(ThyBlackMan.com) Suppose that you’re walking down the street and you come to an intersection.
There is a man standing there with his dog. You sidle up next to him and say, “Hey, nice dog!” Now suppose that the man looks at you, smirks, and says, “This isn’t a dog. It’s a German Shepherd.” Presumably, you would look at the person quizzically before slowly backing away.
While that analogy is imperfect (as analogies tend to be), its basic premise holds vis-à-vis the popular debate regarding the type of government that we have in the U.S. Specifically, there are many people who claim that this nation is “not a democracy;” rather, “it’s a republic.” (Or a “constitutional republic.”)
The problem with that argument is, well, it’s wrong. For at least two reasons. One is the fact that a republic is a subset of democracy, which renders the argument wrong both factually and logically. Further, most people who make that argument cite (usually unspecified) “Founding Fathers” to make their case. This is a classic logic fallacy known as “an appeal to authority” (i.e., what people often do when they don’t have an actual argument).
To help clear things up, some definitions are in order. First, what is a republic? James Madison offered a pretty clear definition in Federalist 39:
“…we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is sufficient for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people…”
Every democracy that exists today fits the Madisonian definition of a “republic.” Thus, practically speaking, there is no difference between a republic and a democracy. In short, being a democracy and being a republic is not contradictory; as suggested above, a republic is a subset of the broad category of government known as a “democracy.”
This leads to our other definition. Democracy is a broad term. In its most basic form, it means that nations have “free and fair elections” to choose the people who will lead them. (The English word “democracy” comes from two Greek words that together mean “the people have the power” or “the people rule.”)
Our form of government is often defined as “Western liberal democracy.” Unfortunately, this has become a problematic phrase because millions of people in this country have no idea what the word “liberal” means in that context. (Hint: It has nothing to do with “wokeness” — whatever that is.)
This is in counter-distinction to nations, such as the absurdly named “People’s Republic of China” or “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” (aka North Korea). Not coincidentally, I have never heard the “America is a republic” crowd extol those nations as examples of good republican government.
In any case, China and North Korea are two communistic nations. They have elections which are neither free nor fair. Then here is “council democracy,” which is a form or “democratic Marxism” in which the people are ruled by “workers’ councils” that they elect. (Sounds kind of like a republic, doesn’t it?)
Finally, it can be credibly argued that a republic is any form of government that is not a monarchy or a fascist state. (Think Nazi Germany… or Amazon under Jeff Bezos.) In both cases, a single ruler literally owns the government and, by extension, the people. Those people usually have little freedom and even fewer rights. Tragically, in some cases, a majority of a population has actually chosen this form of government.
Those who like to call America a republic often pretend that we are such because we’re not a “direct democracy” (aka a “pure democracy”). A direct democracy is a system in which the population directly elects the people who rule them.
Sadly, many of these people believe that being a Democrat (i.e., a member of one of two major U.S. political parties) is inherently less legitimate than being Republican (i.e., a member of the other major U.S. political party). But being a Republican or a Democrat has almost nothing to do with the forms of government from which they long ago derived their names.
This nation is at an intersection. Or, better yet, we’re at a crossroads. In the end, it doesn’t really matter whether we are a democracy or a republic if we’re tilting towards authoritarianism.
We must avoid that at all costs.
Written by Larry Smith
