Republic is what type of government

The Center's mission is to promote an enlightened and responsible citizenry committed to democratic principles and actively engaged in the practice of democracy. The Center has reached more than 30 million students and their teachers since Learn more. Email: web civiced.

Media Inquiries: cce civiced. Website: www. Lesson 3: What Is a Republican Government? Student Book Purpose of Lesson This lesson will help you understand why the Founders thought a republican form of government was best. What is a Republican Government?

The Founders read that republican government was one in which: The power of government is held by the people. The people give power to leaders they elect to represent them and serve their interests.

The representatives are responsible for helping all the people in the country, not just a few people. Vocabulary Terms Representatives : people elected to act for others interests : those things which are to a person's benefit What are the Advantages of Republican Government? They believed that the advantages of republican government were: Fairness.

They believed that laws made by the representatives they elected would be fair. If their representatives did not make fair laws, they could elect others who would. Common welfare. The laws would help everyone instead of one person or a few favored people. Freedom and prosperity. People would have greater freedom and be able to live well.

This functional separation of powers is reinforced through a complex system of checks and balances that allows each branch to limit the reach and authority of the others serving to limit both passionate willfulness on the part of the people and the power of the government itself.

The Bill of Rights provides perhaps the clearest example of the dichotomy between a democracy and a republic. The Bill of Rights provides heightened protection for fundamental liberties, protecting both natural rights, such as freedom of conscience, and civil rights, such as protection against arbitrary search and seizure. Some rights can be confined if the government satisfies due process requirements.

Montesquieu, for example, argued:. James Madison would turn the small-territory republicanism of the Enlightenment on its head in Federalist No. He argued that in any free society people would naturally come together in groups to pursue common interests. Madison theorized that in a small republic the number of interests would be few and, therefore, both the influence of each and the threat each posed, would be greater.

In an extensive republic, however, there would be a large variety of diverse and distinct groups animated by different beliefs and desires. These many groups, spread out over a large territory, would be less likely to develop into harmful factions, and less able to combine to oppress minorities.

According to Madison:. Successful coalition building demands moderation rather than political extremism. Today we might well echo Franklin—we have a republic, if we can keep it. Which form of government did the Framers of the United States Constitution believe would best provide for majority rule while protecting individual liberty? Direct ballot measures tend to peak when the economy is soft; in the U.

S there were measures from the people on state ballots in , but only 34 in In the latter year, 22 of those passed. In years of initiative history, Oregon and California have had the most initiatives on the ballot, by far. They saw state government as too beholden to powerful interest groups such as mining and railroads, and saw the initiative process as a convenient end-around maneuver to get past legislatures that appeared to be locked down by lobbyists.

As with everything in government, initiatives have been used for good and for greed which is which naturally depends on your point of view. Citizens have used the initiative process to make the political process more transparent, to increase funding for schools and various other public programs, and to require more training for child-care providers. They have also been used to cut taxes, raise taxes, decriminalize marijuana, limit abortion, and, in Oklahoma, make English the official language of the state.

Citizens certainly have the right to ask for these things. But when citizens in successive years raise spending on schools but cut taxes as they did in my state, Washington , you should begin to get an idea of the challenges of the initiative process. Voters may not be paying enough attention to recognize that simultaneously raising spending and cutting revenue may not be very good policy. By this initiative, citizens of California amended the state Constitution to limit future property tax increases by no more than 2 percent.

Property taxes tax property owners based on the assessed value of their land and buildings. Now that very few of us are farmers, this might not be the case. Nonetheless, property taxes continue to be a major source of revenue for state and local governments.

The trade-offs in Prop 13 should be fairly obvious: Property owners were protected from rising tax rates in the often-booming California real estate market, since rising property values would otherwise mean higher taxes for property owners. Voters also were concerned that retired people could be priced out of their homes as property values and taxes continued to rise.

On the other hand, state and local government have been starved for cash ever since, particularly local governments such as cities and school districts. Critics also say it interferes with the housing market since people are less likely to sell their homes a change of ownership means a new baseline assessment for tax value; otherwise the baseline is the home value in Meanwhile, initiatives have another shortcoming.

For most initiatives, you get an up-or-down vote, and the initiative is passed into law, unchangeable for a couple of years before a legislature can refine it. Finally, although they are called citizen initiatives, increasingly they are a tool of people with money. Courts have allowed paid signature-gatherers, a great help when you might need ,, valid signatures of registered voters to get a measure on the ballot.

