FederalRepublic.net

In order to really understand the basis of our government and in general, western political thought, we must distinguish between the so-called Democracy and the Republic. Yes, our society does often refer to both terms interchangeably; however, I believe we must distinguish the differences if we are to understand the founding principles of the United States.James Madison in Federalist #10 stated,

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such 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.

Here, Madison implies that in a democracy, there is no legal protection for the weaker party, or the unpopular group. We can see there may be no unalienable rights for the weaker group if the majority wills it. This is the first undeniable difference between a democracy and a republic.

An article by Walter E. Williams writing for World Net Daily describes the difference this way:

So what’s the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights…
Contrast the framers’ vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

We turn to the former United States War Department for further investigation in the differences between a republic and a democracy. A democracy, as stated by Training Manual 2000-25 is:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic–negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

A republic, on the other hand is defined as:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

Purely, the basis of law in a republic as defined above is the “administration of justice in accord with fixed principles.”

So, how does a republic differ from a democracy? A republic offers representative government with sovereignty established by the people, either by group or individual with a fixed principle of justice (either written or otherwise). Government exists to protect the human rights of people and does not exist to exhibit and practice the principle of power. A democracy does not offer these things.

What is the purpose of government? This question is not so easily answered by the uneducated or the common man. In today’s drastically changing world, responses to this question would vary from person to person and country to country. Some would say, government is here to protect us. Others would say, government is here to provide social services or protect private property. While those potential answers may help us to see individual areas of an overall mission, we must look closer at the underlying principles of government to really answer the question.

John Locke, an early seventeenth century political theorist first referred to a principle known as the “State of Nature.” The State of Nature is a condition in which there is no government. It is a condition of an environment without law. Furthermore, Thomas Hobbes, the original “Social Contract” theorist, advised that human beings in the State of Nature would behave badly, as that state would lead to a “war of every man against every man” and would make life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

The inherent problem with the State of Nature is that people do not have a device to protect their liberty, estate, or life from others. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the people to unite and form a device or government, to protect their rights as human beings. This theory is further explained by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #15. He states, “Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”

We can further elaborate on this principle. John Locke in his Second Treatise on Government explains that civil society was created for the purpose of protecting property. In this principle, he examines the origin of the word “property,” which when translated into Latin, means “one’s own” or “oneself.” In this, Locke concluded the purpose of government was  to protect life, liberty, and property.