If asked, most Americans will say that the best system of governance is “democracy,” or a “democratic republic.” Asked why, most will say something to the effect of, “because it is the most fair” or “it gives people a say.”
Now suppose you ask, “What makes America great?” The average citizen may reply, “Liberty and justice for all”, or maybe, “civil rights and opportunity.”
It is true that the United States has a democratically elected government. It is also true that our ongoing commitment to liberty and justice makes us great. What many Americans may not realize however, is that democracy alone is a form of tyranny.
Suppose the Constitution only guaranteed democracy. Imagine all it said was, “The popular will of the masses shall reign supreme.” Such a society would be rife with illiberal tyranny. In such a society, majority groups would wield unchecked power on minority groups. The despotic paradigm of, “might makes right” is no different than, “popular makes right.” History shows us that the popularity of something does not make it right, and in fact popular opinion is quite often wrong. The founding fathers heeded this lesson when constructing our government.
The Athenians had a political structure significantly more democratic than our own. However, the greatest minds of the day were critical of democracy. The philosopher Plato witnessed democratic opinion condemn his mentor, Socrates, to an unjust death. In the wake of this and other failings, Plato likened democracy to mob rule. In his seminal work, The Republic, Plato hypothesizes how governments evolve over time. He postulated that democracy naturally leads to tyranny.
As students of history and political philosophy, the founding fathers understood the pitfalls of democracy. John Adams wrote, “There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
Madison observed, “Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property…”
Hamilton seems an atrocious elitist for having stated, “The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.”
The founding fathers had a monumentally difficult task in erecting the new government. On the one hand, they wanted to guarantee minority factions protection from the majority, and allow government to operate unhindered by, as Hamilton put it, “the passions of man.” On the other hand, they wanted a limited, decentralized government which was, as Abraham Lincoln would later remark, “of the people, by the people, for the people.”
It is no wonder the conventional wisdom of the old world assumed the American experiment would fail. How can a government protect the rights of the minority and not bow down to “the passions of man”; if at the same time, the government has limited power and is in the hands of the people? How do we simultaneously prevent tyranny of the government and tyranny of the majority? Even sitting here today, nearly two and a half centuries after we supposedly reconciled this conundrum, it poses quite the riddle.
The remedy they came up with to balance these needs was both intricate and revolutionary, and is more a subject for a college course than a single essay. Many people are well aware that the Constitution, along with a separation of powers, act as checks and balances on the government. What many may overlook, however, is that our republican model of government acts as a check on the will of the people.
Our political structure was designed so that representatives may operate somewhat freely of ever-changing public opinion, and so that passing new legislation is exceedingly difficult.
Political theorist, Edmund Burke, summed up the role of an elected official when he stated, “your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” Politicians should be expected to legislate on their own accord. It is the purpose of elections to serve as a democratic review of their work.
Citizens, politicians, and media talking heads, often bemoan a state of congressional gridlock. However, it is worth remembering that our government was designed to avoid any rash policy changes which might infringe on the rights of the individual. Rather than a parliamentary democracy, which allows the majority political party to pass legislation with ease, we have a presidential republic, with two equally powerful yet separately elected legislative houses. Additionally, the Executive is also separately elected. Under this system, passing a bill requires a great deal of effort and circumstance, and blocking legislation is not too difficult.
The first priority of the founding fathers was to ensure liberty and prevent tyranny. As such, they wisely chose to design our government as a constitutional republic. The Constitution, the republican model, and the separation of powers, all serve to ensure the rights of no individual are infringed upon.
At the end of the day, however, the mission to uphold liberty lies with all of us. Our country is democratic, meaning that we are easily capable of voting ourselves into tyranny. Because of this, it is vital for us to take personal responsibility, hold a sense of civic virtue, and resist the temptation to vote for centralized power.
We are living in a time where presidential candidates promise that with great power, they can deliver positive change. More and more it seems Americans wish the president to be an all-powerful monarch, and fail to recognize the perils of centralization.
The founding fathers entrusted the natural rights of man and the liberty of this land to all of us. The conventional wisdom of the day was that people could not rule themselves. Let us never prove Plato correct. Freedom is never easy. Freedom requires responsibility and steadfast courage to uphold. As such, let us boldly refuse the temptation of centralization.
One last anecdote to consider: At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A republic … if you can keep it.”
Matthew Goldberg
Matthew Goldberg is a recent Political Science graduate from UMass-Amherst and lives in Quincy. He can be reached at [email protected]. Like his Facebook page here.
(Adobe Stock photo) 
