Disputatio:Res publica democratica Congensis

Actually, believe it or not, the Congo is frequently mentioned in Renaissance authors under the form Congum -i. I don't know off hand what adjective they used, but I'd bet it was Congensis. --Iustinus 07:02, 21 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Hofmann uses 'Congensis' and 'Congianus'. —Myces Tiberinus 16:31, 21 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Popularis vs Democratica

• Respublica Popularis Congensis = République populaire du Congo ~= Congo Brazzaville 1969-1992
• Respublica Democratica Congensis = République démocratique du Congo

--Moyogo 10:47, 18 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

The Vatican uses "Res Publica Popularis Congensis" [1] more often than "Respublica Democratica Congensis" [2]. Would need to know what they used between 1969 and 1992 for Congo Brazzaville. ---Moyogo 12:12, 18 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

Certe significatio vocis Latinae popularis eadem est significationi vocis Graecae democraticus? IacobusAmor 12:21, 18 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

They can mean the same but don't for :

• Algerium: Res Publica Algerina Democratica et Populari
• Respublica Popularis Democratica Coreana
• Aethiopia: Res Publica Democratica Foederalis Aethiopiae
• Res Publica Democratica Arabica Saharensis

Timoria Orientalis (Popularis Timoriae Orientalis Res Publica) might need the same nuance.--Moyogo 12:44, 18 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

Res publica in effect = res popularis, a thing of/by/for the people, so respublica popularis is already redundant, and respublica popularis democratica even more so (perhaps from a need for some sort of overcompensation?). Should someone cut the Gordian knot of ideology and reduce them all to nothing but res publica? IacobusAmor 13:03, 18 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Respublica Popularis Congensis can explain that Respublica Congensis used to be called Respublica Popularis Congensis from 1969 to 1992, and mention Respublica Democratica Congensis can also be called Respublica Popularis Congensis in Latin. As far as the redundancy it's unavoidable to avoid confusion (for Congo, Korea or China). --Moyogo 13:39, 18 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

We can leave the name as the present one and just explain the two names equally as well...

A lot of truth in what Iacobus says:

I think the adjective "popularis" generally is intended to convey that the government (regimen) is "dedicated to the welfare of the common people" or "of/for the common people" (populo gratia) while "democratica" is supposed to convey that the government (rectio) "has a democratic form". The term res publica itself has many layers of meaning: public affairs, government, state as well as importantly a particular state/form of government (rectionis status/forma) in which there is no king (solita res publica).

Of course, in the case of North Korea, the name democratic people's republic is a classic example of "the BIG LIE", a falsehood meant to deny an obvious truth: that they have a dictatorship with no convern for common people.

Thus, I don't think we should worry overly about official names making sense. Sometimes their meaning is all in the mind of the namer.--Rafaelgarcia 13:44, 18 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

Good points all! IacobusAmor 14:01, 18 Novembris 2009 (UTC)