What are the key differences and similarities between republics and democracies?
Here on politics.SE there are a fair number of questions like "Is X a Democracy?" or "Is Y a Republic?". There are also a lot of comments and answers which rely on notions that a republic or democracy are similar or different. (Example: Is the U.S. a democracy now that the President lost the popular vote? and the accepted answer) So what are those differences or similarities?
While the notions of a republic and a democracy are often times times heavily intertwined in the modern world, the two are not inherently related based on their true definitions.
A republic is a form of government whereby representatives are elected to represent groups of people. Note that the election process is not inherently democratic. A great example of this are the merchant republics of old. It was essentially the upper merchant class that would elect representatives, totally bypassing the masses.
A democracy is where the general population is allowed to vote directly. This does not have to be voting for representatives. The obvious example here would be the ancient Greeks who had true democracies where all the people voted on everything. This of course has problems of scale - who wants to send all their time voting on everything? That is why every "democratic" nation since ancient Greece has incorporated elements of other government systems (usually republicanism) to optimize the process.
In one sense a republic is a kind of democracy, while in another sense, it is separate from a democracy
The main difference is that a republic puts legislative authority into representatives, while the rights of the minority are maintained. That is the powers of the representatives are specifically assigned and limited. A democracy is a strict enforcement of the will of the majority, while the minority has only those rights which the majority is willing to allow it.
For example, the electoral college forces a republic type of voting system. A strict democracy would enforce the "popular vote" total over the entire United States. However, the winner takes all system in the individual states is a democracy type of voting system, as the minority gets none of the electoral college votes. Note that Maine and Nebraska distribute the electoral college votes by Congressional district.
Another example is the parliamentary type of system as in Britain. Each party gets the appropriate percentage of seats in parliament. In a pure democracy, all seats would be held by the majority.
There used to be a system in Poland where the king was elected and then served for life with all the prerogatives of a king. This (if the election was of all the citizens) would have been a democracy type of system.Royal elections in Poland
A pure democracy would not (necessarily) have the Bill of Rights as the majority could enforce whatever restrictions on the minority that it desired. .
Note that the definition of democracy below distinguishes the source of the power of the ruler[s] rather than the power of the ruler[s]
Another point is that at any time, it is the 51% of those voting at any individual point in time that would enforce their views. Once that is done, the definition of a "free voting citizen" could be changed.
This could mean that apartheid in South Africa (as an extreme example) could have been voted in by the majority of voting citizens in a democracy.
In ancient Greece, the definition of free voting citizen was restricted, but they were still called democracies.
SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
Government. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]
Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
Generally, any kind of state is a republic. Starting in the 15th century, a republic became differentiated from a monarchy by having power ultimately reside with the people.
In the ancient world, a republic meant any kind of state. The historical root of republic is poplicus, meaning "pertaining to the people". Republic is formed by the combination of res + publica: affairs or things related to the public. This usage was preserved in middle French throughout the 15th century.
Beyond etymology, the usage of this concept is clear in the works of ancient authors. In The Republic Plato describes five different kinds of republics (aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny). Aristotle has six, based on the number of rulers and whether they govern for the common good or their own personal good. Generally, a republic could have one ruler (monarchy and tyranny), a few rulers (aristocracy and oligarchy), or common rule (polity and democracy). This kind of typology would be common up until the rise of republican authors in the 15th century.
In the 15th century, a group of republican authors created a new, more focused, usage of the word, motivated by their political climate. If a "republic" is what the people have in common, they reasoned that monarchies could not properly be called republics. Their monarchies were ruling in the private interest of the royal family and aristocracy, indifferent (or hostile) to the interests of the people.
Probably the most famous republican is Machiavelli. In Discourses on Livy he argues for a state in which power is shared between the people and a strong executive, and in which there are a variety of factions competing for power [Short summary of Machiavelli's republican views here] . Other examples include John Locke, who devoted much of his Second Treatise to rebutting paternalism (an argument supporting monarchy) and contrasting it with his view of democracy.
In layman's terms a republic sometimes seems to mean a representative government (for example, one of the definitions on Merriam-Webster). However, this usage is not developed in political theory or political science.
A democracy is a kind of government in which relatively-equal citizens are empowered to make meaningful contributions to a group decision-making process.
That's a pretty general (and I hope, common) view of democracy, so I won't spend much time on it. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a lengthy article from a more general-philosophy perspective, while Oxford Bibliographies can point you to some decent further reading.
This leaves open the possibility that citizens either contribute directly or through elected representatives.
In the ancients' usages of "republic", a democracy is a kind of republic. A republic is kind a state, and democracy is one way to organize a state. This is how both Plato and Aristotle did it.
In the writings of the republican authors, republics and democracy are the same. If ultimate power resides with the people (that is, if X is a republic), they can exercise that power in the decision-making process (then X is a democracy). The reverse is true: if you have the people involved in making important decisions (if X is a democracy) then it is true that the people have power (then X is a republic).
Being Greek, Plato doesn't use the words 'res publica' (which are Latin). He instead uses the word 'politeia', which means 'citizens' or 'cities'. This is the root of our English word 'politics' - the meaningful political unit of ancient Greece was the city-state, which connects the concept of 'citizen' to 'city', as well as our current usage.
For an excellent discussion on the nuances that separate 'politeia' and 'res publica' see this summary.
Democracy derives from the Greek word "demos", meaning "the people," and implies a system where all members can exercise power, either directly or through systems of representation.
