The_Case_Against_Democracy

The Case Against Democracy by Richard Cameron It is long been a popular belief within our culture that freedom equals democracy. For those who take the time to look beyond simple semantics, reality paints a much different picture. By definition a democracy, whether direct or representative, is the form of government in which supreme power is vested and exercised by the majority over the minority. This form of government establishes legislation based upon majority rule. Safeguards protecting the rights of minorities only exist to the extent that the majority believes such protections should exist. One of the most extreme examples occurred in Germany during the March 1933 elections when the National Socialist German Workers' [Nazi] Party came to power under Adolf Hitler with 43.9% of the popular vote. Our founding fathers recognized firsthand the dangers of "excesses of democracy" and struggled to assemble a framework that would both maximize and protect individual liberties from the federal government. Even during the late 18th century our founders had numerous examples of current and past failed governments and came to the conclusion that excessive democracy would eventually lead to abuse and tyranny. It was John Adams who stated that America was a "nation of laws, not of men." Our founders understood that the only purpose of government was to protect the individual rights of its citizens. It is with this understanding that they adopted a republic as the form of government for the United States on September 17, 1787. The United States Constitution was the embodiment of this republic and the supreme law of the land established and written in such a way to protect the world's smallest minority -- the individual. Our founders could have identified and specifically named each and every right, but instead decided upon a more pragmatic approach which involved outlining the limitations upon the powers of the federal government. Until 1787 no civilization had documented such a form of government. The U.S. Constitution outlined limitations on the government rather than limitations of its citizens in order to prevent future theft and encroachment of the people's individual rights. As a result, the U.S. Constitution is currently the longest-running, continuous form of documented government in existence. From the lessons of history and with an eye towards the future, our founders struggled with how to protect this republic. Numerous ideas were proposed which were eventually reduced to the adoption of either a democracy or a representative democracy. In a moment of brilliance Benjamin Franklin suggested splitting the legislative branch of government into two separate bodies and using both forms of democracy. The original Constitution was drafted such that members of the House of Representatives would be elected by a direct popular vote. While a direct democratic vote provided the most immediate influence over elected officials, it also increased the likelihood that decisions would be based upon inaccurate, incomplete, or false information and would compromise state power in favor of federal power. Under a total direct democracy states with a smaller population would be at the mercy of larger, more populous states. Because the general population does not have the time and (unfortunately) the interest to read, research, and debate various legislative issues, they would tend to vote based upon emotional rather than rational judgments. So in order to offset these problems, Franklin's idea of a bicameral legislative branch utilized a representative democracy within the United States Senate. Senators would be elected by state representatives (i.e., a representative democracy) in order to protect the interests of smaller states and safeguard against encroachment from the cancerous growth of the federal government. It wasn't until the 17th amendment established under Woodrow Wilson in 1913 that this safeguard was removed. In order to illustrate the idea of a direct democracy, representative democracy, and a republic consider a situation where two wolves and a sheep sit down at a table to decide what to eat for dinner. In the case of a direct democracy there is a pretty good chance that lamb chops will be on the menu. Any law that may protect the right of the individual (sheep) to exist may quickly be removed by the desire of the majority (wolves) to satisfy their hunger. Within a representative democracy, however, the sheep's fate will most likely rest with a third-party representative, which will more than likely be a carnivore, since the wolves have two votes to the sheep's one -- ultimately leading to a short lifespan for the sheep. A republic formed by this triad on the other hand may decide to form a document which protects the rights of all of its citizens your regardless of their species. In this manner the sheep's life will most likely be spared -- to the extent that the wolves continue to uphold and defend this document.