Republic vs Democracy
October 18, 2005 at 3:44 pm | In Libertarian Rants |My girlfriend Kellie and I have often brought up, in dialog, the question of what is the difference (if any) between a Republic and a Democracy. For those of you unaware that there was an argument concerning these two things, let's just say that there has been a lot of difference in opinion over the last several hundred years about what these two terms mean.
It is apparent that the founding fathers clearly had a disdain for what they termed "democracy." I could choose from hundreds of statements to exemplify this, but I think that just one coming from Benjamin Franklin very clearly typifies the sentiment:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
But we hear the word "democracy" every day, almost always in a positive light as in sayings such as "we are bringing democracy to the world." The question at hand then is this: Has the meaning of the word somehow changed? Or have the virtues of the founding fathers not been carried down to today's media and politicians? I have a hunch that it's the latter; however, Kellie, being the analytical person that she is, challenges me to consider that the word may have evolved.
Well then, here are my own thoughts on the word "democracy.". . .
When considering the word, with no qualifier of any kind, it is fairly ambiguous. There are a myriad of ways to interpret it, but let's look at two that I feel are the most common:
- In one manner, the singular word (democracy) often alludes to a sense of equality among individuals. This sense is also depicted in the Declaration of Independence when it states that all men are created equal. Let's call this social-democracy.
- In a strictly political sense, democracy vests the power to rule within the realm of the majority. The most common method (and probably the only practical one on a large scale) is by electing representatives. Let's call this political-democracy.
A political-democracy is obviously a true representational form of government. So is a republic. The difference? A republic guarantees that certain things are not and never will be placed up for a vote. The Bill of Rights is one of the most clear examples that there was no intention for this country to form a political-democracy without such guarantees. While semantically I will not dispute the fact that our country is a democracy (although a limited republican form) and should be one, I have to wonder what is going on when the media espouses a very ambiguous word as if it were some utopian, idealistic panacea that everyone should strive for and support. The only conclusion that I can come to, given such an ambiguous term, is that we are being deceived.
After much dialog, I now believe that the word "democracy" HAS changed over the years, not because of cultural reasons or natural language evolution, but because of a series of systematic changes that has occured in our own government. The traditional way for a government to control people is with weapons; however, the populace (at least in the United States) has more weapons than the government itself, so that won't work. The alternative is the much harder task (but still feasable one) of changing our minds by deception.
I just found this document today. It is the Soldier Training Manual (TM 2000-25) published by the War Department in November of 1928 on the topic of Citizenship. Its stated intent is to prepare soldiers that they "may be returned to civilian life better equipped as the defenders of the institutions of our Government in time of peace as well as in time of war." It contains definitions of the two terms we are discussing today. It is prima facie evidence that the US Government had a drastically different take on what democracy is compared with today. Here it is copied directly from the manual itself on pages 91 and 92:


It is rumored that Franklin Roosevelt ordered that this book be destroyed, shortly after his infamous 'banking holiday.' Whether or not this is true, it still shows that there has been a dramatic shift in both the platform of modern politics and also in the meaning of what otherwise appears to be a simple word.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government — Article 4 Section 4 united States Constitution… what was all the fuss?
2 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
XML Sitemap


your definition is wrong, there are no voted representatives in a "political-democracy" only in a republic. By definition a democracy is 51% of the vote rules. In a republic you have various states, regions, or cities that are bound together by representatives (elected by each state, region or city) who vote for that state, region, or city. which means that the 49% have equal vote to the 51%.
Comment by david — March 9, 2008 #
Hi David,
Wow, you've dug up an old one, but I'm game
Unfortunately, things are not as simplistic as you've portrayed them. You've drawn a false dichotomy between a democracy and a republic.
Surely you can see that the USA (as well as most other western countries) has a democratic-republic? As you've shown, the USA has representatives for different regions of the country, but how did those representatives come into power? They came into power by the democratic actions of the people.
You cannot compare the extreme version of democracy (the people vote on everything) without also comparing the extreme version of a republic (the people are represented in all things, even the selection of their representatives). There are forms of republics that are non-democratic, we just don't think of them very much because they are foreign to the American way (think of a poly-archic dictatorship, one guy and his goons 'representing' the people but the people have no say in whether they keep their office).
This is all I meant by "political democracy": A "political democracy" is a society where the will of the majority is recognized in at least some area of life. Compared to a 'pure' democracy, a democratic-republic is not a different animal at all, just more specialized. A democratic-republic is a limited democracy in that the people don't get to vote on all (or even most) things. In the USA, these limits mean that the people are really only voting for representatives and for referendum style voting. The latter should really point out that the system in the USA is a de-facto hybrid of the the two forms.
If you reread what I called a "political democracy" you'll see that I haven't reinvented what I originally said:
Notice I didn't say electing representatives was the only form of democracy. Surely there can exist (and has existed throughout history), governments that take on larger democratic roles.
And where does your definition of democracy come from? What's so special about 51%? What about 1/2 (which is less than 51%, btw) or 33% or 95%? Where do you get this magical number from? Certainly, there are democracies that set other arbitrary vote thresholds than 51%.
My point of the original post (and now specifically to you) is that the single word terms "democracy" and "republic" are very ambiguous to start with, and to salt things further, it seems that their definitions have evolved over time. It is no longer even useful to use the terms flippantly without large descriptions of what we mean when we use them (as we have both had to do here in this post). It (marginally) helps to hyphenate words so as to more closely represent your original meaning, but the unhyphenated forms (just 'democracy' or 'republic') are clearly not going to cut it.
For the record, I don't see one form of government as inherently better than the other. I personally believe in non-aggressive, voluntary actions between free individuals. Neither a republic, democracy, nor any combination thereof (democratic-republic) has ever, throughout the course of history, accomplished much of anything without the use of aggressive force. Whether it be a king, a group of "representatives", or the social majority, they are all equally capable of violating my sovereignty. To hell with them all!
Thanks for dropping by David, I appreciate the discourse. I hope you can "hear" the friendly tone I tried to keep in the above comment.
Comment by ryan — March 10, 2008 #