The end of democracy
Reputed birthplace of democracy — Agora, Athens, Greece. Photo by Despina Galani on Unsplash
Is democracy doomed?
For at least the last two years (actually longer), and with increasing stridency as the 2022 midterm elections approach, Democrats and their many spokespeople and allies in the media have fretted about supposed threats to what they term “Our Democracy.”
To hear Democrats talk, one suspects their definition of democracy to be “a system in which the Democratic Party is always in power,” with any other outcome being the end of democracy in a hellish nightmare world of fascism, authoritarianism, and no doubt several other isms (with a few phobias thrown in for good measure).
This all seems like fact-free hysteria to me, and perhaps to you. I’m also skeptical that many of the leading lights of the Democrat party spouting this rhetoric actually believe there is some existential threat to democracy if Republicans are successful in the midterms. One cause for skepticism is the fact that “Democrats are estimated to have spent more than $53 million across nine states boosting far-right candidates in GOP primary elections in an effort to give the party a better chance at securing victories in November.”1
If the very existence of “Our Democracy” is imperiled by certain candidates being elected, it is passing strange for the party sounding such urgent warnings to spend millions of dollars boosting the election chances of those very same super duper dangerous candidates. 😒Maybe I’m just cynical.
A common rejoinder by people on the right to Democrats’ overheated “Our Democracy” rhetoric is to loftily point out that “America is not a democracy, but a republic!”
Alas, this rebuke is little more than a non sequitur.
Republic or Democracy?
Is the United States of America a republic? Or a democracy?
It’s both.
The “republic vs. democracy” debate threatens to become yet another pointless tribal indicator, like mask on / mask off (or “Tastes great!” / “Less filling!” for those old enough to remember.2)
Yet being a republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive. There can be republics that are not democracies. And I suppose there can be democracies that are not republics, though a concrete example escapes me.
Thus, when our conservative friends say “a republic, not a democracy” they are incorrect.
However, being a republic is part of what makes the United States the great nation it is. It is certainly a point worth emphasizing. Let’s dig in and see why.
What is democracy?
Aristotle identified three basic forms by which societies could organize themselves: rule by the one, rule by the few, and rule by the many. The “good” version of these forms — when political power was exercised for the common good — were called monarchy, aristocracy, and polity. But each of these forms could break bad if the ruler(s) governed instead for their own benefit over the common good. The devolved forms were called tyranny, oligarchy … and democracy.
Yeah, democracy was rule by the many gone bad. Go figure.
Aristotle’s Forms of Government (Image: fs.blog)
Democracy was rule by the people (In Greek demos “the people” + kratia “power, rule"). But how can that be a bad? To our modern sensibilities it sounds strange. Isn’t government by the people, for the people a good thing? Abe Lincoln said so!
Well, it can be, yes. But that’s the good form, polity. You can get a more detailed overview of Aristotle’s Political Theory here. Maybe we’ll take a deeper dive another time.
For now, just note that the ancient Greeks, often credited as the inventors of democracy, were well aware of its dangers and excesses. They did not consider it a perfect system, or even the best system. Rule by the one, many, or few all had their advantages and disadvantages. And any could, as noted, devolve into a corrupt form.
What were the dangers of democracy? For one thing, "the people" sometimes went mad. We’re all aware of how popular delusions, hysterias, and manias can take hold of a population. Think Salem witch trials, the 80s “satanic panic”, various widespread conspiracy theories, and the behavior of many people during the COVID-19 pandemic. Whole books have been written about this phenomenon.3
Athenian democracy in particular could become quite murdery, as our friends at Classical Wisdom discuss here: Plato and the Disaster of Democracy
In the course of his writings, the philosopher Plato extensively examined what he considered serious dangers that resided within the system of democracy.
The first, rather obvious, strike against Athenian democracy is that there was a tendency for people to be casually executed. It is understandable why Plato would despise democracy, considering that his friend and mentor, Socrates, was condemned to death by the policy makers of Athens in 399 BCE. Plato would write about the trial of Socrates in his first essay The Apology. Plato would later describe the trial of Socrates as a doctor being persecuted by a pastry chef and judged by a jury of children.
Ancient Greek “cancel culture” was no joke.
It wasn’t only Socrates who got hemlocked. The article mentions several other egregious cases of the Athenians executing first and asking questions later.
The drafters of the U.S. Constitution were familiar with classical political theory and history, including the thoughts of Plato and Aristotle. One of the lessons they took from history was the dangers of democracy. Along with that whole executing Socrates thing, there were also the perils of violent democratic factions contending for power, demagogues stirring up mobs to direct at their enemies,4 the (usually poor) many realizing they could vote to expropriate the wealth of the (usually rich) few via "legal plunder,"5and other forms of a democratic majority using its power to oppress various minorities.
