Lately I have heard the same bit of nonsense repeated a lot in political discussions. When someone is inclined to defend some policy that is plainly undemocratic (recently it’s been the electoral college system), they apparently can’t think of a real defense for it, so instead they offer the following non-defense: “The United States is a republic, not a democracy!”
Why this statement is wrong and useless
The United States is a democracy. More specifically, it is a representative democracy, a federalist democracy, and a constitutional democracy. The Democracy Index lists the United States as one of 20 “full democracies.” The United States is #16 in terms of most democratic nations according to the Democracy Ranking. Democracy in this context is being contrasted with states that are dictatorships, autocracies, and so on (places like North Carolina). Democracies are countries where those in power must compete in free and fair elections, and where freedoms of speech and the press can serve to hold those in power accountable. The United States is not the best nation on Earth by these measures, but it is clearly a democracy.
Is the United States a republic? Yes. A republic is a state where government officers are seen as representatives of the people who elected them. A republic is usually contrasted with monarchies. The organization that advocates for abolishing monarchy in the UK is called “Republic” (and its stated mission is to pursue “a democratic alternative to the monarchy”). Most democracies are republics, though it’s possible for a country to be a constitutional monarchy and yet also be very democratic. Denmark is a good example of that.
Usually when pressed on this point, the response is that the United States is not a “pure” democracy. In a pure democracy, people just vote on everything and majority rule always wins. That is a useless and artificial idea — by that definition, no country has ever been a democracy. Further, what do we learn by pointing out the in the United States we do not directly vote on laws and pass them by majority? It gives us no insight into whether we should keep using the electoral college system, since direct election of the President would still be electing a representative to act on our behalf, rather than voting on policies directly.
What about the Founders?
Sometimes the sentiment is coupled with an appeal to the “founding fathers.” They ostensibly opposed democracy, never put the term anywhere in the Constitution, and were always clear that they were establishing, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, “a republic, if you can keep it.”
Shortly after the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification. A series of papers were published arguing against ratifying the Constitution, now called the “Anti-federalist papers.” In response, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay published the “Federalist papers,” in which they explained the justifications for the new constitution and argued that states should adopt it. In one of these, Federalist 10, James Madison draws a distinction between a democracy and a republic, arguing that the Constitution establishes the latter and not the former. This is the most commonly cited authority for claiming that the U.S. is a republic and “not a democracy.” But look at how Madison defines “democracy” in Federalist 10:
“ a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person”
And “republic”:
“A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place”
And the difference between the two:
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
At the time, some states did have decentralized governments that were democracies in the sense that Madison uses it. Here he is arguing that the United States should have a single federal government consisting of a small number of representatives elected by the people, rather than many small societies where the people assemble and administer the government directly. That may have been a useful distinction to draw in 1788, but what use is it now? None, unless you are debating someone who wants to abolish the federal government and move to a system of small self-governing societies.
Also, note that he again qualifies his definition of democracy by calling it “pure democracy.” Even in 1788, the concept of “representative democracy” was understood. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both referred to “representative democracy,” and Chief Justice John Marshall described the Constitution as “implementing democracy” when arguing for its adoption in the Virginia Convention.
Why do people say this?
In spite of being wrong, and nearly incoherent, this statement apparently resonates with people. I keep hearing it, and pretty much the whole reason I’m writing this is because I expect to continue hearing it forever and want something to link to in response. What do people think they are saying when they say this?
It is said to defend policies that are plainly undemocratic. The work that this statement does is to counter our intuition that something being undemocratic is bad. It counters it with a contrary intuition: too much democracy can be bad too.
That is plainly true. Democracy can go too far in a few ways. The most well known is the problem of the “tyranny of the majority,” wherein a unified majority group can vote to trample on the rights of a despised minority. In addition to being malicious, the majority can also be foolish, attempting to implement ideas that are simply bad, like when the state of Indiana attempted to declare by legislation that π was equal to 3.2, or any number of attempts to legislate various forms of science denialism.
However, this anti-democratic intuition can also be very dangerous. Less democracy does not always mean better protection of minorities or better thought out legislation. Most of the time, less democracy means more consolidation of power in the hands of a few elites, who may not only continue to trample on the rights of minorities and pass stupid laws, but may do so in the corrupt service of themselves and their friends.
Most of the time, more democracy is good, and less democracy is bad. We must always be vigilant against the trampling of minority rights, and we should have the sense to listen to experts rather than trying to legislate our own facts. However, rules that make the United States less democratic should be suspect first. Policies including the electoral college system, gerrymandering, lack of representation for the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories, disenfranchisement of prisoners and returning citizens, laws that artificially limit candidate access to debates and to the ballot, and all sorts of laws that make it more difficult to vote are all examples of laws that hurt democracy for no good reason.
The United States is a democracy, and it should be more democratic than it is, not less.
