In Part One, I chronicled examples of failings of democracy in ancient Greece, the “birthplace of democracy”. I related how Socrates was condemned to death by a majority vote of the democratic Athenian assembly.
There is no conceptual difference between the direct citizen democracy of the Athenian assembly condemning Socrates by majority vote, and the ‘lynch mobs’ that occasionally appear in the plots of Hollywood westerns. Those movie mobs of citizens ‘stringing up’ the subject of their wrath, are merely engaging in the same form of direct democracy as was the Athenian assembly when it sent Socrates to the afterlife in Elysium.
Lynch mobs are merely the most lethal version of direct citizen democracy . So, again, I repeat the question I raised in Part One, to those who rant about “an existential threat” to democracy ? What form of democracy do they mean?
In 1831, French bureaucrat-lawyer Alexis de Tocqueville traveled throughout the United States, ostensibly to study our prison system, and report back to the French government. He submitted his official report about our prisons — and wrote much more, unofficially.
In 1835 deTocqueville published a multi-volume treatise on his observations of American society, and our system of government, based on his observations during his tour of our country. His treatise, Democracy in America, is considered a masterpiece of political writing, and of American history.
De Tocqueville devotes an entire chapter to the “tyranny of the majority”, in which he writes, “I can never willingly invest a number of my fellow creatures with that unlimited authority which I would refuse to any one of them.”
Men are not apt to change their characters by agglomeration, nor does their patience with obstacles increase with the consciousness of their strength.
Down through history, the democracy of mobs has proven de Tocqueville right. Members of his own family were executed during the French revolution reign of terror.
The men who gathered in Philadelphia in the hot summer of 1787, to create the United States Constitution, were likewise aware of the historical failings of democracy wherever it had been tried. They had read Aristotle’s and Plato’s thoughts on democracy, among others, and were apprehensive of it.
That awareness was why they rejected democracy, in favor of a republic. The principal advocates of the Constitution explained their choice in what have become known as The Federalist Papers, considered the foremost authoritative source on the Constitution.
In Federalist #10, James Madison wrote, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
Madison, credited with the phrase “tyranny of the majority”, went on to explain that the principal danger inherent in democracy is “faction”… which today we call partisanship. As I noted in Part One, it was the decision of the “radical democracy” faction in Athens to force their ideology on the Spartans that led to the Peloponnesian War.
Another of the constitution’s principal framers (and a co-author of the Federalist Papers) Alexander Hamilton, was quoted by de Tocqueville about the tyranny of the majority.
In Federalist #51, Hamilton wrote, “In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger.” (Franklin’s wolves and lamb come to mind. See Part One)
Following the war of independence of the American colonies from England, each colony became an independent state, a sovereignty unto itself, similar to the city-states of classical Greece. Those 13 sovereign states had united as a matter of survival to declare their independence, but did not consider themselves a single nation when they did so.
The first attempt at formal unity of the 13 states were the Articles of Confederation in effect from the end of the revolution in 1781, until replaced by the Constitution in 1789. Those Articles failed for a variety of reasons, which were among the catalysts for adoption of the Constitution.
In Part One I gave the definition of democracy as it was known in ancient Greece. A more modern definition is “a system of government in which power is held by elected representatives who are freely voted for by the people”
The federal Constitution adheres to that definition.
Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts, in 1786, was an uprising by indebted farmers facing foreclosure. That was followed by the Massachusetts legislature passing laws to help debtors avoid re-payment of loans, with other states considering the same debt-relief legislation.
Since in those days loans were extended by private individuals, rather than commercial lending institutions, wide-spread default on loans could lead to economic disaster for those who lent money. So the wealthy lenders got together to create a federal government that restricted the ability of state governments, with legislatures controlled by debtors, from impairing the rights of lenders.
At least that’s the rationale some 20th century socialist historians suggest… a suggestion that has been the subject of intense debate since first proposed.
As an undergrad I wrote a term paper on that debate. In my opinion, economic self-interest may have been a primary motivator for a few of the delegates to the constitutional convention — primarily those representing the commercial interests in New England — and somewhat of a factor for a few others.
But the great majority of the delegates, particularly those leading advocates for the Constitution who wrote the Federalist Papers, were motivated by the idea of creating a government based on the principle espoused in the Declaration of Independence that declared, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” in order “to secure” our rights.
The foremost of the delegates, without whose participation the convention would not have even been convened, was George Washington. His motivation was national defense.
His concern (based on his experience as commander of the Army during the revolution) was that unless the individual states were united under a strong central government that was able to defend itself, European colonial powers would foment dissension among the States to reestablish control over them.
That notwithstanding, there is a provision in the Constitution directed specifically at preventing state legislatures from relieving debtors from their contracted obligations. It’s buried among a long list of actions states were prohibited from doing.
Article One, Section 10, provides that “No State shall … pass any … law impairing the obligation of contracts…” (the “Contracts Clause”.)
Of the three branches of the federal government, under the original Constitution, only the House of Representatives was chosen through popular election directly by citizens. That’s also why “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…” (Art 1, Section 7).
The power to tax being restricted to the people’s directly-elected representatives was a reflection of the “No taxation without representation” principle espoused by instigators of the revolution against England. It was a demand that King George adhere to the exclusive power of taxation, which the English House of Commons had acquired over centuries of struggle against the English monarch.
Although U.S. Senators are now elected directly by popular vote, that was not the case prior to adoption of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913. Prior to that, the original Constitution provided that “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof…” (Art 1, Section 3).
Election of the Senate, by state legislatures, was intended to protect of the interest of the states from encroachment on their retained sovereignty by the central government. Combined with the staggered six year terms of the Senators, the Senate was also intended to act as a buffer against the transient passions of factions.
Popular election of Senators following adoption of the 17th Amendment further reduced the autonomy of individual States vis-à-vis the federal government. Draw your own conclusions about that further aggregation of power in the central government through direct democracy. In drawing that conclusion, also consider that in 1913 (the height of the “Progressive era” in American politics) the 16th Amendment empowering the federal government to impose an income tax was also adopted. Since 1913, with the advent of the income tax and popular election of Senators, the federal bureaucracy has expanded exponentially.
I would call that an example of the ‘law of unintended consequences’ but I doubt it was unintended. Rather I believe it was the exact intention of the “Progressive” faction who were in the majority at that time.
The President, the head of the Executive Branch, is chosen by the Electoral College rather than direct popular vote — much to the chagrin of the losers of the 2016, 2000, 1888, 1876, and 1824 presidential elections. The Electoral College was specifically incorporated in the Constitution (rather than direct, popular election of the President) in order to prevent larger, more populous States from controlling election of the chief executive.
The judicial branch is appointed by the elected executive, with the consent of the Senate. Unfortunately, as we are currently observing, this unelected judicial branch can usurp the will of the democratically elected branches.
Right now you may be saying, alright Gary that’s all interesting (or boring?), but you started this rant talking about how pregnant sows resulted in no legal weed, and limitation of abortion rights, in Florida because of “democracy”.