Talk:Federal republic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Politics (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

September 2002[edit]

Would this also include the Russian Federation?— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 08:45, September 2, 2002

Isn't Russia a federation of republics?— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:13, July 24, 2004
No, a federation and a federal republic are not the same thing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:04, August 13, 2004
Both India and Russia are federations in which the central government exercises direct control over the states/sub-divisions thereof. More so in Russia then India.-- 18:28, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Isn't a federal republic just a country that happens to be both a federation and a republic? If that's the case most of what can be said about this topic are covered by the federation and republic articles. Or is there more to it than that? Iota 13:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

kingdoms and dominions[edit]

From 2005 January 26th:

Australia and Canada are kingdoms? Are they not dominions?— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:24, January 27, 2005

As I understand it Australia and Canada were part of the same kingdom as the UK until 1927. Under the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927 each dominion of the commonwealth became a separate kingdom. So it seems that from 1927 onwards Australia and Canada were both dominions and kingdoms. However I don't know whether or not its accurate to call them dominions any more because the term seems to have fallen completely out of use now that they are are 100% independent. Iota 16:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, if you still care, Australia, Canada, Great Britain and the other countries which share the monarch are termed Commonwealth Realms. It's not NPOV to say they have the British Monarch as head-of-state; many Australian monarchists argue that our Governor-General is head of state. Felix the Cassowary 14:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way laurelbush1952, have you considered getting a login? Then people can put comments on your talkpage and don't have to email you. It also has other advantages. See: Wikipedia:Why create an account? Iota 16:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


The anon has chosen to include Australia and Canada on this list. I think that while it's possibly debateable that Australia is a Republic, the fact that most republicans agree that our de jure head of state is Elizabeth II, means that Australia should not be on the list. AFAIU, in Canada there isn't even a shadow of a debate; they're clearly a monarchy. I (with regret) am removing them. Felix the Cassowary 14:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other federal republics[edit]

I don't fully understand what it is that constitutes a federal republic; why isn't Colombia included there, for example, if the departments (the administrative divisions) have their own elected governors (or Peru, or Chile, etc.)? Or, should it be the case that each self-governing region should have a constitution? (I don't know if that is the case in those countries) --J.Alonso 23:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The determining factor in a federation is essentially whether the national government has the legal ability to unilaterally legislate out of existence the subnational ones. For instance, the Commonwealth Government of Australia can't legislate out of existence Victoria because our constitution requires (amongst others) that the State Parliaments would have to endorse this particular change as well. The UK is not a federation in spite of the Scottish Parliament because the Westminster Parliament can unilaterally legislate them out of existence with no difficulty whatsoever.
So if in Peru or Chile the central government would require the consent of the subnational goverments (not because of they didn't have it they would be voted out at the next elections, but because they simply cannot do it in law), that would make it a federation.
Obviously to be a federal republic you need to be a republic as well, so my earlier examples weren't meant to discuss federal republics but just federations.
Felix the Cassowary 01:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola and Amernia till someone can confirm that they are in fact federations (according to the helpful definition given by Felix above). Iota 16:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't the USA listed as having the style "federal republic"?[edit]

Could someone please explain to me why the United States is not a Federal Republic? Your own Inteligent Service(CIA), says its a Federal Republic. Thx! Just check the cia website....

Government type:
Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

I have changed the "style" of the United States in the list to "(None)". The fact that it is listed without a "style" does not mean that anyone thinks it is not a federal republic. Of course the US is a federal republic - the fact that it is on this list shows that we think it is a federal republic. The "style" column is not a place to list accurate descriptions of the government form of the countries, it is about what countries are officially styled. So Russia is listed as "Federation" because it is officially called the "Russion Federation", Austria is just listed as a "Republic" because it is officially called the "Republic of Austria", and Venezuela is listed as "Bolivarian Republic", even though "Bolivarian" doesn't necessarily mean much and isn't a useful description of the form of government, because Venezuela is officially called the "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela". Similarly, the United States of America is not officially called the "Federal Republic of the United States of America", or any other special style, so it's style is listed as "(None)". Every country on this list is a federal republic, so it wouldn't be useful to explicitly list them all as "Federal Republics". --thirty-seven 06:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The "style" of the United States is archaic, but very commonly used - it is, of course, the United States of America - United States is the style of the country named America. But the general public simply calls it the United States (ex. as seen on the Great Seal of the United States) and the US has dropped the "of America" part in government use, so the "style" has become the official name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for the explanation Thirty-Seven.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 09:42, October 26, 2006

The United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic w/a Strong Democratic Tradition; in other words, we don't need a democracy but we prefer it because it works to get the right people to run the Federal Republic. The Constitutional aspect means that we have written documentation of what this country is and how it functions and it is signed into law which cannot be changed, it cannot be changed in all of its entirely but we can add to it which is what we call "amendments".

