>>>”The USSR was a constitutional republic too. So is Iran. But they aren’t democratic because the people have no real say in who they get to choose from to represent them.”<<<
Iran today has a Constitution too. BUT, the constitution is an Islamic Republic. It depends on the SPECIFIC CONTENT of a given CONSTITUTION.
The Constitution of today’s Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) :
1) Combines religion with politics. Specifically, a 12er Shia Jaafari Sect.
2) You must belong to the above mentioned Shia sect to be able to be nominated as the Head of State (Supreme Leader), and be elected as a President (currently, Rouhani).
Hence, the Islamic Republic of Iran today is a THEOCRATIC government, with semblance of Democracy.
It means, although Iranian citizens can vote, elect government representatives, have freedom of assembly, rule of (sharia) law, freedom of religion (to a limited & specific degree), and freedom of speech, these freedoms are ALL strictly within the confines of an Islamic Theocracy.
OTOH, the US Constitution is a (Secular) democratic one (separation of religion from state). That is the main difference.
My point exactly. Republic is such a broad term it can mean almost anything, from Islamic to Communist. And the original Res Public was Rome, where leaders were elected by the people but had to come from the noble class.
What differentiates us is that we are democratic, in the Jeffersonian sense of all citizens being equal, and government coming from the consent of the governed. That’s how “democracy” is used in today’s English, not a reference to Athens style direct majority rule. That’s how Scalia used it, and how I use it. Arguing that “we are not a democracy, we are a republic” just confuses things.