Campaigns are increasingly funded by interest groups with an axe to grind, with money coming from out-of-state both for and against measures that, ostensibly, are to be decided by the people of that state. While everyone has a right to her or his opinion, and the freedom to express that opinion as they see fit, big-money initiative campaigns seem a little different than what the original reformers had in mind.

Referenda A measure referred by a legislature directly to the people, or a measure from the people, seeking to overturn something already passed by the legislature. Referenda allow legislatures to put things before the people for a vote, such as constitutional amendments and tax measures. Every state except Delaware requires a vote by the citizens to approve constitutional amendments. Referenda also allow citizens to force a measure passed by a legislature onto the ballot, usually with an eye to overturning that measure.

This usually features an expensive campaign in which the law is painted as a threat to mom, decency and the republic, when it may in fact just be a threat to that particular industry. We may be for or against businesses, unions or environmental groups who want to repeal a law, but it is their right to pursue their interests.

Referenda have been used to make big decisions around the world. Voters in Scotland and Wales used referenda to decide to create their own parliaments in Voters in Norway said no to joining the European Union in Voters in Quebec, Canada chose not to secede from Canada in and Voters in Montenegro voted to leave what was left of Yugoslavia in And white voters in South Africa in voted overwhelmingly to formally end the policy of apartheid, in which South Africans of color were not allowed to vote.

So whatever we think of the measures, referenda give voters a chance to just say no. State and local governments in the United States in particular use direct democracy in another way—votes on special levies and bond measures for schools and other public facilities. Levies A property tax measure put before voters to approve funding, usually for local special purpose governments such as fire and school districts.

Bonds A way of financing capital projects such as new schools. Local government sell bonds to borrow the money, but only after voters have approved the taxes to pay for the bonds. If an investor buys a bond, they are lending the government agency money, which means they get an interest payment, plus their original investment back.

Governments use this method of financing when they need a lot of cash up front—if the local school district is building a new high school, the contractor has to get paid so he or she can pay for the materials and pay all the workers. So in a bond-issue election, local governments are asking voters to promise to pay additional property tax to pay back the investors who buy the bonds.

Some states add turnout requirements to such special levies, which is fundamentally undemocratic if you think about it. Normally, not voting means you have surrendered your voice in this matter; turnout requirements effectively reward not voting. Others argue that it simply puts more pressure on school, water and fire districts to work harder to prove to voters that they need the money.

You will have to decide which argument makes more sense to you. Some bond measures also require a super-majority, so that the measure needs a 60 percent yes-vote to pass. At best, they empower the people to make needed changes. How then do we create a government that both gives people a voice but still manages to let government be run by folks who are at least paying attention? The answer for some has been the republic.

In a republic A form of government featuring open elections and, at a minimum, an elected legislative body. Executive and legislative power may rest with that body often called a parliament , or power may be divided between separately elected executive and legislative branches of government. When you consider that even in ancient Athens, the assembly of 6, still elected a council of , you see that most democratic governments have included some features of a republic.

Republics are designed to put a check on the passions of the people, which can make them seem remote and unresponsive. The designers of the U. Hence the many layers of government, and checks and balances, that one finds in various republics—all designed to slow the whole process down. This, of course, can be maddening if what you want is government to do something—anything—make a change.

Governments are full of people, and people are simultaneously capable of flights of inspiration and genius as well as complete foolishness. So in a republic, the goal tends to be to stop things from happening as much as it is to make things happen. What we also hope for in republics is that an idea that becomes a law is hammered, recut and welded until the idea is so compelling that everyone says yes.

Of the recognized sovereign nations in the world, only about 10 are not some kind of republic, in which people vote for representatives who in some way make up the government. Not everyone is called a republic—there are around 40 constitutional monarchies, in which they still have a king or queen who remains head of state in a ceremonial role.

Despite the presence of a monarch, it is the people who are elected to office who make the real decisions. In some republics, such as the United States, power is divided between executive, legislative and judicial branches. In other countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, the legislative branch parliament holds both legislative and executive power. A handful of states call themselves republics, and also still call themselves communist, such as China and Vietnam, which should be an oxymoron.

Republics rely on elections, and communism does not allow meaningful elections. True republics are distinguished by elections, in which people seek office and citizens decide by voting who gets in office.

