> If you define "democracy" broadly, to include representative democracies
I don’t think this is a matter of being overly pedantic. What you have done is redefined “democracy” to “republic”.
To use a real world example you don’t find many historians that call the ancient republic of Rome a democracy, or a representative democracy.
A republic is just that, a form of government where the people are represented by elected officials/representatives.
Does the US have any characteristic besides elections that results in you calling it a democracy? Do you call China a representative democracy? They do elect representatives after all.
Yes, clearly I give democracy the narrow definition where the people directly manage the affairs of the State, not elected representatives. It’s not just out of tradition though it’s because other forms of government have other names and democracies from the beginning have nothing to do with elections or electing officials. For example in Ancient Greece, the original “democracy”, they had officials for certain purposes that were not elected, they were selected from the populace through a lottery.
> A republic is just that, a form of government where the people are represented by elected officials/representatives.
In 1999, Australia had a national referendum on becoming a Republic [0]–to replace the Queen with a President. The referendum was defeated, despite polls showing a majority of Australian voters favoured becoming a Republic. Most observers attribute the referendum's failure to disagreements among Republic supporters over how to elect the President – many wanted a directly elected President, but the model proposed by the government had the President elected by the Parliament instead. Advocates of the indirectly elected President model were concerned that a directly elected President would become a political office, and transform Australia's political system from a Westminster-style parliamentary one into an American-style presidential system or a French-style semipresidential one. (The fact that Ireland has a nonpartisan directly elected President while retaining a Westminster-style parliamentary system did not seem to be considered.) Also, some were concerned about the fact that the government's proposal gave the Prime Minister the right to sack the President at any time for any reason, although if sacked the President would be replaced by the longest-serving state Governor (which is a non-partisan position) not by a candidate of the Prime Minister's choosing.
If "Republic" means "a form of government where the people are represented by elected officials/representatives", what on earth was Australia voting on – they already have that. The fact that Australia already has "a form of government where the people are represented by elected officials/representatives", and yet isn't a Republic, is pretty clear evidence to me that is not what the word "Republic" means.
> To use a real world example you don’t find many historians that call the ancient republic of Rome a democracy, or a representative democracy.
The Roman Republic was really closer to a plutocratic oligarchy than a representative democracy. The system was set up so the ruling class (the patricians, and even the wealthy plebeian families) had far greater representation than the poor free masses (to say nothing of the slaves). It was definitely not a system of "one person one vote" (or even "one man one vote"). What made it a Republic then? It became a Republic when they abolished the Roman monarchy. It effectively stopped being one when the monarchy was de facto reinstated with the Emperors, although in the earlier Roman Empire, the Emperors still retained the pretence that they were merely "first citizen of the Republic" rather than monarchs (the Principate); it was only in the later Empire that pretence was dropped (the Dominate).
Actually, the early US Republic wasn't a representative democracy either, it was a plutocratic oligarchy like the Roman Republic was – most people were denied the right to vote. Many states imposed voting restrictions based on race, gender, literacy, property ownership, etc; generally speaking, only middle-to-upper class white men were allowed to vote, and representation was very often denied to women, non-white men, and poor white men. It was really only in the 20th century as those voting restrictions were lifted that the US finally became a genuine representative democracy.
> what on earth was Australia voting on – they already have that.
As you said they were voting to replace the “Queen” and become a republic. But for the Queen Australia would be a constitutional republic, hence the vote to remove the Queen to become a republic.
It goes without saying the Queen (Monarch)is not elected and Queen’s heirs will succeed the Queen’s powers. It’s not enough that otherwise Australia has an elected parliament, even dictators in Roman republic were elected.
Because the UK and Australian Constitutions provide for unelected monarchs they are Constitutional Monarchs.
The US isn’t a “representative democracy” it is a Constitutional Republic. The fact that slavery existed under the constitution and was later amended to out law slavery never had and effect of the constitution providing for a Republic form of government at all times.
The US also needs to be viewed through a certain lens: 1) I believe it was only the 2nd attempt in history at creating a Constitution; and 2) the US only became an independent county through war and treaties. Maybe it was a plutocratic oligarchy in the beginning, but they were still elected representatives making it a republic, and that’s exactly why democracies do not have elected officials and the people manage the affairs of the state directly or otherwise temporary officials are selected at random. And as much of a plutocratic oligarch as it may have been, King George laughed when he heard about the concept of the elected “President” after losing the war and he famously said if Washington actually does give up the power “he would be the greatest man in the World.”
> It goes without saying the Queen (Monarch)is not elected and Queen’s heirs will succeed the Queen’s powers
The Queen has basically zero powers in practice. Her role is purely symbolic, with no practical relevance. Her symbolic existence, whether it be good symbolism or bad symbolism, does not change the fact that Australia already has, in every practical sense of the word, "a form of government where the people are represented by elected officials/representatives". You can even say that her rule over Australia is democratically legitimate due to the failure of the 1999 referendum to remove her.
All the Queen's actual powers in Australia are exercised by her representative the Governor-General. She does not instruct the Governor-General what to do. Outside of exceptional circumstances, the GG does what the PM advises the GG to do. In exceptional circumstances (such as the 1975 constitutional crisis), the GG makes up their own mind what to do – they may inform the Queen of their decisions as a courtesy, but ultimately the discretion is theirs not hers. All the Queen does is appoint and dismiss the GG, and the Queen has always (in recent decades certainly) done so according to the advice of the Australian PM.
