I think i was putting them with the US,in terms of voter choice and freedom.

Iran is an odd one, because on the surface they have three political parties they can vote for... (The hardline conservatives, the moderate conservatives and the moderate reformists, with the republican reformists being banned) This seems like it gives far more freedom of choice than China, or even the US, and yet ultimately there will be no serious reform while the current Supreme leader lives... So it is closer to a Monarchy in some ways...

Also, republics and monarchies are both able to have constitutions (and usually do) but it is not a necessity and is beside the point. Constitutions are simply rule books describing the system.

^ that was are TrPrado and 'the unity within China's Communist Party'

@Merirosvo, there is often references to the constitution in the UK, yet there is no single document which makes up a constitution like in Ireland (the republic of,) and the US.

Instead there is a vague notion of what is constitutional and what is not, based on laws, precedents set by courts, and so on.

I would have said that in a republic the authority of the state is derived from the constitution. A single document determining how power is to be utilised (in a Tyranny, the words of the Tyrant is law, and is doesn't matter what is written down).

In a Monarchy the reigning monarch derives their power from God (under the 'Divine right of Kings')

In a democracy the state derives it's legitimacy from the people.

Thus the US is a republic and a democracy. Because the US constitution determines how power is utilised, and the constitution stipulates that the government is 'of the people, by the people, and for the people'.

A constitutional Monarchy is one where the Monarch's powers are not absolute but are prescribed by 'constitutional' law.

I believe that Nepal, for example, just transitioned from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy after the King signed the new constitution into law. (but i forget the details and wikipedia says it is a republic)

@orathaic, you're right, a constitution isn't always a rulebook in the sense of it being a document. As you said it can be a collection of various things including precedents and traditions. However, I disagree that "in a republic the authority of the state is derived from the constitution". You could have a state where the power is divided amongst the people but not formally defined in anyway. Thus, there is no monarch (so it's a republic) and there is no constitution.

Although, I suppose you could say the tradition of dividing the power amongst the people is a 'constitution'. However, if you argue that, you could also argue that absolute monarchies also have constitutions since there is a tradition that the monarchs power is absolute. (And this would work whether or not the Monarch claims to have divine right)

"Iran is an odd one, because on the surface they have three political parties they can vote for..."
They have hundreds of parties with vastly unique ideologies. And the economy of Iran already is more controlled by the President with the backing of the Majlis. This was only achieved by putting together a coalition which saw economy as the one and only unifying issue, where they agreed on the idea they wanted to trade with foreign countries.

"and the constitution stipulates that the government is 'of the people, by the people, and for the people'."
That's Abraham Lincoln.

Yeah, and i bet Honest Abe wasn't even refering to the US and its constitution and traditions when he said that...

But according to wikipedia 'The Constitution's first three words—We the People—affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens'

All governments exist to serve the citizens #politicaltheory

@merirosvo so i believe the difference os that a constitution is written laws, and an absolute monarchy is rule by the word of the monarch.

So if your tradition is to have rule based on weitten laws limiting the absolute monarch, you may have a constitutional monarchy. But if the monarch can just say that the laws and traditions are null and void then you have an absolute monarchy.

I guess Nepal is a good example, because between 2000 and 2010 it went from being an attempted constitutional monarchy to an absolute monarchy - when the King decided to close down the parliament and take all power back onto himself - and then turned into a republic, when the king failed to defeat the Maoist rebels, and instead ended up standing down. And then they failed to agree any constitution in the four years they were given... No tradition really rules effectively in Nepal at the moment, so it become fairly hard to pin down what they are/will be in ten years...

I don't understand where the idea that democracy must be direct democracy comes from. Do they teach this in American schools? Is a representative legislature something you would consider undemocratic?

The definition of democracy is not something that remains static over time, and it is always subject to some debate. It is extremely silly to say that, because modern democracies don't fit into whatever model you were taught in elementary school, the USA, Canada, UK, etc. aren't democracies. That would be news to most of the citizens there and the political scientists who study them.

@"TrPrado
All governments exist to serve the citizens #politicaltheory"

I believe you will find that most power structures end up serving themselves, step 1) protect your own power, step 2) increase your own power, step 3) maybe do some service to your intended goals.

