Democracy versus Republic
It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms
of government. Understanding the difference is essential to
comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in
passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type
of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the
people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the
difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form
of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or
writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
These two forms of
government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but
antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority
Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of
The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a
Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The
Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.
A Democracy
The chief characteristic and
distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority.
In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing
any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The
Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
This is true whether it be a Direct
Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type,
applicable only to a small number of people as in the little
city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of
the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions,
and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least
half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting
are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the
United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case,
The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore,
not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative
Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people
elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body
there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of
at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.
In both the Direct type and the
Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and
unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system
established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the
door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the
United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal
(framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy"
and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The
Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate
post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction
against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through
oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments,
while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent.
There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures
because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their
respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither
the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to
exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the
legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when
violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island
continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until
1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited
government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784,
other States later.
It was in this connection that
Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in
1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature
in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism
was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He
also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia
Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act
of that body:
"All the powers of government, legislative,
executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating
these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic
government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be
exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots
would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their
eyes on the republic of Venice."
This topic--the danger to the
people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent,
legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).
The Framing Convention’s records
prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of
course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United
States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this
type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a
falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of
The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in
America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and
lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own
fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially
because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their
liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators,
including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth
is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of
democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring
a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew,
in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best
safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if
enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably
victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited
Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew
that the American people would not consent to any form of government
but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that
Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several
years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:
"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most
formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the
executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period."
(Text per original.)
Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:
"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have
been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I
have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has
been opposed to a popular current."
It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form
of government, there can be no legal system which protects The
Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited
tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of
the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of
course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is
characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true,
for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because
unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an
Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and
everything governmental in Great Britain.
For a period of some centuries ago,
some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain
Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to
be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental
realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of
government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can
effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in
the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or
totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of
Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of
the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by
Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the
theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this
discussion.
Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:
"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this
species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing
mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at
the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their
possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
Democracy, as a form of government,
is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional
American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as
expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary
emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit
them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make
and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every
Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.
A Republic
A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form,
or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority
strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect
The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the
protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the
liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a
constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created
by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from
its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers
divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and
Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
The people adopt the Constitution as
their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional
Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole
purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either
directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention,
similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing
or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her
greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of
self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable
in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of
government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a
written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the
earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American
development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is
an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the
framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:
"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly,
and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their
project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns,
counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it
their own act."
Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a
Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as
stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention
of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by
a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who
were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining
to the conduct of the war.
The first genuine and soundly founded
Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine
Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780
after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen
Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called
"Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of
Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional
Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in
the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully -
it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the
New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United
States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the
people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several
States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by
them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually
followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in
adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of
years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.
This system of Constitution-making,
for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is
designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of
Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them
only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to
make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American
philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of
a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is
designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any
governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The
Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.
With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:
"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which
requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are
other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of
esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.
Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of
some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the
inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for
self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can
restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis
added.)
It is noteworthy here that the above
discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the
label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and
different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly
misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time
of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic;
in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely
resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic.
Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the
framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics,"
but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of
contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term
in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative
government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts
on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39.
But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a
Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The
Majority.
Democracy vs: Republic