If the Queen is physically present in Australia, she can personally exercise her powers rather than going through the GG, but even there she is bound by the convention that she does whatever the PM and ministers advise her to do. In the utterly unlikely event that a constitutional crisis happened to coincide with a royal visit, she might be called upon to exercise some discretion, but I think in such a scenario she would quickly depart from the country so the GG could sort it out.
The only hypothetical scenario in which the Queen might have some real power would be if the GG and PM were engaged in a race to be the first one to sack the other – if the PM instructs her to sack the GG, and she knew the GG was about to sack the PM, she would have a choice whether to follow the PM's instructions immediately, or to delay doing so until the GG had the chance to sack the PM first. That situation has never actually happened (although in the 1975 crisis came close to that hypothetical without actually reaching it.)
She has some other extremely trivial powers – for example, when she comes to Australia, she doesn't have to produce a passport (indeed she doesn't have one) – which again, is primarily a symbolic thing. Anyway, at the age of 94, she has made clear she does not plan to ever come to Australia again, so whatever powers she has when physically in Australia are now exceptionally theoretical. We will have to wait and see who is her successor (most likely Princes Charles, although it is not impossible he could predecease her), when that is (her mother lived to 101, she will be 101 in 2027, but it is not impossible she might even live longer than her mother did), and whether that successor ever comes to Australia as King – it could happen that her death is followed by an Australian Republic, and Charles III or William V, King of Australia, might not make it here before one is instated.
> The US isn’t a “representative democracy” it is a Constitutional Republic
I'm sorry but the US government doesn't agree with you. To quote the educational materials the US Citizenship and Immigration Services provides to prospective US citizens: "The United States is a representative democracy." [0]
And the United States Congress doesn't agree with you either – to quote H. Con. Res 139 of 2003 (passed unanimously), the US constitution "established the United States as a federal union of States, a representative democracy within a republic." [1]
So, I think I will trust the US government and US Congress' position, not yours.
Beg you pardon, but note page 7, question 2, and I quote:
>The United States, under its Constitution, is a federal, represent-
ative, democratic republic, an indivisible union of 50 sovereign
States. With the exception of town meetings, a form of pure democ-
racy, we have at the local, state, and national levels a government
which is: ‘‘federal’’ because power is shared among these three lev-
els; ‘‘democratic’’ because the people govern themselves and have
the means to control the government; and ‘‘republic’’ because the
people choose elected delegates by free and secret ballot.
Nowhere does it say it is a representative democracy, but it does state there is the occasional town meeting which is purely democratic in nature.
It explicitly states a republic with a democratic character, specifically in the sense whereby the democratic part refers to that character by which the people are the ultimate source of control over the government.
Props for the citations though. I had to check. Also, note that Congressional Resolutions are a glorified instance of "Hey voters, we have an opinion!" and are largely irrelevant to anyone that actually is already a citizen. Many would prefer that Congress spend more time not making resolutions, and more time solving actual problems.
Now your 0th source is interesting, and I see no indication of when that document entered circulation. However, depending on the administration in power, or who has approval authority, it's best to just kind of average things out based on what you're trying to do.
Though note, if this document is part of the process of becoming a citizen, this is taking surprising liberties with more foundational documents, and shown to the right representative in a bad enough mood, that it may ruin a civil servant's day by having to be rewritten. It's a back and forth sort of thing.
In short, try not to take it too seriously, like those of us that obsess over documents do. It just leads to migraines and frustration.
> Nowhere does it say it is a representative democracy
I quoted page 8 saying exactly that! (Question 5, "The Constitution") "The original charter, which replaced the Articles of Confederation and which became operative in 1789, established the United States as a federal union of States, a representative democracy within a republic"
It says the US Constitution established the United States as "a representative democracy within a republic". This isn't talking about direct democracy at the local level – the US Constitution has nothing to say on that topic. It is saying that the United States itself, federally, is "a representative democracy within a republic".
> In short, try not to take it too seriously, like those of us that obsess over documents do. It just leads to migraines and frustration.
You claimed I was redefining words. I provided evidence that the US Citizenship and Immigration Service and the US Congress uses definitions closer to mine than to yours. You then tell me not to "take it too seriously"? Maybe you could just have said, "No, I was mistaken to say you were redefining words, you aren't".
Definitions are based on usage after all. If the way I (a guy in Australia) use a word is (roughly) the same as the way the US Congress uses it, that is pretty strong evidence that way of using it is mainstream and legitimate
And now I have to apologise for that, because I realise you are not the person I was originally talking to, but someone else. I should have been paying more attention before I spoke so strongly
I don’t think this is a matter of being overly pedantic. What you have done is redefined “democracy” to “republic”.
To use a real world example you don’t find many historians that call the ancient republic of Rome a democracy, or a representative democracy.
A republic is just that, a form of government where the people are represented by elected officials/representatives.
Does the US have any characteristic besides elections that results in you calling it a democracy? Do you call China a representative democracy? They do elect representatives after all.
Yes, clearly I give democracy the narrow definition where the people directly manage the affairs of the State, not elected representatives. It’s not just out of tradition though it’s because other forms of government have other names and democracies from the beginning have nothing to do with elections or electing officials. For example in Ancient Greece, the original “democracy”, they had officials for certain purposes that were not elected, they were selected from the populace through a lottery.