The Constitution: Too Democratic?

The United States Constitution was not founded as a pure democracy, but rather as a democratic republic or representative democracy, with relatively few democratic elements. The Framers of the Constitution were concerned that state legislatures were becoming too radical and beholden to the interests of the common man, and wanted to protect the interests of the wealthy and educated. They believed that the state legislatures and voters in most states had gone too far, and that too many people were voting. They also believed that the nation's growing instability was due to the democratic elements of state governments. As such, the Constitution was designed to limit direct popular rule, with the House of Representatives being the only popularly elected body.

Explore related products

The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (Signet Classics)

$8.32 $8.95

The Anti-Federalist Papers (Dover Thrift Editions: American History)

$10 $15.59

The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification 1787-1788: A Library of America Boxed Set

$61.11 $85

The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates[ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS & THE C][Mass Market Paperback]

$21.97 $44.95

What the Anti-Federalists Were For: The Political Thought of the Opponents of the Constitution

$18.65 $23

The Federalist & The Anti-Federalist Papers: Complete Collection: Including the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Important Documents by the Founding Fathers & more

$0.99 $20.4

Distrust of democracy

The United States Constitution was not designed to establish a democracy. The Founding Fathers were among the wealthiest people in the colonies, and they expected this elite to continue guiding the nation. They believed that a democratic system would threaten their property rights and envisioned a country where the vote was reserved for the wealthy and educated.

The Constitution is full of features designed to limit direct popular rule. The House of Representatives was the only body that was popularly elected, and even then, the franchise was very limited. The president, senate, and judiciary were chosen by representatives, not the people. The separation of powers also made the government structurally unresponsive to large, sudden changes in popular will.

The Founding Fathers were concerned about populism and mob rule. They believed that state legislatures were becoming too radical and beholden to the interests of the common man. They worried that without a federal government, it would be too easy for the poor to unite and demand change at the expense of the upper classes.

By the late 1780s, political leaders blamed the nation's instability on the democratic elements of state governments. Elbridge Gerry, a delegate at the Constitutional Convention, declared that "the evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy." James Madison, often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," agreed, stating that "a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations."

The Constitution's framers ultimately created a democratic republic, or a representative democracy. However, their distrust of democracy is evident in the final document, which contains relatively few democratic elements.

The 'evils' of democracy

The evils of democracy

The United States Constitution was not designed to establish a democracy. The Framers of the Constitution believed that a mixed government, with both republican and democratic elements, would be the most resilient system. However, they disagreed on the level of democracy the nation should have. This controversy persists in the present day.

The US Constitution's framers were concerned about the potential for majority tyranny and sought to protect the inalienable rights of individuals, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They aimed to prevent the tyranny of the majority through a system of checks and balances, ensuring that a simple majority could not infringe on these rights.

Critics of democracy, including Plato and Aristotle, have argued for a "government of the best qualified" or the "rule by the wise." They believed that democracy could lead to the "tyranny of the majority," where the rights of individuals or minority groups could be trampled. Aristotle, in particular, disliked the power that democracy gave to the poor.

James Madison, who extensively studied ancient democratic theories and their critiques, shared similar concerns. He worried that without a federal government, the poor within each state might unite and demand changes that would come at the expense of the upper classes. Madison and other Federalists viewed the transition from a confederation to a federation as a way to limit the power of the states and protect their property rights.

In the late 1780s, the appeal of democracy in the US had diminished. Political leaders blamed the nation's instability on the democratic elements of state governments, such as populist economic policies. Elbridge Gerry, a Massachusetts delegate, declared, "the evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy."

While democracy has its supporters and critics, it is important to acknowledge that no political system is perfect. Winston Churchill famously remarked, "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Democracy as a dirty word

The United States is often regarded as the first democracy in the world. However, the country's founding fathers did not set out to create a democracy. In fact, during the discussions of the Federal Convention, "democracy was a dirty word". James Madison, one of the Framers of the Constitution, explicitly stated, "This is not a democracy; this is a republic". The Framers believed that a mixed government, with both republican and democratic features, would be the most resilient system.

Madison and the other Framers were concerned about protecting the property rights of the upper classes, which they felt were under threat from the poorer classes within each state. They believed that a federal government would prevent the poor from demanding change at the expense of the wealthy. This distrust of democracy is reflected in the US Constitution, which contains relatively few democratic elements. The president, senate, and judiciary would be chosen by representatives, not by the people. Only the House of Representatives would be directly elected, and they would serve large constituencies to ensure that "members of limited information" would not be elected.

The negative view of democracy extended beyond the founding of the United States. In recent years, the word "democracy" has been associated with the foreign policy of former President George W. Bush, particularly in relation to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush's democracy promotion agenda was seen as an attempt to impose Western-style democracy on other countries, which caused acrimony and suspicion. As a result, the word "democracy" became toxic and was largely absent from the public vocabulary of the Obama administration, which focused on other international efforts such as agricultural programs and economic development.

