Chris Stoddart mused: > > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, John Francis wrote: > > > frank theriault mused: > > > > > > But if England and Canada aren't democracies by > > > your definition (since their constitutions prevent the majority from > > > oppressing the minority), and they aren't republics (having a > > > non-elected monarch), then what are they? > > > > They're what is generally referred to as "parliamentary democracies", > > just as the system of government in the USA (and France, and ...) > > are known as "democratic republics". > > I fort the UK was a "constitutional monarchy"? Or is that summat else?
The terms aren't mutually exclusive. The "constituonal monarchy" tag say's it's not an absolute monarchy; the powers of the monarchy are limited in some way. This doesn't have to involve a parliament; Magna Carta limited the powers of the British monarchy, but it was a few centuries later before any real form of parliament was set up. Even then, though, it wasn't a parliamentary democracy; it took a few more upheavals before anything like that came along. (The most significant of which - the British civil war - came about to a large extent because of a monarch who resisted limitations on his power, believing instead in the "divine right of kings" to do pretty much what he pleased without consulting his privy council)
