Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[Jacob]

Fair point.

[Tamas]

Am not. I was not aware of the English definition being "well there's no monarch so what else to call it". Any definition going past that (e.g. Wikipedia's sovereignty of the public) breaks down completely for most non-democratic countries (although it would still apply to places like Russia or Hungary).

I'd be interested to see the Hungarian definition of a nation that does not have a monarch and is not a republic.

In fact, I'd be interested to discover what non-monarchical countries have a government that does not at least pretend to rule using a mandate of some sort from the citizens, barring "emergency" or temporary governments (subsequent to a coup, for instance).  Even the emergency-type governments acknowledge that they are an aberration to the normal process of gaining the people's mandate.

In official designations people just go with the official name of the country but describing the nature of the government you wouldn't be using "republic" to the various dicatorships etc. Exception are the people's republics because those are widely understood to be the same as saying "communist dictatorship". "Republic" has an almost idealistic connotation to it similar to how Zoupa explained.  I understand that to be the same in Poland as well, for example. Definitely more linked to democracy in people's minds more than probably appropriate even without allowing for the "if there is no hereditary monarch, it's a republic" nonsense.

[grumbler]

It's not really a dichotomy, it's two different and independent categories.

Republic / non-Republic (monarchy) - whether the head of state is an inherited position or not.

Democratic / non-Democracy - whether or not the government is answerable to the people via a popular vote.

Democratic Republic - France
Autocratic Republic - China
Democratic Monarchy - the Netherlands
Autocratic Monarchy - Saudi Arabia

I mean other classification schemes can make sense too, but I don't think it's particularly strange (but maybe that's because it's what I'm used to).

This.  People confuse the basis of sovereignty (sovereign public = republic. sovereign individual = monarchy - I don't know of any third alternative to this concept, so it looks like a dichotomy to me) and the means by which the government achieves legitimacy (through elections = democracy, through inheritance or force = autocracy, with lots of variations between them).

There are countries that don't neatly fit into the republic/monarchy dichotomy, like Iran.  In Iran, Allah is sovereign, and elections only determine the government with the consent of the Supreme Leader, who is himself "appointed by Allah."  I'm not sure if this is a republic with a weird fictional superstructure, or a monarchy with a weird fictional election system.

[Tamas]

It's not really a dichotomy, it's two different and independent categories.

Republic / non-Republic (monarchy) - whether the head of state is an inherited position or not.

Democratic / non-Democracy - whether or not the government is answerable to the people via a popular vote.

Democratic Republic - France
Autocratic Republic - China
Democratic Monarchy - the Netherlands
Autocratic Monarchy - Saudi Arabia

I mean other classification schemes can make sense too, but I don't think it's particularly strange (but maybe that's because it's what I'm used to).

This.  People confuse the basis of sovereignty (sovereign public = republic. sovereign individual = monarchy - I don't know of any third alternative to this concept, so it looks like a dichotomy to me) and the means by which the government achieves legitimacy (through elections = democracy, through inheritance or force = autocracy, with lots of variations between them).

There are countries that don't neatly fit into the republic/monarchy dichotomy, like Iran.  In Iran, Allah is sovereign, and elections only determine the government with the consent of the Supreme Leader, who is himself "appointed by Allah."  I'm not sure if this is a republic with a weird fictional superstructure, or a monarchy with a weird fictional election system.

Isn't it a theocracy? You fall into the (IMHO false) need to define a country as either a republic or a monarchy, which is what we have been identifying as an English-only thing.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Iranian constitutional set up is like an Italian corporate structure, with a lot of nested interconnections. The Supreme Leader is chosen by an Expert Council whose eligible members are controlled by a Guardian Council. The Guardian Council consists of 6 members chosen by the Supreme Leader, and 6 other members elected by the Assembly from a list of candidates chosen by the Chief Justice of Iran, who in turn is selected by the Supreme Leader.

It's not a hereditary monarchy, we can say that. Structurally there are some similarities to the Venetian Republic, but obvious differences as well.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Oddly, I have found the Iranian constitution interesting in the past because of its weird structure. I've always thought the best way of summing it up is they wanted to insure a clerical Supreme Leader could keep power in perpetuity, regardless of what the people want / think on the matter; but they wanted to have some structures in place that could prevent a Supreme Leader from simply creating a dynastic monarchy in which Iran's other powerful clerics and other interests would be permanently shut out.

