Republic
versus Democracy? Nonsense!
It has become popular in contemporary times to insist the United States is a republic, not a democracy, usually in defense of our federal system of shared sovereignty between the States and the United States. The distinction is false and its use should cease.
To begin with, I will be using definitions of the terms “republic” and “democracy” according to Dictionary.com. After briefly examining the definitions of the terms, I will move on to discuss distinctions in political systems that demonstrates the “republic-not-a-democracy” assertion is flatly incorrect.
First, a republic is a political order whose head of state is not a monarch, and in modern times is usually a president. It is also a political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. Both these are true of the United States. There are also two irrelevant definitions, one of which uses the term as part of the name of the nation (i.e., the Fourth Republic of France), and the other of which is an archaic usage not speaking of governments at all.
A third relevant definition is that a republic is an autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation. This appears to be the definition used by those arguing the “republic versus democracy” theory. But note that it refers to the unit belonging to a sovereign federation. While the U.S. is a federation (as I will expand upon below), it is only partially sovereign itself, whereas the States are also partial autonomous, the reference is to the State, not the United States. Thus it does not entirely work, a problem I will address in Section II below.
Now, a democracy is several things. It is government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. It is a political or social unit that has such a government. It is the common people, considered as the primary source of political power. It is majority rule; and it is the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. And all of these definitions (again, taken from Dictionary.com) are true of the United States. It is interesting to note that, by disclaiming the U.S. as being a democracy, one could establish oneself as opposing social equality and respect for the individual (an irony considering our nation was founded upon the classical liberal principles of individual rights).
There are three areas in which a governmental system may be categorized: A) the nature of sovereignty; B) the relationship between the legislative and executive branches; and C) the level of political participation permitted in the population.
There are three ways in which sovereignty may exist within a political unit.
First is a unitary system, in which all sovereignty is based in a single body. Great Britain’s government is an example of this. All offices in smaller geographical areas within Great Britain derive their power from the central government. France is another example.
Second is a federal system, in which sovereignty is shared between the central government and smaller governmental units within the political organization. The United States has a federal system, in which the States[1] and the United States each have certain degrees of sovereignty. Despite its name, the Confederate States of America during the Civil War was also a federal system; it shared the USA’s supremacy clause. Some of those areas are exclusive, and some overlap. But the sovereignty of the States, by definition, does not derive from the central government. Nevertheless, in a federal system the central government is still supreme; there are simply certain areas into which its sovereignty is forbidden to enter, lest it conflict with a State’s sovereignty.
Third is a confederate system, which is merely an alliance of independent states. In a confederate system, the central government has no sovereignty at all; rather, each independent state is fully sovereign unto itself. The Confederacy is merely an alliance, essentially by treaty, which does not touch the sovereignty of the member units. Examples of a confederacy are the United Nations (U.N.), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United States under the Articles of Confederation (which were effective from 1778 through 1788).
There are three ways in which the legislative (law making) and executive (law enforcing) branches of government can be related to each other.
First is a parliamentary system, in which the executive officers are chosen from among the legislature. This chief executive officer is typically called a Prime Minister (France) or a Chancellor (Germany). Here, the legislature is elected by the people, then the legislature chooses the executive officers. Thus the executive always has a majority of his party in the legislature.
Second is a presidential system, in which the executive officers are chosen separately than the legislature. The United States has such a system. Thus it is possible (for anyone remotely familiar with our politics) for the majority party in the legislature to be different than that of the president.
Third is a hybrid system. (I have heard it termed a Western hybrid, but I am not familiar with any other kind.) In a hybrid system, the legislature is a parliamentary-type device from which the prime minister is drawn. Separately, a president is elected. In France, the president has enormous power and can dissolve the legislature at any time and call for a new election. He is also the head-of-state, representing France to other nations as our president does, and he has much influence in policy. The French prime minister merely runs the government’s day-to-day operations. In Germany, however, the presidency is more-or-less a ceremonial post, and the chancellor (prime minister) runs the government.
