@19-
I understand your interprtation of what you define as a 'real' republic. You seem to go with based on want 'the people' want as if republican leaders give a toss about it's people.
However it also raises an important question. If 'the people' have a substantial impact on a monarchy, does it make a republic?
Personally I don't think so.
Even if that were the case for your second paragraph. It still doesn't change the fact of the absolutely brutality of many republics during the 20th century. If republics are for 'the people' by 'the people', why are/were so many of brutal to 'the people'
I live in the UK. The Queen reigns but doesn't rule. She's a figurehead but she does retain quite a bit of power. It might seem republican in the way we do politics but it ain't. It's democratic. Don't confuse democratic with republican.
As for PRC and USSR. You're right about the Qing dynasty being backwards and broke during its last years. Imperial Russia under Tsar Nicolas II was going pass reforms to help their people. Too little, too late I know. You could say that there's no evidence that Russia and China could become superpowers (or just world powers) under the Romanovs and Qing respectively but I kinda beg to differ.
1. Every polity goes through its ups and downs.
2. The Romanovs had turned Russia into a great power before.
3. Other monarchies have brought up their countries to powerful positions. Why not Russia or/and China?
As for the question you posed... That's hard to answer