You can't achieve your goals without step 1 and 2, because if you don't protect your power, someone else will take it from you while engaging in step 2.

In practice it is only when people have a way to threaten the power of governments that the government serve them.

@TrPrado, so do you agree that there is simply a disagreement on the definition of republic and democracy? If, as Chaqa stated, it's simply part of the US school curriculum (for whatever reason) than I'll take back calling it 'ridiculous'. I had assumed it was something thought up by a small group of American conservatives/libertarians.

I'm sure difference of definition could play a significant role.

@orathaic, I feel like the source of power has to come in to play in this. In your example the King was able to take power using a military (I assume) and the rebels took it back using a military. Perhaps the 'constitution' is whatever set of rules have the support of the military (or the strongest military).

Guys this really isn't hard the US is a republic who teaches its citizens it is a democracy to levitate public dissent. Those who educate themselves find it is a republic usually understand why it is so after watching 10 minutes of reality television and then move on with life. I mean would you really want a television personality as president?

@Merirosvo i think there is a more useful way of looking at things.

The mental construct of a 'constitution' has a social function. Sure societies can exist without it, but where a country is ruled by a constitution, it is living up to some function. By understanding this social function we can understand the essence of the constitution.

Again, i think the idea that a state derives its power from a set of written things (laws& precedent or a single document) is the mental construct. The function them is to define how power should be used; ie some limits on that power, and to describe some of the right of citizens.

Thus for example, in the US this might limit the power of the state to invade the privacy of the citizens. It might limit how the armed forces can be used within the country (to prevent a cue d'etat). Or many other things which might serve the state in some way.

The idea of a constitution is always to limit the abuse of power. Whether that is an absolute monarh giving up some power, or a newly formed republic trying to define some freedoms which they strive for.

What happened in Nepal was a huge mess, with various governing coalitions forming, Maoists and Leninist-Stalinists, and supporters of the old royal system all trying to aort out the cluster fuck and establish a federal system based on a constitution which they failed to write/agree on. Along with attempts to integrate the former maoist rebel forces into the standing armed forces, and disagreements over that...

You can't just say any tradition is a constitution. But it does remind me of a game of thrones quote/puzzle. 'A rich man, a king, and a priest each command a single soldier to kill the other two, who survives?', 'well the rich man promises money, the king commands loyalty, and the priest promises heaven in the afterlife, i guess it depends on what the soldier wants.' - 'exaclty, the truth is, power lies where men believe it lies'

(Ok, completely messing up that reference...) But the point is, if people believe that the constitution holds power then it does. If people believe in the Divine right of Kings then... Yadda yadda yadda.

The social function of a constitution is to have the rules written down; to make them clear so anyone can read them; thus allowing people challenge the actions of those who would ignore them - thus giving the constitution the power to have itself enforced.

If you have ever had a class contract, or similar group agreement, then you are benefitting from this idea.

and now i know why you guys are not playing any games. you're on here giving each other history and political lessons. do you know what the term 'idiot' comes from? one who doesn't participate in the democratic process of ancient athens. so are you up for a game or more 'school'?

Sweden is constitutional monarchy. We have written down exactly how it works. What the monarch can and cannot do. And it is not much. :) If I got my wish we would replace our king with a powerless president elected regularly by our parliament. I have another Internet nick which I use "Repulikanen" (someone that wants to get rid of the monarchy) :D

I don't know too many people that get too worked up about this.

Yeah I know. It's kind of a solitaire hobby I endulge in. :/

besides you are all proletarians or serfs.

whereas i have a title, you peasants!

@ peterlund
Out of curiosity, what's the advantage of having a powerless President over, say, not having a President

Well, you'd at least have someone to put on the stamps.

Bit inconvenient if they keep electing a new one every couple of years. Better to put something timeless on the stamps that Sweden is known for. Such as...

...erm...

...hang on a tick...

...fjords are more a Norway thing...

...um...

Keeping the monarchy ain't that bad an idea, you know.

"something timeless on the stamps that Sweden is known for. Such as..."

the zipper

might fine Swedish invention that :-) I use it everyday

300 or so years of peace?