France and Germany are distinguished from Great Britain, which only has a parliamentary system. While the monarch is the head-of-state (and also fulfills that post for members of the British Commonwealth of Nations), the prime minister really runs the show. There are also significant differences between Britain and the other two nations in how elections actually operate.
There are only two levels of political participation. Either a nation is a democracy, in which the people themselves choose their government; or it is a dictatorship, in which the people have no say. One might also posit an oligarchic democracy, in which a minority of citizens are entitled to vote (such as South Africa under apartheid).
When one speaks of the United States as a republic, rather than a democracy, they are using the more limited definition of democracy meaning that law making, executing and judging is done by the entire population – i.e., direct democracy. However, no nation has used this form of government since the Greek city-states[2], and no one talking about “democracy” today means direct democracy. Rather, almost everyone who talks about “democracy” is referring to indirect democracy, in which the people elect their representatives to the government, who then decide what laws to make, how they are to be carried out, et cetera. Therefore the first instance of dishonesty in arguing “republic, not democracy” is in using “democracy” to mean direct democracy in their argument, which is completely incorrect and fallacious.
The second major problem is a little more mathematical, and also more obvious. It is not the logic that is suspect, but the accuracy of the premises. To say “republic, not democracy” presumes we cannot have both. In logic, it would look like this:
R v D (republic or democracy)
R = ~D (republic means no democracy)
D = ~R (democracy means no republic)
When put this way, the problem is apparent. The first statement is technically true, in that a nation may be a democracy (again, indirect, as the term is used today) or it may be a republic. But the second and third statements are obviously false; yet the argument requires them. Why? Let’s look at another set of statements, which re-creates the argument accurately:
A nation may be a republic or democracy, but not both. R v D
The U.S. is may be a republic or a democracy, but not both. (U = D) v (U = R)
The U.S. is not a democracy. ~(U = D)
Therefore the U.S. is a republic. U = R
Now, there would be no problem here if two things were true. First, if “democracy” meant only direct democracy, the statements would all be true. But they aren’t. Since we’re talking about indirect democracy, it is indeed possible – based upon the definitions I provided in Section I above – for a nation to be both a democracy and a republic. That the U.S. is a republic is true; that the U.S. is not a democracy is false. When we use “democracy” to mean direct democracy, the above argument is true; when used to mean indirect democracy – the only proper usage unless direct democracy is specified – the argument is obviously false.
Thus far, then, we have two problems with the “republic-not-a-democracy” argument. First, it is fallacious, since it equivocates on the meaning of “democracy.” Second, it creates a logically sound but thoroughly false argument as a result of the equivocation. Yet there is a third, more insidious problem.
Since no one is talking about direct democracy – at least, not when the argument under discussion comes up – the argument requires a shift in thinking. The first person means indirect democracy. The argumentor, then, brings in his “republic, not democracy” argument, meaning direct democracy, and thus shifts the nature of the conversation. Since to argue “republic, not direct democracy” is true, the argumentee is then shifted into a defensive stance, even if only to explain the nature of indirect democracy. From this point the first person will always be on the defensive, having surrendered the initiative by explaining himself. The argumentor is thus left in a solid offensive position relating to the argumentee, is secure and smug in having won an argument (by cheating, basically), while the argumentee is off muttering to his friends about how the argumentor doesn’t know what he’s talking about without being able to explain why.
Thus, the “republic, not democracy” argument has three problems. It equivocates upon the meaning of “democracy.” It gives a logical, but false, argument as the result thereby. And it is dishonest in its presentation, since it questions the use of democracy as “indirect democracy” and shifts the focal point away from the real argument to recontextualize it in terms of our federal system of government rather than a question of political participation.
[1] When the term “State” is used in reference to a State of the United States, it is capitalized because it is being specific to the political unit with the U.S. When not capitalized, it refers to the more general definition of a state, which is to say it refers to a sovereign and autonomous political unit.
[2] Private clubs or societies may use direct democracy, but it is not used in government due to its obvious inefficiency.