Why are there many countries that have....

1. 62

   SportsBetterposted 11 years ago

   Why are there many countries that have....
   
   Why are there many countries that have "Peoples Republic" in their title, yet they are not a republic?

   replyreport
2. 62

   Perspycaciousposted 11 years ago

   I will answer your question with a question:  "Why are there so many countries run by a dictator, but whose names don't tell you it is a dictatorship?

   replyreport
   1. 75

      jaredbangerterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You mean like America?

      replyreport
   2. 62

      SportsBetterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'm sure America was is in the list somewhere.

      replyreport
3. 62

   point2makeposted 11 years ago

   Because some countries believe it gives them "legitimacy" for their dictatorships. The fact that the "people" have no say and are subject to, in some cases, barbarity is of no consequence or interest  to these cowardly dictators.

   replyreport
4. 63

   bizzymomposted 11 years ago

   The government calls itself a people's republic to show that it is for the people.  They are insinuating that all people are equal in that particular nation.  It never actually is the case though.................

   replyreport
5. 89

   peoplepower73posted 11 years ago

   A republic is a form of government in which the state is considered a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the head of state. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch
   Most often a republic is a sovereign state, but there are also subnational entities that are referred to as republics, or which have governments that are described as "republican" in nature. For instance, Article IV of the Constitution of the United States "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government". The subdivisions of the Soviet Union were described as republics and two of them – Ukrainian SSR and Byelorussian SSR – had their own seats at the United Nations. While the Constitution of the Soviet Union described that union as a "unitary, federal and multinational state", it was in reality a unitary state as each Soviet Socialist Republic was dominated by the Communist Party.

   replyreport
6. 58

   DZprowriterposted 11 years ago

   People's Republic is a title that has often been used by governments to describe their state. The motivation for using this term lies in the claim that  govern in accordance with the interests of the vast majority of the people, and, as such, a  republic is a people's republic. Many of these countries also called themselves socialist states in their constitutions
   thats why somme countries still call them selvs republic just for showing to the world that the people is ok with the gouvernement witch is not ...

   replyreport
7. 80

   molometerposted 11 years ago

   Maybe they got a block discount on the printing costs. Then all they have to do is change one word. China, Korea or any countries name that ends in Stan. Bulk buying saves money!

   replyreport
8. 59

   dzephaniahposted 11 years ago

   The name of the country really has no direct connection to the political makeup of the given country. Those names are made up, just to sound good to the masses.

   replyreport
9. 58

   WD Curry 111posted 11 years ago

   
   
   There are not "many" countries who have "Peoples Republic" in their title.
   
   Did I pass the duh test?

   replyreport
10. 0

    An AYMposted 11 years ago

    It makes you feel all classy.  Like putting "Esquire" in your name.
    Or if you want to get fancy, Wikipedia says it's "used by Marxist-Leninist governments to describe their state.  The motivation for using this term lies in the claim that Marxist-Leninist's govern in accordance with the interests of the vast majority of the people, and, as such, a Marxist-Leninist republic is a 'people's republic".

    replyreport
11. 84

    SweetiePieposted 11 years ago

    Well if you look at Syria and Egypt they were long run by "presidents" that were, and still in the case of Syria long-time dictators.  Just because you have a title or a name does not make it what it actually is.  In order to win the revolution in China the Communists wanted to make the people think they were on their side.  They are not going to call themselves dictators, or reveal that they wanted to set up a government that gave people at the top wealth and rights, while depriving the masses.  No one would go along with that, so of course governments are going to come up with more savvy names for what they are.  Just like company that is not so good at selling things is going to do everything they can to improve their image.
    
    Another thing I find misleading is why some Americans want to insist that America is only a republic, but discount our strong democratic tradition as a republic.  In the classic sense a republic is a representative government where only a small number of people are allowed to vote, such as in the days of the Greek republic, and the early days of the United States when only white men were allowed to vote.  Thus, have a democratic emphasis on a Republic is crucial, and I would prefer to see more people educated about how our government works and eventually become more of a representative and direct democracy. 
    
    That is the way things are going with our propositions here in California where anyone who can get a petition with enough votes can get something on the ballot.  By the way there are drawbacks to our republican form of government at the moment, such as the amount of power our Supreme Court has.  I believe we need a Supreme Court, but we also need a new Constitutional Convention that might realign how much power, and how long people serve on it.  I would also like to see the end of the electoral college, and many other things that were created at the inception of our country when the founding fathers were frightened of majority rule.  The reality is just because a small group of people is making decisions does not mean these are always better, and sometimes when a popular decision is made, we as voters and citizens have to learn to agree to disagree.

    replyreport
    1. 89

       peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Good job...I like the way you think. I can tell you did the research and analysis.  It's not just your opinion.

       replyreport
12. 59

    laptopfingerposted 11 years ago

    a 'people's republic' is another form of glorifying a simple concept of ruler-ship. A republic already hints for a government for the people by the people. However after a while, the notion fades, as dictatorship and greed set in.
    At this point, leaders (rulers) look for a way to stage a revolution on their people's mindset. Therefore, they set up new terms that soon become cliche's.
    The simple reason is: the term feels nice to the people and fulfills the interests of the rulers, and so they
    all agree to it.

    replyreport
13. 72

    lone77starposted 11 years ago

    If we had a president who did not have the Goldman-Sachs stamp of approval, we might actually have our own republic back.
    
    Why do other countries like to label things with misleading words? Why did Bush and company call it the "Patriot Act?" So that anyone disagreeing with it would be viewed as "unpatriotic?"
    
    It has to do with marketing and ego.

    replyreport
    1. 89

       peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Yep! You're either with us or against us...no two ways about it.  How about "un-American, that's another one?

       replyreport
14. 52

    whonunuwhoposted 11 years ago

    A way to cover up the real philosophy and dictates of the country they represent and keep the people happy in name only.

    replyreport