Preface/Explanation. This is a post I have been meaning to write for some time, and fits in the same basic category as the one on Hitler’s lack of election from a few months back, i.e., a post about a common misconception that I want to be able to refer back to when the need arises. The proximate cause of the post was a comment thread over at OTB wherein one of the commenters made a statement I have seen before: one that conflates the concept of republic with that of federalism–all in the context of the notion that the US has “a republic, not a democracy.”
A Republic, not a Democracy One of my (many) pet peeves is the statement that is oft made that “the United States is a republic not a democracy.” There are multiple reasons why this is an annoying statement, not the least of which being that I don’t think that most people who deploy it really have any earthly idea what they mean by it, but they simply think it sounds good. 1
I think that the main purpose of the phrase is to point out that we do not have direct democracy (i.e., a system wherein everyone votes on everything that the government does and the majority rules), which is true. Of course, on balance, no one ever had pure direct democracy,2 and no one ever will—so pointing out how we don’t have something that only exists in the realm of the theoretical seems to me to be a waste of time, especially when the terms in question have perfectly reasonable (and not incompatible) definitions.
There is a lot one could say on the subject, and given that this is a blog post and not a book, I will avoid most of them. Let me point out a few basics before I get to the main issue, which is how to understand the term “republic” in the US Context.
Basic Def: Republic. If we go back to Plato, and his work entitled The Republic , we find the early origins of the concept, and it is the idea of a regime oriented towards not the private interest of the ruler, but towards the common interest of the governed. The term has evolved into one that denotes a state wherein the power to govern comes from the governed, i.e., the idea of popular sovereignty or the power to govern being derived from the population, rather than the power coming from a royal family, the church or some other source. Popular sovereignty is an essential element of democratic governance, although it is not enough of itself, to say that a given state is a democracy. And it is that meaning, of power from the people, that we use the term republic in the modern era. Note that a lot of places may use the term (e.g., People’s Republic of China) and yet are not really republics (although the argument for China’s case was that the people fomented the revolution, still since the power to govern derives from the CCP, it is difficult to say that they actually have a republic, and if one accepts that they do, it is an authoritarian republic, not a democratic one).
It is worth pointing out that what one calls something is irrelevant, but rather what something is is what matters. Shakespeare understood this when he wrote “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Similarly, an authoritarian state called by any other name would still be just as authoritarian. My favorite example of this would be the official name of East Germany before reunification: the German Democratic Republic. Why, with a name like that, it had to be good, right? And yet, it was hardly democratic and not much of a republic.
While on the subject of the Greeks, is is worth noting that both Plato and Aristotle saw democracy (or rule by the people) as a problematic regime type wherein the poor governed in their own narrow self-interest3 —a circumstance that would eventually degenerate into chaos as the poor tore down the rich. While the word is the same as the one we use today, the meaning is quite different. Indeed, a better translation of what they both meant would be closer to “mobocracy” than “democracy”. If one is interested in their prescriptions for governance, see the aforementioned Republic or Aristotle’s The Politics
It is worth noting (indeed, part of the reason I bring it up) is that when the US founders use the word democracy, they are often using it in the way that the ancient Greeks (and Romans, who borrowed from the Greeks) did and not the way we use the term today. John Adams, if memory serves, would be a good example of this phenomenon.
Basic Def: Democracy. A simple definition of democracy that is also adequately comprehensive is difficult to derive. In basic terms we are talking about a form of government in which the control of that government is selected via open competition in free and fair elections that are held on a regular basis. In short, power comes from the people (the aforementioned popular sovereignty) and the government is chosen through a competitive process and that government is responsible to the citizenry. As such, it is a representative government or an indirect democracy (in the sense that governing is not directly exercised by the populace, but rather is indirectly exercised via the the elected representatives of that populace). One also assumes that in a democracy that citizens have substantive rights (such as speech, press, assembly, religious liberty and so forth). 4
One presumes, by the way, that those who say we have a republic not a democracy seem to wish to be emphasizing that we have representative government. However, it is unclear as to what point such an observation is supposed to be making, given that all democracies, save the hypothetical, are representative democracies. And, again, since republicanism, (properly defined) is about where power comes from and not anything about how government is chosen and to whom it is responsible, the formulation of “republic not democracy” is incomplete at best and nonsensical at worse.
In short, a republic really isn’t a specific regime type, while a democracy is. Moreover, to have a democracy, one essentially has to have a republican basis for it–unless one has a constitutional monarchy, at which point one could start to split theoretical and definitional hairs. I will leave that alone for the moment, as my main focus in the US.
Next up: Part II: Madison, the republic and federalism.
