, freedom to follow your own religion etc. and should such basic rights be taken away you have already given the government the tool to prosecute you.

I'd be more concerned about censorship and false prosecutions--neither of which has occured or the Patriot Act wouldn't have been renewed (by a wide bipartisan vote at that).

now that is just nieve. who is this super good power that keeps a watch to ensure no censorship or 'false prosecutions' occur? catch a few embarassing acts committed by those who vote (surveillance) and that little problem can be handled.

yes i sound a little dire and its unlikely the american government is as bad as i make it sound. but you must realise giving up freedoms one at a time in the name of fear is simply the slow process towards surrendering your freedom to your government and slowly turning your country into a totalitarian state.

[md1101]

by the way, is this forum run from america or china or somewhere else? are there any rules of what we can say (re. opinion/views). i know this site is accessible in china as i used to visit while i was there yet some of these threads get quite opinionated. and i know plenty of sites that have been banned for less than this.

[Lu]

"In a broad definition, a republic is a state whose political organization rests on the principle that the citizens or electorate constitute the ultimate root of legitimacy and sovereignty." Notice how broad this definition is. Some so-called Republics don't hold election or at least don't hold "free" elections, yet they still point to the various limited ways their citizens can participate in the government to bolster their legitimacy. Republics are not necessarily very democratic (though they should allow for some public participation), and democracies are not necessarily republican.

The wikipedia entry also suggests that some political scientists limit the use of the term to those governments that are restricted in their powers by a constitution.

Gato: thanks for elaborating.

Firstly, states call themselves all kinds of things, without necessarily being it. I wouldn't let the definition of 'republic' be influenced by the various states that call themselves so (including the PRC), just like the definition of 'democracy' shouldn't be influenced by examples like the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (former East Germany) or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (N-Korea). If you would take those countries as democracies, you might say that even democracies aren't very democratic.

Secondly, countries in which the government are restricted in their powers by a constitution are not necessarily republics. My own country has a constitution but is not a republic.

Thirdly, wikipedia is IMHO inherently unreliable.

And lastly, I'm going to stop bothering you and hope that Long Zhiren will come back to this thread to enlighten me on this point. If there is such a difference between 'democratic' and 'republican', I'd really like to know, but right now I think it's feihua.

[geraldc]

I think the term republic/republican differs depending on where you live.

In the UK, republican just means anyone opposed to the monarchy.

[Long Zhiren]

by the way, is this forum run from america or china or somewhere else? are there any rules of what we can say (re. opinion/views). i know this site is accessible in china as i used to visit while i was there yet some of these threads get quite opinionated. and i know plenty of sites that have been banned for less than this.

I've been wondering the same thing. It's a shame because this could be such a useful discussion. By "certain protestors," I was about to conjure up keywords like from certain people about 17 years ago...but didn't.

Lu, I got your message about further elaborating on "republic" vs "democracy," but I'm not sure what else I can add. The subsequent discussion has been pleasantly quite good.

All that I could possibly add is that "republic" and "democracy" have an intersecting subset. In the US, the foundation was intended to have a "well-managed" democracy. That is, because, in the purest sense, a democracy with no managed structure is nothing but an anarchy of mob rule (which by definition is still a democracy!). Democracy is an important element not to discard. However, it does need to be managed, and that is what constitutions are for. How one achieves liberty becomes a different beast.

Have you noticed that both the PROC and the ROC's "republics" stem from the same "of the people" concept expounded by Sun Yat-sen? Or shall we say...Marx...or even Robespierre or...? The US is actually not far removed. How "of the people" is actually managed becomes a different issue.

[gato]

republic = representive democracy. Governments that claim to be republics say that they represent the people and derive their powers from them. The PRC says this. But there are many ways of choosing the representives. Some of them are representative (democratic) than others.

Democracies include direct democracy, e.g. decision-making by public referenda. Republics, in theory, would avoid making decision in this way.

So why isn't Holland a republic?

[gougou]

So why isn't Holland a republic?

I'm not Dutch, but I'll take that one, it's simple enough: they're a monarchy.

[Lu]

A constitutional monarchy, to be exact. And a democracy too.

I'm beginning to understand the 'difference' now. Basically a pure democracy is not good because that means mob rule and the oppression of minorities. To avoid mob rule in democratic countries, such countries make constitutions and have rule of law, to ensure the liberty of one person doesn't interfere with the liberty of someone else.

The US calls itself a republic rather than a democracy to avoid associations with mob rule and the like. Other countries call themselves a republic because... because it sounds better than dictatorship, I guess. Like China, North Korea, the former USSR, former East Germany. Yet other countries are democratic and call themselves a republic because they don't have a monarchy, like Austria and France.

[Ian_Lee]

Actually nowadays with a few token countries, almost every country in the world is a democracy.

Even though most western governments don't like Iran, Russia,....and Palestine (which just elected Hamas), you cannot deny that election is regularly held in these countries with certain degree of fairness.

So now there is the distinction between "liberal democracy" and just "democracy". Of course there is also term like "flawed democracy" which refers to a whole bunch of countries that have failed democracy.

[geraldc]

Monarchy, the King/Queen owns the country.

Republic the people own the country. To what extent the people can influence the rulers is another matter.

Is there a republic that was never a monarchy?

[gougou]

Definition of republic according to the CIA World Factbook:

Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.

[imron]

But how is that reconciled with countries like Australia? Which is a representative democracy and meets the definition listed above, but is not a republic (it's still a constitutional monarchy).

[geraldc]

If you talk to me about Republicans it differs as to which part of the world you're referring to.

US, I assume you're talking about the GOP

UK and Australia, anti Monarchy

N Ireland and Eire, IRA, catholics etc

China, Sun Yat Sen et al