Thoughts of An American Citizen

In a recent letter to the editor in the High Springs Herald, K. D. Shaffer warns of the “tragedy” that so many Americans today believe we live in a democracy.

The real tragedy, I assert, is that so few understand democracy, our Constitution, and the philosophical principles and historical development of both.

Shaffer’s lament is one of the most common myths and misunderstandings to have taken root in our nation’s folk-lore. It is that over-worn adage adopted long after the Revolution that “we live in a republic and not a democracy.”

Shaffer asserts there are five forms of government: republics, democracies, dictatorships, monarchies, and oligarchies.

A republic she defines as rule by law; democracy is that by majority. But how these actually differ she does not say.

Indeed all forms of government beyond “rule by one” (a unity which cannot have a majority) tend to legislate by the decision of some majority. This is a definition without distinction.

Democracy may lead to mob rule, she adds, implying a sixth form in her scheme. The other four she neglects to define.

Turning from the problem of definition to that of proof, the word "democracy," she declares, is not found in key documents.

It does not appear in our Declaration of Independence. But neither does “republic,” for this is not a document establishing a form of government.

Its purpose is to demonstrate, to the world and for posterity, the reason for dissolving our prior bonds and our right to establish government of our own making.

Our nation’s written Constitutions establish the mechanism of government (the “how” it works), not its philosophical form or justification (the “what” and “why”). One cannot assume the mere absence of the name implies the absence of the thing (or its intent).

Indeed, the nation does not obtain the title “republic” therein either.

Her best evidence is found in the Federalist papers. She states they “wrote about their fear of it.” It is here we find the origin of the myth; and here, too, we, as citizens, must turn to learn about our nation’s constitution as well as its Constitution.

Madison, the “Father of our Constitution,” therein lays out its two pillars: Representation of the multiplicity of voices at the national level (Number 10) and the Separation of Powers with Checks and Balances (Numbers 47-51).

These, he argued, were necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, institutions for democracy to be realized in America.

Madison’s theory of constitutions, or forms of government, was established by Aristotle during the decline of Athenian democracy. And it was that of Cicero at the end of the Roman republic.

Three basic constitutions were determined by who ruled: rule by one, rule by some, and rule by all. But there was a second ethical dimension: rule for what end.

So long as those who ruled did so for the common or public good, there was no problem.

But each tended to degrade into a corrupt counterpart, creating six possible constitutions, in which the rulers ruled in their self-interest.

The question for Madison was how could the good form of “rule by all” (the popular form) be established and maintained uncorrupted over time without degrading into its counterpart, mob rule?

Factionalism, seeking government power for one’s own self-interest without regard for the common good or private rights, was the mortal disease needing a cure.

Madison’s solution lay primarily in his new concept of representation – where the multiplicity of views representative of a large and diverse nation would render unlikely any “ruling majority” controlling the legislature.

With so much power invested in a few so distant from the people, the second pillar served to prevent further combinations forming a ruling faction.

The origin of the myth lies in Madison’s decision to use the two synonyms for the popular form to distinguish his innovative mechanism from the pure form.

Shaffer’s failure to understand Madison’s unique use of these terms is at the root of this myth and misunderstanding. In turn, this has eroded the keystone of democracy and that upon which Madison’s national government was to be erected.

Participating directly at the local level, we were to build a nation from its roots up.

Today’s problem is not a federal government that does too much; it’s the misunderstanding that leads citizens to do too little here at home.