A republic also features an elected legislature, such as an assembly, a congress or parliament, whose job it is to make laws. A republic may have a separately elected president, or a prime minister who is chosen from the majority party in parliament.

Some parliamentary republics also have a separately elected president, whose job is largely ceremonial. Some republics are categorized as illiberal democracies A republic in which electoral outcomes are suspect and political freedom may be limited. They tend to have less meaningful preservation of civil rights and liberties.

They also tend to control the media. Russia tends to be the prime example of such a state. People who oppose sometime president, sometime prime minister Vladimir Putin keep ending up in jail.

Singapore is sometimes considered an illiberal democracy, because a single party tends to dominate the government and citizens there lack some civil liberties. France is a semi-presidential republic A system in which a separately elected president shares some power with a prime minister, who represents the majority party in parliament. Power is divided between executive, legislative and judicial branches. But the president shares some powers with the prime minister, who represents the majority party in the French parliament and is appointed by the president.

Monarchy A system of government in which most power resides in the hands of a monarch—a king, queen, emperor, etc. For example, in , William Gladstone was chosen as prime minister head of government of Great Britain when his Liberal Party won a majority in the House of Commons. In several states states, Swaziland, Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, are mixed, in which the monarch shares some power with elected officials. In each of these countries except Kuwait, legislative bodies are partially elected and partially appointed by the monarch.

In Jordan, Morocco, Monaco and Lichtenstein, the monarch still plays an active role in government. You will note that aside from Lichtenstein, Swaziland and Monaco, are all these are Middle Eastern states, most of which are relatively wealthy from oil.

Consider Saudi Arabia. It may be the only state in the world that is named after its ruling family, the Sauds. Adul-Aziz Ibn Saud created the kingdom by force in , and his descendants have ruled ever since. Normally, royal succession proceeds from generation to generation; the kings of Saudi Arabia to date all have been brothers. Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud had 22 wives, and 37—45 sons estimates vary. As a consequence, he is survived by about 15, family members, including 2, more-or-less direct descendants who help run the country.

It was only in that the ruling family agreed that subsequent kings would by chosen by a council of 32 top-ranking family members, who are to consider the skill, experience, popularity and religious sentiments of eligible candidates.

How does this all work? Saudi Arabia has 13 provinces, all governed by royal princes of whom there may be as many as 7, Royal family members hold all of the top offices, such as head of defense, foreign relations, and minister of the interior. The king is both head of state and head of government.

We might also ask how such a state maintains legitimacy. Public protests against the government are officially banned, and the royal family justifies its rule as sanctioned by the Quran, the Moslem holy book. Religious authorities still have a great deal of influence on government and policy. The country had local elections in and , and King Abdullah has said that women will be able to run for office and vote in local elections in Legitimacy comes in part through the elevation of faith; the Quran and other holy documents are regarded as the national constitution.

Some public participation in governance is possible through the court system, in which separate court systems deal with religious matters the Sharia courts , grievances, and local matters. The government also maintains some of its tribal heritage, in that anyone can petition the king to discuss a grievance, and members of the royal family are regularly employed in hearing such petitions. The state also attempts to provide higher standards of living by investing its oil wealth in education and economic development, with some positive results.

But citizens sometimes complain that some members of the royal family treat national wealth as personal wealth. So the monarchy, while absolute, must balance the competing demands of citizens, religious authorities, other wealthy families within the country, and forces within and without the country that would prefer to see some other form of government there. This may be part of the reason why the great majority of monarchies evolved into constitutional monarchies—the challenges of maintaining legitimacy are greater when citizens lack enough of a voice in the affairs of state.

Including monarchies, the world still has a fistful of authoritarian governments A system in which power is held and the state is ruled is held by one person or by a small group of people, such as senior military leaders. Elections, if held, are not meaningful. The popular uprisings of the Arab Spring in toppled authoritarian governments in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. Syria is suffering through what amounts to a civil war between opponents and supporters of rule by the Assad family.

Myanmar Burma finally allowed elections after 40 years of military rule. Federal : Our government is also a federal system, since power is shared between a national government, representing the entire populace, and regional and local governments. These two terms can come in handy when you want to get really exact with your description. These terms just help us further define our governmental structure, especially when comparing the United States to other countries.

In the literal sense of the word, yes. In practice, the answer is more complicated. Our system of government depends on citizens being able to freely elect leaders who will represent their interests. In a study published , two political scientists found that, on average, the policies representatives pursue are not in fact dictated by public opinion.