President Barack Obama delivering the 2011 State of the Union message to a joint session of Congress, 24 January 2011
19 January 2021
There has been an argument, coming mainly from right-wing circles, that the United States is not a democracy, that it is a republic. The argument states that a democracy refers to a polity where the citizens rule directly through majority vote on all matters; whereas a republic is one in which the citizens elect representatives to rule. The argument is wrong. Except perhaps in abstract and technical definitions in political science textbooks, democracy has never solely meant direct, majority rule by citizens—even the Athenian democracy of antiquity had elected representatives who governed on many matters. And as to the United States, it is both a democracy and a republic.
The English word democracy was borrowed from the French democracie in the fifteenth century, which came from post-classical Latin democratia, and that in turn is from the Greek δημοκρατία. The Greek roots are δῆμος (demos, people) + -κρατια (kratia, rule or power). An early appearance of the English word is in a late fifteenth-century translation of Alain Chartier’s Le Traité de l’Esperance (The Treatise on Hope):
Some ther be also that be gouerned persones enstablisched to rule for a certayne tyme, which haue power to guyde the comonalte by myghti auctorite, euery man after his degre; and vndir this forme the Florentynes institute their princes by the wise counceill of the olde fadirs. And this power is callid polytyke(ly) Thy(mo)tracye, which some, for doubtefull vnstablenesse of ofte chaunginge their rewlers and to þentent also to avoide occasions (of) divisions of chesinges and parcialite of gouernours, lefte that and loued better to continewe, by order of nature and reule of doctryne, their lordeship in a wele-rewled house and vndir gloriouse kynderede thanne ofte to fall in murmoure and rumoure of mutacions, discordes and envyes. And ayeinst thes thre spices of polecye be raysid vnlawfull vsurpacions, which is contrarye and grette hurte to the realme: Tyranny, Aristogracye, in which fewe men will reule by iustice, Oligracie, Tymotracie and Democracie, which shulde gouerne the vniuersall people, ys now withowt ordre.
Chartier does not look favorably upon democracy. And other writers equate democracy with mob rule. For example, there is this 1576 translation of Pisistratus’s letter to Solon by Abraham Fleming. Pisistratus was a populist and benevolent Athenian dictator, and here he is justifying his rule as being more effective than democracy:
Furthermore, against the Gods I haue committed no crime, and as for me I haue them not offended. The lawes and decrées which you prescribed to the Atheniens, I commaund them duely to be obserued, and charge them to frame the course of their liues, after the same your ordinaunces: and vndoubtedly, the obseruation of them is better séene to and prouided, then it would otherwise be, in *Democracie, when the multitude haue gouernement. For what do I? I suffer no man to be oppressed with iniurie: I am content with my Monarchicall maiestie or title royall: I diminish nothing that is proper to the comonaltie: I am satisfied with these stipends and payments, which were due to my predecessors, long before this power fell to my possession: I burthen none with newe exactions, tributes, or subsidies.
But while Pisistratus says his benevolent dictatorship is better, he does not throw shade on democracy in and of itself. But Fleming’s marginal note presents a different evaluation. For democracie Fleming notes:
* Whe[n] the people rule the ro[u?]st, a monster of many heads.
Until the eighteenth century, most writers in English held a similar view. Opinions on democracy would change, however, with the American revolution and the formation of the United States. Democracy came to refer to egalitarianism, liberalism and liberty, rule of law, and any government or institution that embodied these principles, regardless of the particular mechanisms of government so long as its leaders were selected and held accountable by the people.
In a letter to his constituents on 22 October 1836, British parliamentarian Thomas Perronet Thompson, representing Kingston upon Hull, wrote:
The present dilemma, is between giving up what we have got of our own, and securing it by taking more. If we are to escape the right way, it is hardly necessary to say, it must be by union, moderation, and neither being too hasty nor too slow. Let no man be frightened by the word “democracy." Democracy means the community's governing through its representatives for its own benefit, instead of the benefit of somebody else. All intimations that somebody else knows better what is for your good, are frauds when applied to a nation as far advanced in intelligence and habits of self-management as Great Britain.
Even a constitutional monarchy, like Victorian Britain, could be a democracy.
And on 25 November 1890, this appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette regarding the late Italian statesman Giuseppe Mazzini:
Indeed, enthusiasm was always a marked characteristic of Mazzini’s nature; and if he was more a prophet than a statesman the former was, after all, the nobler part. “Progress of all through all, under the leading of the best and wisest,” was his definition of democracy, and it has been said to be the noblest ever given to the world.
And democracy extends beyond governments. There is this “Mr. Know-It-All” advice column in Wired magazine of September 2008 that refers to the social media app Twitter as a democracy:
Is it cool for me to Twitter that I'm about to boff my girlfriend?
The knee-jerk response would be to castigate you for incivility both to your lady friend and your Twitter clan. Such risqué tweets will likely skeeve out your girl and followers or make the latter envious. Neither action should be encouraged.
But then again, Twitter is a democracy if users don't like your tweets, they can vote with their PCs and drop your feed. So on the off chance your girlfriend is OK with having your coital calendar go public, and you don't mind losing a few Twitter pals, feel free to try this out. Mr. Know-It-All is Mr. Less-Is-More in this case and finds your exhibitionism sort of desperate and lame. But perhaps your Twitter crew is a more swinging bunch.
Mr. Know-It-All’s classification refers to the facts that Twitter users can choose whose feeds to follow, users are equal in their ability to use the service, and there are terms of service (i.e., rule of law) that govern what content is permissible. Twitter does adhere to democratic principles in such matter, but in regard to the governing structure of the platform, Twitter is an oligarchy (i.e., rule by the executives and directors), or perhaps a timocracy, where property holders (i.e., shareholders) govern.
Democracy has never simply meant direct rule by the populace. It, as is usually the case with reality, is more complicated than that.
(Cf. republic)
Sources:
Blayney, Margaret S., ed. Fifteenth-Century English Translations of Alain Chartier’s Le Traité de l’Esperance and Le Quadrilogue Invectif. Early English Text Society 270. London: Oxford UP, 1974, 55–56. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson A.338. HathiTrust Digital Archive.
“Dear Mr. Know-It-All.” Wired, September 2008, 44. EBSCOhost: Applied Science and Technology Source Ultimate.
Fleming, Abraham. “Pisistratus to Solon.” A Panoplie of Epistles. London: H. Middleton for Ralph Newberie, 1576, 198. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
“A New Edition of Mazzini.” The Pall Mall Gazette, 25 November 1890, 2. Gale Primary Sources: British Library Newspapers.
Oxford English Dictionary, third edition, March 2014, s.v. democracy, n.
Thompson, Thomas Perronet. “Letter, 22 October 1836.” Letters of a Representative to His Constituents. London: Effingham Wilson, 1836, 130. HathiTrust Digital Archive.
Photo Credit: Chuck Kennedy, 24 January 2011, Executive Office of the President of the United States. Public domain photo.