Sphere: Related Content- BTW, I blame Rush Limbaugh for its popularization, as it is a phrase he has used for years—and since I can’t think of any other place from whence the phrase could have been widely promulgated, and because the phrase seems to be most popular with rightish leaning individuals, I will assume that Rush is the main source, although I certainly have not empirical evidence to back me up. [↩]
- “But wait!” you say, what about ancient Athens? My POL 101 text books seems to state that they had one. Oh, and don’t forget those New England town hall meetings!” Neither, however, really conforms to the full idea of direct democracy for a variety of reasons. For the Athens/ancient Greek issue, consider the basic problem of the definition of citizenship. Also, see Charles Tilly’s excellent book Democracy [↩]
- As noted above, one of he major issues for ancient political philosophy from the Greeks into the Romans, and even in Catholic political thought as seen in Augustine and Aquinas, was the issue of governance focused on self-interest v. government focused on the common interest [↩]
- For a comprehensive discussion of these concepts, I would recommend Larry Diamond’s Developing Democracy, chapter one, or numerous works by Robert Dahl, including his classic Polyarchy as well as the aforementioned Tilly book. There is a vast literature on the issue of defining democracy, in fact. [↩]
March 12th, 2009 at 11:21 am
I haven’t used the phrase much in recent years but, when I did, I meant Republic in the sense of limited government and Democracy in the sense of rule by the majority. We’ve created institutional barriers (the Senate, most notably, plus the Supreme Court) to limit what the majority can do with their power. I wish we had more, frankly.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:25 am
I take the distinction, but I think that the is an overly narrow definition of democracy–i.e., that it only means “majority rule.” A democratic system can have any number of institutional constraints on power, and the presence of basic rights like speech, religion and the press means that pure majority rule on all subjects isn’t what “democracy” means.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:41 am
I blame Rush Limbaugh for its popularization, as it is a phrase he has used for years—and since I can’t think of any other place from whence the phrase could have been widely promulgated, and because the phrase seems to be most popular with rightish leaning individuals, I will assume that Rush is the main source, although I certainly have not empirical evidence to back me up.
Nice exegesis.
I had encountered people saying this and had no idea why–since, as you point out–it’s a strange distinction.
I always assumed those who used it were advocates for some sort of philosophers’ monarchy (a la Plato), but I guess they were just Ditto-heads.
I’m not sure where Joyner gets his definition of “republic”–maybe from Locke. But it seems even deploying that understanding of the distinction is problematic given the Latin root of the term, res Wealth publica .
A “republic” is simply a way of insuring the public good [which is why it could fit within the Marxist logic as well].
March 12th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
There are many forms of democracy and of republics, for that matter. To Brits, for example, anything not run by a monarch is a republic. I’m just stating what I think people mean by that axiom.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
James’s first comment (about formerly having used the phrase) is indeed typical of the “republic vs. democracy” concept, as far as I have been able to tell–over many years going back long before I ever had the misfortune of discovering who Rush is.
The problem is the idea that republic is distinguished from democracy by whether it limits or tolerate unchecked the will of the majority (whatever that might mean–talk about cans of worms) does not stand up to even cursory historical or textual scrutiny. For instance, of the writings of James Madison at the founding of our democracy–er, republic.
Madison used the phrase “republican government” to refer generically to what we might call representative democracy. Indeed, as Steven notes, this was opposed to the theoretical notion of direct democracy (by which I mean assemblies of the citizenry at large, not referenda).
Madison did not use the phrase”republican government” to refer to checks and balances as opposed to majoritarian government. In fact, he was using the phrase long before the notions of a senate with equal representation of states or the idea of a separately chosen president with a veto were even on the agenda.
For Madison, “republican government” was consistent with a national legislature that: was fully apportioned by population, selected the national executive and the judiciary, and was empowered to overturn laws passed by state legislatures. That would have been about as “majoritarian” a “democracy” as could have been imagined for quite some time after he drafted these ideas and called them his model of the “extensive republic.”
If Madison came back today and re-advocated for his original constitutional project, no doubt Rush and many so-called Republicans would denounce his ideas as un-American!
March 12th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I guess, I’ve always thought of republic in the old school way—Plato, Cicero, etc….
So, Shug, from that standpoint there would, indeed, be a way to distinguish republic v. democracy. Plato’s hierarchy was designed to create the best possible social organism (res-publica) but was clearly not democratic.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
ahhh…the americanist in you can’t help but come out sometimes.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:04 am
[...] two essays questioning the use of the phrase “A Republic, Not a Democracy.” In Part I: Looking at Terms, he cites the political science literature to show that the terms are interchangable. Part II: [...]
March 13th, 2009 at 10:40 am
[...] a follow-up to my post “A Democracy or a Republic” (Part I and Part II), let me return to the fundamental issue at stake, and respond to a comment at OTB (on [...]