James Madison wrote about some of the defects of democratic government in The Federalist No. 10. To summarize the dilemma of democracy:
Democracy is self-government through popular sovereignty, based on the principle of majority rule. Simply put, the people rule, and legitimacy is determined by what more than half of the people want. A serious challenge, though, has long plagued the very concept of democracy: how can the principles of popular sovereignty be implemented in a manner that also provides for a stable society and preserves the rights and liberties of all?6
Hey, nobody’s perfect.
Forms of democracy
While the Founders wanted the people to have a say in their government — the essence of self-government — they were not interested in establishing a “democracy” as such. Certainly not a direct democracy, in which the people decide public issues directly in a public assembly. That might work in a small city-state7, but not over an extensive territory like the United States.8
Obviously monarchy (sorry, George III) and aristocracy9 were out too. So what to do?
The Founders weren’t starting with a blank slate. All of the thirteen original states had elected legislatures, which are examples of representative democracy. The people don’t decide public matters directly, but rather they decide who decides. I’m sure you learned all this in high school civics.10
So, yes, the United States is a democracy in that we the people vote to elect the member of Congress who write our laws, along with electing11 a president and vice president. Plus our state and local officials. So much electing!
If the people getting to decide who governs us is the hallmark of a democracy, then America is a democracy. But we’re also a republic. What does that mean and why does it matter? Read on!
It’s a public thing
While democracy has the advantages of enabling popular sovereignty and giving the people a voice in their government, how can its defects be overcome?
The answer goes back to Aristotle again. His solution for curing, or at least mitigating, the defects of the various forms of government was to mix and match. “To Aristotle, the best form of government blended all three types into a “mixed regime.” This mixed regime would combine the best features of each and counterbalance their excesses.”12
Which brings us to republics.
Like democracy, the meaning of the term republic has shifted over time. The word comes from the Latin phrase res publica — “the public thing”. Which doesn’t tell us much, except that a republic is that which concerns or belongs to the people of a given state. Before the 17th century, any form of regime except a tyranny might be called a republic. In early modern times, a republic came to mean regimes that were not hereditary monarchies. Usually.13 Roughly speaking, any place not ruled by a king or emperor or the like was considered a republic.
By 1787, when the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered in Philadelphia, the key features of a republic were considered to be popular sovereignty (as opposed to a ruler with divine or hereditary rights), majoritarian control of government, and a constitution defining the powers of the government and the rights of the people.
In Federalist No. 39, James Madison wrote:
[W]e may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; . . . It is SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified[.]3
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
America as a republic
Ben Franklin, according to a popular story, is said to have told a curious questioner that the new government the delegates to the Philadelphia convention had devised was “A republic, if you can keep it.” Did he actually say this? Doesn’t matter. If it didn’t happen that way, it should have.
The features of the new American republic included:
Popular sovereignty (no king)
All officials elected directly or indirectly by the people
Majoritarian rule — meaning majorities controlled in most instances, but some actions (removal of official from office, overriding executive vetoes, amending the Constitution) required a supermajority votes. Also, some actions were prohibited, even with a majority vote (bills of attainder, granting titles of nobility, etc,)
A Constitution — Duh.
The right of the people to alter or abolish the government was built in, through the amendment process.
This is not an exhaustive list of the republican features of the American government, but you get the idea. The Founders consciously designed the new government to be a republic. They did so with a keen awareness of the experience of republics throughout history and the ideas of political thinkers from Aristotle to Cicero to Locke and Montesquieu. So those who stoutly insist America is a republic are correct.
At the same time, the Founders’ republic included democratic features. Members of the House of Representatives were to be directly elected by the voters of the several states. The Congress would act, in most cases, by majority vote to pass laws or take other actions, such as confirming judges and presidential appointees. The United States is a democracy, specifically a representative democracy.
As that Dictionary.com article I cited earlier sums it up:
For all practical purposes, it’s both. In everyday speech and writing, you can safely refer to the US as a democracy or a republic. If you want or need to be more precise in referring to the system of the US, you can accurately call it a representative democracy. And should you need to be exacting? The US can be called a federal presidential constitutional republic or a constitutional federal representative democracy.
What you should take away in the confusion (or debate) over democracy vs. republic is that, in both forms of government, power ultimately lies with the people who are able to vote.
So there you have it, straight from the dictionary.
The combo platter
That said, if for some reason I had to pick one word or the other, I’d go with republic.