In that respect there is some similarities (but many differences) with a structure like that in the PRC--they have attempted to structure their country so a paramount leader will largely be able to run the country as an absolutist, but with the CCP still able to be kingmakers and control some layers of government. How well it works as always varied, the Chinese clearly imagine it preferable to have rulers be term-limited, and some have been, but several have also managed to ensconce themselves as lifetime rulers as well.

[Zanza]

Switzerland is obviously a republic and democracy, but they don't even have a head of state and their government does not follow any majorities from elections.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think that's because Switzerland is structurally still a "confederation of cantons" instead of a true unitary state.

[Jacob]

Oddly, I have found the Iranian constitution interesting in the past because of its weird structure. I've always thought the best way of summing it up is they wanted to insure a clerical Supreme Leader could keep power in perpetuity, regardless of what the people want / think on the matter; but they wanted to have some structures in place that could prevent a Supreme Leader from simply creating a dynastic monarchy in which Iran's other powerful clerics and other interests would be permanently shut out.

That is similar in some ways to how the post-Mao CCP attempted to prevent a single Emperor-like ruler. Xi is in the process of dismantling those protections.

I suspect that over time a similar dynamic will play out in Iran.

[Sheilbh]

Isn't it a theocracy? You fall into the (IMHO false) need to define a country as either a republic or a monarchy, which is what we have been identifying as an English-only thing.

Not sure it's English only as Syt or Jake mentioned.

And it isn't the only way in English. Republic/republican/republicanism has a very specific meaning in Irish English. It isn't just a taxonomical sort of term. It's ultimately traced back to the French revolution (via Wolfe Tone) but in modern, it is Easter 1916 which means a united, free Ireland under a republic.

You see it in big controversies in the early days of post-independence Irish politics. De Valera bit by bit removes all links to the British state, culminating in the constitution in 1937 which ends the "Free State". But the promise of an Irish Republic is still unfulfilled - so the country is officially name Eire for a time. That process is finalised after the war when Ireland leaves the Commonwealth and there is a Republic of Ireland Act - but it doesn't declare itself a Republic, instead it says the state should be "described as the Republic of Ireland" (the official name is still Ireland/Eire). It's for the same reason - Ireland has not achieved the meaning of "republic" within Irish politics. I think it's why if you see British politicians, for example, talk about Ireland they are far, far more likely to talk about it as the "Republic of Ireland" than Irish politicians who will, overwhelmingly, refer to it as Ireland or the "state".

I suspect that over time a similar dynamic will play out in Iran.

I think that's already happened. From my understanding Khamenei is not a great religious scholar. I think the Iranian constitution had to be changed to allow him to become Supreme Leader and it's always been pretty controversial within believes in an Islamic Republic that for, ultimately, political reasons on the first transfer of power they needed to bend the religious criteria.

[Tamas]

Ireland is a special case because of British guilt. e.g. we often reference their PM as Taoiseach but we never bother with any other PMs in the world. Nobody calls Orban Miniszterelnok, or Tusk Premier, for example.

[Sheilbh]

I can absolutely promise you no one in Ireland believes it's about British guilt (which'd be a nice thing).

FWIW the Americans use Taoiseach too.

I think it's more a reflection of Irish nationalism/state-making, I suspect because PM is a term from the UK. I think they ask countries overseas to use Taoiseach (not unlike Mumbai or Turkiye). Plus the incredible success/effectiveness of Irish cultural diplomacy.

[The Brain]

I think it's ridiculous to demand other countries use words from one's contemptibly small language. If Sweden demanded other countries say Sverige and shit I would find it embarrassing.

[celedhring]

Slightly pisses me off when they call the Spanish President "PM" in Anglo media, I gotta say. It's not the language, it's just that they have to UK-ify the name of his office.

[The Minsky Moment]

Ireland is a special case because of British guilt. e.g. we often reference their PM as Taoiseach but we never bother with any other PMs in the world. Nobody calls Orban Miniszterelnok

No but there are some other names we call Orban . . .