Talk:Democratic republic

Hey,

What happened to the page? I need a disambiguation or something. These words are very politicized and I needs some clarity:

Democratic republic constitutional democracy Constitutional republic federal republic

These seem to be all bandied about.

-Grok70 or Sam_gunn (i'll figure out my user name later.)

While I am not an editor of this article, I don't understand the objection. Are you saying that you believe that the terms used in the article are "too politicized" on a political subject matter? Or are you saying that you believe the terminology in the article is used to imply political agenda(s) or bias? As to the first, governments are political by nature. This would be like saying that scientific terms are too scientific for an article on or about Science. As to the second, I don't personally agree that this article has any bias toward any particular political agenda. But if you disagree on the neutrality of the article, that certainly would be worth discussing. 165.138.95.59 (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There are lists in this article of countries that are/were self-described as Democratic Republics, most (if not all) of which don't fit the definition given at the start. How about a list of countries that actually fit the definition, such as the United States? WaxTadpole (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not being funny but the article isn't correct and would instead be defining a "democracy" and is ignoring the "republican" side of the situation" since saying "the will of the people" alone doesn't truly explain the matter. Individual is more correct.

Many people are mistaken at defining a democratic republic; as a result this is what you see in such a society;

There is;

1. A constitutional set of laws defining the key difference between federal and domestic laws: 2. Domestic laws that outlaw case laws such as; fraud, rape, murder, torture, state-religions, harassment, coercion & treason applicable to everyone etc. 3. Federal laws whereby elected leader(s) writes laws that set protocols for assuring the domestic laws are systematically being conducted. 4. If a leader fails to create a circuit and citizen is caught in the tangle (false-arrest or such) the citizen is compensated. (They can make a complaint in court with a camera and be judged by peers etc and equally counter-claim against any). 5. Leaders do not get to set the goals for the country in any shape or form. They simply run the country looking for methods to assure wealth distribution. 6. If people on the field working for a leader truly believe their policy is only going to do harm, they don't have to follow protocol and can improvise but take responsibility for their take on the scenario. 7. Usually if enough people complain about a leader doing something unlawful to the local authorities, then the leader is tried as it is commonly known that a government can still function without a leader for a short period (a season or two).

That's pretty much it. Nothing is carved in stone but it's just a pragmatic way to operate a country without any jargon. "A cut to the chase" Utopia that's easier for everyone. Fantasy left at the door. 94.15.239.239 (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

just explaining, dropped the blaming

Freedom House may be perfectly unbiased, but being US-based and US-govt-funded doesn't suggest that. It seems better to say less, and just REFER to the Freedom_in_the_World report. --LoneStarNot (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)