Yes, I see it now, I've made a mistake, I admit But if we look at it from a practical point of view, then there seems to be no difference between Republics and representative democracies. Also, the term fundamental rights seems to me to be too vague. Who decides what the fundamental rights are? I (and a large portion of the world) believe that all men and women should be free to make their own decisions without any outside influence when they come of age, but a devout Muslim may argue that woman's guardian has rights over her and that she must act under his instructions in certain circumstances. This is just one example, but I'm sure you get the point.

Is there a republic that is NOT a type of democracy?

A reference need only be given for a fact that can be directly observed, not for a INFERENCE. Since a republic is a democracy (and there are no non-democratic republics) and there are democracies that are not republics, it is INFERRED that every republic is a democracy, but not every democracy is a republic. I'll wait for you to present evidence to the contrary.

You said in a Republic the fundamental rights are guaranteed, but its possible to amend the Pakistani constitution and curb those rights so how does it fit your description of a republic?

P.S Here is a list of countries by their government type. Good luck finding a republic which is NOT a democracy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._of_government


I can't edit my old post, but had to add this. Almost all representative democracies, even those that are not Republics guarantee certain fundamental rights. For example both Denmark and Canada are Constitutional Monarchies, have a representative democratic system and have Bills of Rights that gurantee fundamental rights. So what sets them apart from a Republic?

That depends upon the environment, for example the case of United States that we are discussing here, it took centuries of evolution before they even granted right of universal sufferage. So nothing happens over night . The differences of beliefs don't matter, discourse does.

It means there is no universal definition of Republicanism, we just discussed the American version of it

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

But we can't disregard the role of American influence. For example American influence on Denmark and Canada. Personally I am highly against going too much in detail of textual interpretations, you are right in saying that there is no practical purpose of digging too many details of republicanism and democracy but here we are trying to understand a phenomenon. For example in the UK democracy is countered by a monarchy, in US it is by republicanism , it looks like every country has hanged some kind of sword over democracy

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

All sorts of governments are aimed at providing peace of mind first, seconded by peace on that particular land.

Now the question is how peace of mind is availed it all rests on the stability of a country, in simple terms.

Anyone well aware can understand what stability is in a country...Stability is a wide and broad term.In my opinion there is no stable country across the whole world.

Illustration..

1. For humans ,aggression is an emotion , no one can deny that we cant be aggressive and tempted to do things which can sure be a cause of instability and can create a havoc in innocent lives..for example no one can deny that domestic violence exists in each and every country..if the couple has at least one kid ..s/he is deprived either of the parents or may the victim of controversy between the two parents...if divorce happens..
Now How to provide peace of mind to all the three of them is an uphill task..but at least for the provision of peace of mind to that kid seeks mediation on permanent basis.This provision seek the existence of authorities who could put the parents in the frame of law concerning divorce..In republican states when there is supreme power, in secular view, controlled by citizens there, No one can expect the climax of disturbance there..as everyone has his own state of mind different from every other person.. So obviously the contrast in state of minds is the cause of absence of peace in minds...and that peace can be rarely availed in republican states..

2. And for peace in land , no one can deny the fact that the cancer of terrorism, firing of bullets on the innocent civilians.. is a common culture spread across the world...Every continent has seen that disturbance..and result is absence of peace in land....Look if in a democratic state like Pakistan , citizen are entitled with supreme power, the country `ll be no more on the map of the world..and ll indulge foreign powers to take hold of it...

On the other hand instead of so-called democracy we see the prevalent turmoil in Pakistan, where the authorities are few in numbers, in term of having supreme power, and responsible for putting the violent citizens into the frame of laws..and there are less chances of division of opinions as compared to republican states..but THE DEVIL IS IN CONSENSUS AMONG THE AUTHORITIES TO PUT THE LAWS IN EFFECT..

If we generalize what I said it is safe to say that a democratic state can be the cause of provision of peace to minds and peace to land...But Alas! Pakistan is lacking good governance like almost all other countries..We are not the only victims of bad governance ....

So we can say with justification that Democracy is better for us as compared to being a republican state. .

Its a deep topic ....sorry for mocking a good topic with few paragraphs..But democracy is my choice for our country as compared to be a republican one..!!!!!


Regards All

__________________
"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts" Winston Churchill

but THE DEVIL IS IN CONSENSUS AMONG THE AUTHORITIES TO PUT THE LAWS INTO REALLY VIRTUAL EFFECT..

__________________
"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts" Winston Churchill

I get it now I have a habit of always looking at things from a practical angle so I miss theoretical aspects sometimes haha