For Sweden, Canada and other constitutional monarchies the "Republic = no monarch" definition is useful because there are many discussions about eliminating the monarchy. Thus, the "Republican Party" is fairly common in constitutional monarchies as a one issue party that supports abolishing the monarchy. These parties generally don't get much support but people do understand what the parties are advocating. I'd challenge people (Americans) who use the other definition to indicate how it can be useful. (ignoring the confusion it causes)

The only potential use I can think of is that repeating the mantra "the US is a republic, not a democracy" causes people to subliminally associate the Republican party with being American and the Democratic party as not being American. Of course, this would only be useful for supporters of the Republican party.

"Out of curiosity, what's the advantage of having a powerless President over, say, not having a President"
That would be the simplest transition from the current situation with a powerless king. A president would just take over the King's ceremonial duties.

I always broke the two terms down as Democracy = Direct vote on issues by the people, while Republic = Voting for someone to vote for you on issues.

In other words, there is a degree of separation. In a democracy, the people are the politicians while in a Republic, the people are free to concentrate on other things.

Obviously the lines criss-cross and blur quite a bit. That's how this American breaks it down, though.

Jamiet wrote "Well, you'd at least have someone to put on the stamps."
Well that tiny problem we solved by putting some semi-famous people onto our stamps like Avicii, Robyn, Max Martin, ...

Did not see that there was already 3 pages of discussion. Good reading so far.

On our coins the King's face is present, but he is not present on our paper bills. :) Our new bills have the faces of Astrid Lindgren, Greta Garbo, Ingemar Bergman and Dag Hammarskjöld (prev UN general secretary)

That would be the simplest transition from the current situation with a powerless king. A president would just take over the King's ceremonial duties"

Then what have you gained? If the duties are purely ceremonial then who could possibly be more qualified to carry them out than someone whose entire life is ceremonial? All you have achieved is to waste Parliamentary time on choosing a less suitable candidate.

I can understand the idea of scrapping the monarchy along with the position and the unnecessary ceremonial nonsense that goes with it, but scrapping it only to replace it with an equally unnecessary elected nonentity in a suit sounds like madness.

we have 'Star Trek' stamps!

we started with a ceremonial president under the 'Articles of Confederation', but it proved unworkable.

Ireland has this 'powerless president' - in theory the president's job is to unify the country, beyond party politics. As a figurehead with little actual political power, tough our president does have some, they can refer new laws to the supreme court to test the constitutionality before signing them into law. Other than that, appointing the nee government and accepting the dissolving of the government is pretty important. The president doesn't have the power to decide policy or who will be in the government (out of all the elected members of parliment) but can invite people to the palace... Em Aras, to form a government. Of course a government without a majority tends to be pretty weak and unstable, but we've managed on this year fairly well... (With the biggest opposition party abstaining so the government can pass some legislation)

Octavious wrote "Then what have you gained? If the duties are purely ceremonial then who could possibly be more qualified to carry them out than someone whose entire life is ceremonial? All you have achieved is to waste Parliamentary time on choosing a less suitable candidate. "

Then we have gained equality for everyone and freedom for the King and his heirs "Liberté et égalité" as the French would have put it. :)

Basically it is a matter of principles.

Not going to bother reading this inevitable shitshow of a thread, but no, North Koreans do it too. See, it's "People's Republic," not "People's Democracy." That differentiation is key so that everyone knows North Koreans elect their leader but don't have a complete democracy.

Bo, really? What about the congo(s)? Why did they choose their bames?

*names, even.

I thought this site was supposed to be a bunch of people with above average intelligence...and you a bunch of <fill in the blanks> are arguing about whether or not there is a difference between the definitions of "Republic" and "Democracy"

Then again, seeing as how it is the tried-and-true tactic of modern day liberalism to redefine terminology on a regular basis in order to comform to their political agenda, it doesn't surprise me in the least that the local kiddies don't understand that words have meaning, fixed definitions, regardless of your opinions...

Well, the Democratic Republic of the Congo obviously doesn't know shit about itself, because you can't be a democracy and a republic.

Bo pleasant as ever! Why do you bother at all?

In theory couldn't you be a democracy and a republic? I mean if you have a situation in which your federal government is run as a republic and the provinces are run as democracies. Then in theory you'd be both, since the provincial constitutions are supported by the federal constitution.

Another way would be if there were two houses of legislature. One house was a elected body who proposed legislation and acted as a first vetting process for new laws. And the other was the democratic body of eligible voters who voted for the law directly. Then in this way it is Botha republic and a democracy.

Sure, CB. But I don't care and this is a stupid question about a stupid concept. Every country is a republic or a democracy, even when it isn't. USSR, anyone? PRC? Islamic Republic of Pakistan? It's a joke.

Bo showing off his "intellectual" side... :D

"Well, the Democratic Republic of the Congo obviously doesn't know shit" Enough said....

That being said, bo, "democracy" =/= "democratic" Two different words, child. Related, but different, and therefore different meanings.

ALSO...since "democratic republic" is just a name, and not strictly a definition of the country's government, which has ranged anywhere from a republic to a dictatoriship.

I guess, since you are so persuaded by self-assigned titles, you actually think the now-media-famous student at University of Michigan is actually Royalty, having proclaimed himself "Your Highness"...

"Bo pleasant as ever!"


Didn't you mean "Bo, ignorant and ill-informed as ever"???

"Every country is a republic or a democracy, even when it isn't."

Bo, you truly are a blithering idiot, aren't you?

I don't want to appear to be agreeing with Krellin... But kinda.

I want to know what the difference is between the Republic of Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo (apart from bein opposite sides of the river...)

Also, words are defined by usage, so i guess the American usage differs from most of the rest of the world.

The issue with Iran is that it is an Islamic Republic, both Theocracy and Republic.

Krellin, the use of sarcasm clearly goes over your head. Also, you don't know shit about the Congo.

Ora, it's a name. You don't select the name. They do. It is meaningless when another nation can write their own definition for a word. Everyone calls themselves a republic.

I take it that you krellin has concluded that Bo is a "kid"? Yes that seems credible! Bad language and immature behaviour supports that thought rather well.

What you guys need is a good totalitarian boot to the back!!!

Quit picking on my pals bo, red and BB!