18th Century Republicanism and the Democratic Ideal

Introduction

“Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.”~ Winston Churchill

The word ‘democracy’ is not included in the U.S. Constitution, namely because democracy had gotten an ill reputation from thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, and Hobbes, and later from more republican thinkers such as Montesquieu, de Tocqueville, as well as some of the framers of the Constitution (Madison, Hamilton and Washington). What did the framers take to be the shortcomings and dangers of democracy? What, if anything, in the revolutionary period contributed to this distrust of democracy? You have heard some of the reasons for why at least some of the framers thought there was an excess of democracy in the Scene on Radio podcast. It was also suggested that the Constitution itself wasn't mean to be a democratic document, but if so, how should we understand it? At least one tradition of political thought, republicanism, provides some insights into this question.

Republicanism

What are the core tenants of republicanism as a political philosophy? First, be sure not to confuse republicanism with the Republican Party or with conservatism. Republicanism is a philosophical tradition that stretches back at least to Machiavelli. We can think of it simply as representative government, but it has some key components that also suggest that republicanism has tended to understand political conflict as existing between different classes and different interests and it therefore can be seen as a from of government that is elitist despite the concessions it makes to popular government.

The suggestion here is that the Constitution is a republican document rather than a democratic one, even though it has become modestly more democratic over time. However, that does not mean that the pollical system is democratic. Constitutions are parchment - if the values inscribed in them are to have meaning, they need to be realized through actual political processes, institutions and outcomes.

So, how does 18th Century republicanism differ from the classical understanding of democracy?

18th Century republicanism*

Basic Principles:

Government is based on popular consent
Rule by the people is indirect through multiple layers of representation
The term people is narrowly defined (by education, property holdings, social standing)
Office-holding is confined to a narrow and privileged stratum of the population
Elected representatives act as “trustees” (act on their own to discover the public good)
Barriers to majority rule exist
Government is strictly limited in what it can do
Government safeguards rights and liberties with a special emphasis on property rights.
*From Greenberg and Page, Struggle for Democracy

Representation

Two ways of thinking about representation: Trustee vs. Delegate forms of Representation
1) Delegate = as in to delegate, to command, to instruct. Delegates act as instructed by the people; represent their wishes.
2) Trustee = to entrust, to put in the hands and care of someone else. Trustees are trusted to act “in the best interests of the people” and on their own understanding of what is good for them.

Thus, republican government in its indirect form is a barrier to direct, popular/democratic and majority rule:

Only some people can vote/participate
People vote directly or indirectly for representatives who are also narrowly defined
And the representatives are entrusted with rule (as trustees)

The Democratic Ideal*

Government based on popular consent

Rule by the people is mostly direct but could be indirect
The term people is broadly defined (inclusive not exclusive)
Broad eligibility for holding office
Elected representatives act as “delegates”
Majority rule prevails and government does what the majority of the people want it to do
Government safeguards rights and liberties with no special emphasis on property rights
*From Greenberg and Page, Struggle for Democracy

Back to Top