“Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.” —James Madison Federalist No. 51
You’ve heard the slogan. “America is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic.” I ran across a tweet with this slogan the other day (I have shared the tweet below). The tweet is from Turning Point Action. Turning Point Action is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization based in the United States affiliated with Turning Point USA, a conservative student organization founded by Charlie Kirk in 2012. Turning Point Action aims to engage and educate young Americans on conservative principles, free markets, individual liberties, and limited government. A note to the attachment the organization shared on twitter falsely characterizes democracy as “mob rule.” Mob rule is actually a failure of democracy.
I responded to this tweet with this comment: “This is kind of a fake issue. A constitutional republic is a type of democracy. Madison was warning against tyranny of the majority when he criticized democracy. Obviously he meant majority rule. If the people have a say in their government via popular vote, that’s democracy.” I want to break out of the constraints on Twitter and elaborate my point in this blog. Twitter has aggressively de-boosted my tweets and replies for years now, so if I want to get wide play for my arguments, I need to blog them.
A Virginian, James Madison was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and a principal architect of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He was highly critical of democracy in his writings. But he did not reject democracy. On the contrary, he argued for a type of representative democracy called a constitutional republic. He did so because he saw in majority rule the potential for the suppression of minority rights. He proposed a constitutional republic to prevent the tyranny of the majority and protect minority and individual rights. He was especially concerned to protect the “minority of the opulent,” a term he used to refer to those in possession of large tracts of land producing various primarily commodities for the world capitalist economy.
James Madison made his arguments in favor of a constitutional republic in “The Federalist Papers,” published between 1787 and 1788. The essays were written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay under the pseudonym “Publius” to promote the ratification of the United States Constitution. Published in various newspapers throughout the states during that time, these papers provided arguments and explanations about the structure and benefits of the proposed constitution. If we want to know what Madison thought about this issue, we will find it there.
Madison’s specific critiques of democracy can be found in Federalist No. 10 and No. 51. In No. 10, Madison discusses the dangers of factionalism in a democracy. He defines a faction as a group of citizens who are united by a common interest but whose actions may be dangerous or harmful to the rights of other citizens or the overall public good. Madison argues that factions are inevitable in a free society but worries that majority factions, with their potentially overpowering influence, could threaten minority rights and the stability of the government. He suggests that a large and diverse republic would be better equipped to mitigate the adverse effects of factions compared to a small, homogeneous democracy.
“From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction,” Madison writes. “A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” In contrast, a republic “opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
“The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States,” Madison anticipates, “but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States.” He then provides several examples of the problems that a republican form of democracy can check: “A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it.” He also expresses concern about the dangers of a religious sect becoming a political faction and seeking power through government. This concerns is what inspires the religious liberty clause in the First Amendment.
In Federalist No. 51, which revolves around the federal principle, or federalism, Madison discusses the importance of separation of powers and checks and balances within the government. He argues that the structure of the government should be designed in a way that enables different branches to check and balance each other, thereby preventing any one branch from becoming too powerful. Madison highlights the necessity of this arrangement to protect individual rights and prevent the concentration of power. The republican form of government is vital to the pursuit of justice, he notes, which is the goal of government.
“In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger,” he writes; “and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.”
Even if Madison did not define his terms, it would be uncharitable to his argument to conclude that he means to conclude that a constitutional republic eschews democratic processes. Democracy refers to a system of government where power resides with the people. It is characterized by direct or representative participation in decision-making processes. In a direct (or pure) democracy, citizens directly participate in making laws and governing the state. This was the idea Madison was criticizing. A constitutional republic is a system of government that combines elements of democracy with a written constitution that limits the powers of the government. In a constitutional republic, the rule of law is paramount, and the rights of individuals and minority groups are protected from the whims of the majority. The constitution acts as a framework that defines the structure of government and outlines the rights and freedoms of the people. This is no less of a form of democracy.
Conservatives emphasize the distinction between a democracy and a constitutional republic to underscore the importance of constitutional limits on the powers of the government. They argue that the United States’ system was intentionally designed to prevent unchecked majority rule and to protect individual liberties. This is true. But that does not make the United States undemocratic or the American Creed antidemocratic. Madison believed that with its checks and balances and protection of individual rights a constitutional republic would provide stability and prevent the abuses that could arise from unchecked majority rule, while allowing collective self-government. Indeed, the point of the American Revolution was establishing a system for orderly and collective self-government. This is the essence of democracy.
The philosophy of American government is what we call democratic-republicanism. Democratic-republicanism is a political philosophy that combines the idea of popular sovereignty, where the people hold ultimate power, with a system of representative government and the rule of law. The dynamic of self-government in the America system is the living practice of enlarging democratic participation where it does not interfere with the inherent rights of individuals—and limiting democratic participating where it does. Democratic-republicanism is rooted in the idea of popular sovereignty, where ultimate power rests with the people. Democratic-republicanism emphasizes the participation of citizens in the political process and the protection of individual rights and liberties.
The philosophy of democratic-republicanism draws inspiration from the classical republican tradition, which values civic virtue, the common good, and public participation. It also incorporates democratic principles, such as majority rule and equal representation. Democratic-republicanism encompasses a political philosophy that values democracy, popular sovereignty, the protection of individual rights, and republican ideals. It seeks to strike a balance between majority rule and the preservation of individual liberties, with the aim of creating a just and stable society.
The US Constitution, with its checks and balances, separation of powers, and protection of individual rights, embodies democratic-republican ideals. The system of representative government in the United States, where citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf, is an example of democratic-republican governance. Democratic-republicanism promotes the idea that political power should be dispersed among different branches of government, with each branch having checks on the others. It recognizes the importance of respecting individual rights and liberties, even in the face of majority rule. The philosophy encourages active civic engagement and responsible governance.
It is therefore curious that conservatives insist on denying the democratic character of the government of the United States. It is certainly not because they don’t seek and, when they obtain power, practice majority rule. Conservatives don’t have a problem in denying the liberty of individuals—women in their reproductive freedom, gays and lesbians and their desire to marry—when it suits their ideology. Our curiosity is satisfied when we recognize that the slogan only pertains to those instances when people seek to use the democratic machinery to advance interests conservatives oppose. The slogan is not a testable claim about American democracy; it’s rhetorical cudgel to limit democracy for one’s enemies by distorting the character of our republic.
freedom and reason 