Democracy vs. Republic?

[bsheck]

I tried to post a thread earlier on this, but for some reason it didn't go through. Anyway, on the AV John and Michael often point out when a politican, pundit, or whoever refers to us as a democracy and points out how we are in fact a republic. However, I was told that the definition of a republic is a "representative democracy" and I would like to hear some thoughts about this. Is it in fact 100% incorrect to call America a democracy? Does a republic have any democratic elements in it? I'd appreciate any thoughts on this issue.

[Areopagus]

I tried to post a thread earlier on this, but for some reason it didn't go through. Anyway, on the AV John and Michael often point out when a politican, pundit, or whoever refers to us as a democracy and points out how we are in fact a republic. However, I was told that the definition of a republic is a "representative democracy" and I would like to hear some thoughts about this. Is it in fact 100% incorrect to call America a democracy? Does a republic have any democratic elements in it? I'd appreciate any thoughts on this issue.

In a pure democracy ( mobocracy ) the citizens vote directly on the issues. One example would be a referendum.

In a republic the citizens vote for others who will represent them in deciding the issues.

Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) described the major distinguishing feature of a republic: "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men."

US Constitution, Article IV: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government….”

The Federalist has numerous comments about the form of government that would exist under the Constitution.

James Madison, in Federalist #51, recognized that government must be based upon a realistic view of human nature:

"But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

And in Federalist #55, Madison states that republican government promotes good and restrains evil (Jeremiah 17:9) better than any other form:

"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 presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form."

The following two excerpts from The Federalists correct the misunderstanding most have regarding the federal courts and congress:

Federalist No 78: “It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power 1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' "Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186.


Federalist No 51: “But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates…”


Additional reading http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/repdem.htm America: Republic or Democracy? The Difference That it Makes by Herbert W. Titus Senior Legal Advisor
The Liberty Committee

[SWhiteman]

Please see:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=11

[Camp Director]

I think I'll take a swipe at this question.

I have taught for several years that the difference between these two forms of government is that their authorities are derived from different sources. All government has as its basis some form of authority.

Republican governments are ruled by a standard of law. This is a concrete and unshifting foundation in most systems because the governing authority is a higher power. For instance, in our government the higher power, despite loud protests to the contrary, is Is God and His laws as He outlined them in the Bible. Other republics have used Greek and Roman deities, with varying degrees of success as the basis of law but they only succeed as far as their law is in line with God's natural law.

Democratic governments are built on the shifting sand of the will and whim of the people. Thus, the "higher power" that dictates law is the mob that proves itself the most cunning and ruthless in destroying the influence of smaller and less powerful mobs. This is why Hamilton, Madison, Adams, etc were so dead set against democracy. They recognized that the will of the people can be manipulated for the use of despots through the creation of anarchy. In Roman culture lip service was paid to Roman deities but the real God during the Imperial period was the emperor and his will was law. Thus, Rome passed from a republic through a period of anarchic democracy, as manipulated by the various power bases, (the Roman civil wars) to a despotic empire by disconnecting from God's natural law.

Does this help clarify?


Chuck Michaelis
Director
Camp American (http://www.campamerican.com)

[Will]

In it's most simple terms, a democracy is a system where the people (by popular vote) legislate. A republic is a sytem where representatives of the people legislate.

[Camp Director]

In it's most simple terms, a democracy is a system where the people (by popular vote) legislate. A republic is a sytem where representatives of the people legislate.

This is an OK explanation of the basic mechanics of the two systems but does not take into account that even in a representative system the will and whim of the people rather than the law can be the driving force behind legislation.

Take for instance a theoretical situation in which some heinous act has been perpetrated by agents of a foreign nation against our own and thousands of people who are not normally considered combatants are killed. In response to that act the people, after being subjected to a constant din by special interest groups that certain laws are now necessary for their safety, begin to clamor that "something be done." They express a desire that laws be passed that squelch our God-given rights to free speech, habeus corpus, speedy trial, trial by jury, non-excessive bail, freedom of speech, assembly, press, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. After all, it's a "different world" we live in now. These laws are given top priority due to the pressure from the people's "spokesmen," i.e. the special interest groups that agitated the people to begin with, and are labeled "urgent and necessary." Lawmakers who recognize the fundamental shift in the nature of the system are labeled "obstructionist" and pilloried in the sympathetic press. The principled lawmakers are ostracized and many eventually buckle under the pressure to "do something FAST!"

Thus, the will and whim of the people, stirred by special interest groups who hope to see power pass to themselves and their allies, works to eliminate the fundamental legal restrictions against government interference in the rights of the individual. In other words democracy trumps law. And this in a representative system. If we truly believe that we are "... endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights..." per the Declaration of Independence then this is a violation of the first order of that primary natural law.

Not really all that theoretical a scenario, now that I think about it.

Chuck
Executive Director
Camp American (http://www.campamerican.com)

[Will]

Camp:

Right! it is a shame that most legislators only listen to those with the power to shout over the rest of us instead of us, their constituents! However, the situation is changing. This board is one example!

"A prayer offered to an unknown god, censored by TAV"

Will Mattison