>It is true that a King "may" represent the people, if he is a good King, but some Kings represent themselves more so. We have seen many points in history in which good Kings became bad Kings. It is the power that causes them to be drunken.

How does this differ from drunken presidents? They also represent the people.

IOW, whether something is a republic or not is not a matter of democracy, or this or other representative system or lack thereof. It's a matter of where the sovereignty lies - in the person of a monarch, or on the people. Whether the monarchy is democratic, despotic or downright tyrannical doesn't change its nature; likewise, a republic is a republic regardless of its democratic (direct, representative or highly unrepresentative) operation.

>>>That's surely what they call it, but I'd call it Chi-Coms, or Communist China. It certainly is NOT a Republic. A Republic is representative of the people.
>
>>A king also represents the people.