Despite the negative connotations of democracy in certain contexts, some scholars, such as Camila Vergara, have continued to advocate for true democracy. Vergara's research has led her to believe that true democracy lies in local assemblies with real decision-making power to keep elected officials in check. She has advised groups in Chile as the country undergoes a new constitutional process, and her work aims to address systemic corruption and the oligarchization of societies.

Explore related products

The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification 1787-1788 ( Complete )

$15

The Anti-Federalist Papers

$0.99 $15.99

Reflection and Choice: The Federalists, the Anti-Federalists, and the Debate that Defined America

$49.95

An Anti-Federalist Constitution: The Development of Dissent in the Ratification Debates (American Political Thought)

$27.3 $42.99

The Anti-Federalist Papers: The merits of the United States Constitution of 1787 | The series of anti-Federalist papers and National debates and many other events (Final Part)

$8.49

The Anti-Federalist Papers

$10.95

Democracy as a threat to property rights

Democracy has been defined as "government of the people, by the people, for the people", with popular sovereignty at its core. However, historically, many thinkers have viewed democracy as a threat to a free and just society, believing that rule by the majority would lead to instability, irrationality, and a violation of private property rights. This view was held by Lord Salisbury, Plato, and Tocqueville, among others, and influenced the design of the US Constitution, which aimed to constrain popularly elected leaders with liberal rights.

The concept of "property-owning democracy", popularized by John Rawls, challenges the notion that democracy inherently threatens property rights. Rawls described "property-owning democracy" as a social system that promotes the widespread distribution of property ownership among the populace, fostering equal and free cooperation among citizens. This approach seeks to address wealth inequality, which can hinder fair societal participation and equal political influence.

The idea of "property-owning democracy" was first coined by British MP Noel Skelton in 1920 as a conservative response to left-leaning ideologies. It emphasized the need to protect property rights from democratic organization. British economist James Meade reinterpreted the term, arguing for redistributive policies to achieve a more equitable society.

While the United States Constitution was not designed to create a pure democracy, the issue of democracy's potential threat to property rights was a concern during its formation. The Framers of the Constitution aimed for a mixed government, combining republican and democratic elements, but disagreed on the level of democracy to be incorporated. Critics of a democratic system argued that it could lead to an "aristocracy" or allow "opulent and ambitious" individuals to undermine equality. They feared that too much democracy would endanger their property rights.

In conclusion, the perception of democracy as a threat to property rights has been a longstanding debate. While some argue that democracy enables the majority to infringe upon the rights of the minority, including property owners, proponents of "property-owning democracy" advocate for a redistribution of wealth to empower citizens and promote equal political influence.

Democracy as mob rule

Democracy has been viewed with suspicion by some throughout history. For instance, in the United States, the Framers of the Constitution believed that a mixed government, with both republican and democratic features, would be the most resilient system. However, they disagreed on how democratic the nation should be, and some thought that the nation's instability was due to the democratic elements of state governments. Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts, declared during the Constitutional Convention that "the evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy."

The idea of democracy as "mob rule" has been a long-standing critique. Ancient Greek political thinkers regarded ochlocracy, or mob rule, as one of the three "bad" forms of government, along with tyranny and oligarchy. Aristotle, distinguishing between different forms of democracy, stated that those disregarding the rule of law devolved into ochlocracy. Plato, his teacher, considered democracy a degraded form of government and did not use the term in his work. The threat of "mob rule" in a democracy can be mitigated by ensuring that the rule of law protects minorities or individuals against short-term demagoguery or moral panic.

The term "mob rule" has been used in various contexts to describe situations where the majority opinion or action overpowers the logic of the law or individual rights. For example, the Salem Witch Trials in colonial Massachusetts have been cited as an instance of mob rule, where the unified belief of the townspeople overruled legal reasoning. Similarly, Abraham Lincoln wrote about the "disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of courts, and the worse than savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice."

In modern times, the idea of democracy as mob rule has been attributed to the Founding Fathers of the United States, although there is no evidence that Thomas Jefferson ever said or wrote, "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%." In fiction and popular culture, democracy is sometimes portrayed as mob rule, with works depicting it as an ineffectual form of government prone to corruption, demagoguery, and takeover by radicals.

While the United States Constitution has been criticized for not being democratic enough, it is important to note that the Framers intentionally created a mixed government with limited democratic elements. They were concerned about protecting property rights and preventing the poor from gaining too much political power. The Constitution established a representative democracy, where people vote for representatives to govern on their behalf, rather than direct democracy as seen in ancient Athens.

Frequently asked questions