This goes back to Aristotle’s idea of mixed government. Yes, the Framers included important democratic features in the Constitution. But they intentionally included non-democratic features too. That’s what the famous “balance of powers” is all about.
The executive branch, with a strong single executive president, brings in elements of monarchy, in that in some areas the president can act on his own authority.
In the original plan, members of the Senate were elected indirectly, by the state legislatures, not by the people. Federal judges serve “during good behavior,” which effectively means for life. Both of these elements resemble aspects of aristocratic rule.
Making the federal government a limited government with only delegated powers is also a non-democratic feature. Majorities in Congress can’t do whatever they want. Congress can only exercise those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution. Ditto the president.
The Bill of Rights is also an anti-majoritarian limit on the government’s power and a counter-democratic feature of the Constitution:
The Bill of Rights provides heightened protection for fundamental liberties, protecting both natural rights, such as freedom of conscience, and civil rights, such as protection against arbitrary search and seizure. Some rights can be confined if the government satisfies due process requirements. However, no matter how large the majority, one’s right to practice the religion of choice or to be free from arbitrary search by government officials cannot be abridged or simply voted away.14
In other words, while we may use republic and democracy as rough synonyms in everyday speech, the fact is they aren’t the same thing. Many of the features of our government that make it a republic aren’t democratic at all. If pressed, I’d therefore say the United States is more a republic than a democracy, even in the modern meaning of democracy.
Is this the end?
It’s almost the end of this edition of Daily Conquest, I promise!
But will the midterm elections tomorrow be the “end of democracy” if Republicans prevail? Democrats certainly want you to think so. House Majority Whip James Clyburn has gone full Godwin’s Law, suggesting we’re just a few days from going the way of Nazi Germany: "This country is on track to repeat what happened in Germany when it was the greatest democracy going, when it elected a chancellor that then co-opted the media," Clyburn told Fox News Digital on Thursday."15
Uh … sure, dude. I’ll happily take the other side of that bet. The U.S. will not turn into a new Nazi Germany if Democrats do poorly in the midterms.
Also, maybe switch to decaf.
The very fact that we are having free and open nationwide elections shows that American democracy is alive and well. The fact that the ruling party — the party that controls the White House and both houses of Congress — has a high chance of losing its control of one or both chambers because voters are unhappy with their performance in office is exactly how democracy is supposed to work. It shows that American democracy is strong, not weak.
“Our Democracy” is doing just fine. And Our Republic, which has stood since 1776, will still be standing Wednesday morning, no matter which party has the best results on Tuesday night.
(If you’ve made this far, thank you for reading! If you enjoyed this post, please share it and please click the heart icon in the header. Conquer the Day!)
‘Democrats have spent more than $53M boosting far-right candidates in primaries’, Washington Examiner, September 13, 2022 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/democrats-spent-millions-boosting-far-right-candidates
The classic text, highly recommended, is Charles Mackay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds. I link to a print version, but free ebook editions are available from many sources online, including at Project Gutenberg.
As wonderfully dramatized by Shakespeare in Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 2 (Antony’s funeral oration). As you may recall, Brutus and the other conspirators stabbed Caesar. But they made one mistake — they left Caesar’s BFF Marc Antony alive. Then they made another mistake and let Antony speak at Caesar’s funeral.
Antony: Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him…
[A few minutes later… ]
First Citizen. O most bloody sight!
Second Citizen. We will be revenged.
All. Revenge! About! Seek! Burn! Fire! Kill! Slay!
Let not a traitor live!
You did this to yourself, Brutus.
The Law, Frederic Bastiat describes this best. Also at Project Gutenberg.
“Republican Government” https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/republican-government
Again, other than the whole “Let’s kill Socrates!” thing.
While the federal government has no direct democracy component, some states do employ elements of direct democracy. One example is the “town meetings” in New Hampshire, where all the citizens of the town gather to vote on and decide certain matters. Another is the popular referendum or ballot initiative procedure found in California and other states, by which citizens can vote directly on proposals which, if adopted by majority vote, become part of state law, bypassing the state legislature. Of course, sometimes the people adopt really stupid ideas or even adopt two contrary referenda at the same election.
Here’s the Dictionary.com discussion of “Democracy” vs. “Republic”: Is There A Difference?”
Sort of. Indirectly. The Electoral College is a thing. But we’ll skip that for now.
“Republican Government” https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/republican-government
The Dutch Republic (1579-1795) had quite a few hereditary officeholders.
“Republican Government” https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/republican-government
“House Majority Whip: US 'on track to repeat' Nazi Germany, downplays inflation ahead of midterms” https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-majority-whip-track-repeat-nazi-germany-downplays-inflation-ahead-midterms