Joshua the Independent 18:29, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

Federal monarchy[edit]

There is at present a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal monarchy. As that article is analogous to this one, perhaps editors would be interested in participating? --Gazzster (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Shouldn't it say FEDERAL REPUBLIC? It says United Mexican States.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikeleefan (talkcontribs) 22:40, 21 July 2008

What on Earth does this mean?[edit]

In the opening paragraph is this sentence:

The states in a federation also maintain the federation.

Can anyone explain what this is actually supposed to mean? Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC).

Republic of North Sudan?[edit]

Though South Sudan declared its independence last year, Sudan has not changed its official name to North Sudan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC) North Sudan is Bir Tawil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:4000:8CD0:5C3F:E829:F03B:B098 (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2012[edit]

Switzerland is NOT a republic (according to Plato's definition). Switzerland is NOT a federation. Switzerland is a confederation. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:42, December 21, 2012

Cleanup needed[edit]

This page is very bad, it's just a copy of CIA World Factbook, it needs to have more sources and not just the view of one Intelligence Organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Nepal still called a Kingdom?[edit]

Could someone please explain to me why Nepal is still called "Kingdom of Nepal" in the list (as much as I want Nepal to adopt constitutional monarchy)? Sakarthapa (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


What does this include? Why doesn't it include China and France?2601:640:4000:8CD0:5C3F:E829:F03B:B098 (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

How is use of "republic" inconsistent?[edit]

The first paragraph, as currently published, reads:

A federal republic is a federation of states with a democratic form of government. Usage of the term republic is inconsistent.[1] At its core, the literal meaning of the word republic when used to reference a form of government means: "a state where sovereignty rests with the people or their representatives, rather than with a monarch or emperor; a country with no monarchy".

The last two sentences contradict the first and offer no further explanation as to why a federation where power ultimately rests with the people or their representatives shouldn't be described using a word that means just that. The last two sentences need to be omitted or otherwise edited to 1) clarify the argument made that the term republic is inconsistent or 2) remove the mention of possible inconsistency. (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC) Stephen Smith 7/29/2016

  • Stephan, It simply means that the use of the word 'Republic' is used differently by many countries. It is not used in a consistent

manner. Many countries that call themselves Republics, aren't Republics, or have their own idea of what they think a Republic is. Thus: Inconsistent. You can google the phrase: "the term Republic is inconsistent", and you will get more examples than you bargained for. The phrase was in the article long before I re-wrote the opener. When I saw it, I researched it, and found the statement to be factual, so I added the Webster meaning, which is generally accepted as correct in the abundance of nations calling themselves Republics, but that doesn't change the inconstancy of its usage worldwide.Pocketthis (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

  • It is not the job of Wikipedians to find how words are misused but to find the most accurate and precise meanings with universal understanding. The word "republic" means in it's essential core that it describes a country with a head of government who is not a monarch and the government can be an autocracy, an oligarchy, or a democracy. Therefore, a nation that calls itself a "republic" and has no monarchy is by definition a valid republic - there is no such thing as being "not a real republic". In fact, any one making a statement that one nation is "not a real republic" is prejudicial and definitely not in the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Calif.DonTracy (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It's hard to pin down as to what a Republic is. I'ts not one specific thing but is something that is evolving. Generally I would describe a Republic as a system of checks and balances, composed of different institutions, among them a constitution being one, Democracy usually being another (although not present in all systems that call themselves republics). Imho, reducing the Republic to a mere representative Democracy contributes to political illiteracy. (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


I've heard in some places it's more "Capitalist", not "Democratic". Plus, the use precedence to decide court cases or what I refer to as side-ways law using different terminologies so they can get around the actual legal prosecution of individuals and deny them a "right to defense". With regard to "precedence", I have been told, "Your [identical] case has already been decided, prior", even if by a judge is some obscure courtroom. Thus, it is not necessary to hold a legal trial, when the outcome has already been decided. Also, individual households may not be democratic. I've heard in reference to a home, "This is not a Democracy."


OK, is Nigeria a federation or federal republic? Wikipedia seems to be pretty inconstant on this matter. ( (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC))

The First Sentence[edit]

  • Regarding "a federation of states with a republican form of government": a republic can not be a monarchy but it can be an autocracy, an oligarchy, or a democracy. So a democracy can have a republican form of government (the philosophy not the US political party) but an autocratic republic can not have a republican form of government and an oligarchic republic can not have a republican form of government only a democratic republic can. The reason is because the principles of republicanism require that a nation must have a democratic form of government in order to be considered as complying with the philosophy. So the first sentence is ambiguous unless it clearly states that it only refers to the special case of a "federal democratic republic".
  • Another problem is use of "state" which only applies to the US and violates the rule of NPOV because the Swiss have a federal republic that is a federation of cantons not states.
  • The first sentence serves as a banner and should be more precise for both accuracy and compliance with NPOV.
  • Recommend: A Federal Republic describes a nation where the head of government is not a monarch and where the government allows administrative sub-units to have defined independence according to concepts of federalism.
  • Calif.DonTracy (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Date column in contemporary table?[edit]

I think it would be handy, thought I'd ask here for feedback if, it might happen along, before finding the time in the next week or so to research and update.