A Republic is a State that shares common features of a democracy, where the sovereign power is shared by its members, either directly or through representation. To be nitpicky about it, "republic" could refer to the system of government but only of a country and it defines the country as being publically shared (as opposed to belonging to a king, oligarch or other private individuals)
The key difference is that "democracy" refers to an organisational system. So companies or groups of individuals could spontaneously form a democratic system of themselves. A Republic is a State, and it would be highly irregular to describe a firm or collection of individuals as being a "Republic"
The commonality is the root "people." It's the "demo" part of Democracy and the "public" part of the Republic.
I think the word Democracy (the rule of people) is commonly understood correctly, so it doesn't need explaining.
Republic comes from the Roman Res Public. "Res" is things or affairs. So this can be translated as "public affairs" or the phrase that is commonly used in the US politics "the business of the people."
"The business of the people" does not imply (at least not automatically) that the people should elect those who administer it. Although, today it is often the case. "The business of the people" is meant to distinguish it from a kingdom (or tyranny), which is an administration for the benefit of a sovereign leader (a tyrant).
"Republic" is really an expression of who is the beneficiary of the state rather than who rules it. At least, that's how it is most commonly used today. For example, the main distinction between the Muslim countries in the Middle East is that some are monarchies and some are formally republics. Few of the republics would qualify to be called a "democracy." But calling them "republics," as states (at least formally) dedicated to the benefit of the people, is not inconsistent.
Since there seems to be some disagreement about the above 2 paragraphs, here's a link to a Yale history professor saying it during a lecture.
One may object, that the UK, despite being a monarchy, is dedicated to administering the business of the people. But "republic" is a nominal designation. For example, Britain's ships are titled HMS (Her/His Majesty's ships). There are other examples (some discussed in other questions on this site).
To say it in a yet another way, the phrase from the Gettysburg Address "the government of the people, by the people, for the people" parses like this:
A Republic is a state in which the head of state is not a Monarch or is determined by means other than inheritance.
A Democracy is a government system in which the people have the ability to vote on some measure of government direction and legislative changes, be it directly or through choice of office holders who have this ability.
It's important to note that there is a difference between a Liberal Democracy and an Illiberal Democracy (typically, in the later, it will let you have votes, but the ballots aren't secret and the opposition voters tend to disappear soon after the election... but yes, you can "vote" in North Korea.).
It's important to note that Republic and Democracy are not the same thing and one does not preclude the other. For example, the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan have democratically elected heads of Government and legislatures, but are still Monarchies as their heads of State are Monarchs (In the case of all but Japan, they are the same Monarch... well, technically Canada, Australia, and New Zealand's head of state is called "the Governor General" which is a more polite way of saying "His/Her Majesty's Chief Thrown Warmer". They basically perform the Monarch's duties because the King/Queen of England cannot be bothered with laws about Maple Syrup, Didgeridoos, and Sheep. But they can overrule the Governor General if they feel the need to). Meanwhile Saudi Arabia is also a Monarchy but there is no legislature or any democratically elected institutions of government.
America is a Republic, Not a Democracy
So Americans tend to have different definitions for Political Science Terms. It largely stems from numerous reasons, but in this case, it's a bit of American government being, well, revolutionary for the time. When the Constitution was written, the U.S. government was unique in that it was a Republic with directly and indirectly elected offices (either you vote for the person who holds the office, or you vote for the person who votes for the person who holds the office) which had no Monarch. Much of the Government was modeled after the last big nation to do something close, Rome, which was famously a Republic. But Rome wasn't an Representative Democracy, which is what the U.S. created, but didn't name when they created it. So the Founders portrayed the new government as "Republic" as they absolutely did not want to be portrayed as a Democracy (which back then, meant only "Direct Democracy" which they did not want.).
As such, most Americans who note that the nation is a Republic and not a Democracy, are noting that the government was not set up for Direct Democracy, albeit in a way that is ignorant of what is being said (The U.S. is classified as both a Republic and a (Representative) Democracy in Wikipedia, and can be argued to be a Semi-Direct Democracy (there are Direct Democracy powers in all 50 states, though some have more powers than others).
Definitions (from Wikipedia):
A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" – not the private concern or property of the rulers – and where offices of state are elected or appointed, rather than inherited. It is a government where the head of state is not a monarch and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law.
Hence, a rebuplic is one of the possible administrations of any country whether that country is a UN member or not.
A republic is in essence "just" and "plausible" participation of the governed people of a country. This is what it should be, or put somewhat differently, "as to be" (real republic).
But, "as is" (so-called republic) can be different than "as to be". Hence, a "rebuplic" may be a dictatorship though it names itself as republic:
Examples of so-called republics:
North Korea (Democratic People's REPUBLIC of Korea),
Syrian Arab REPUBLIC, etc.
Definitely, there is no "just" and "plausible" participation of people in these countries.
Example of real republics:
Northern Cyprus (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus).
Even if a country may not be a UN member, it may shine as a real republic as can be felt from the other side of the world.
UNITED STATES’ FEDERAL COURT (09.10.2014): "TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS IS A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY. Although the United States does not recognize it as a state, the TRNC purportedly operates as a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary...TRNC is NOT VULNERABLE to a lawsuit in Washington"
The news of the Court decision (13.10.2014)
Page of the Court case (The Defendant: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus)
Decision of the Court
Democracy is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament. Democracy is sometimes referred to as "rule of the majority".
According to Diamond, democracy consists of 4 key elements:
1. A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections;
2. The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life;
3. Protection of the human rights of all citizens,
4. A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.
