Honor the System
Some people say that public protest is a time-honored American tradition and one of the reasons for our greatness. Others say that public protest sends a message of instability and weakness to other nations.
Some people say that public protest helps to sort out good ideas, leading eventually to the righteous path. Others say that public protest emboldens our enemies, especially in time of war; that sending messages of indecision weakens support from friendly nations in our united fight against tyranny.
In short, is public protest (protesting in the streets) the highest form of patriotism, or is it un-American? It's hard to believe that Congress has yet to answer this question officially and that citizens remain divided and uncertain over this issue. Sure, the First Amendment protects our right to peaceful protest, but is public protest in America correct behavior?
We have the right to use foul language in the presence of grandma, but to do so would be wholly inappropriate. Imagine swearing at grandma and then proclaiming to everyone your First Amendment right to do so.
What should be the accepted national view on public protest and its overall effect on America. After decisions are made in Congress, is it good for America when citizens take to the streets to complain and petition for change? How does public protest affect our national image, the way foreign citizens feel about us, and our efforts to encourage cooperation among friendly nations and peace in the world?
Other important questions have remained unanswered. What is the obligation of citizens with regard to voting? Some people say that voting is necessary for good citizenship. However, what if citizens are politically ignorant and have no idea what they are voting for? Are they obligated to vote then?
What should be the role of citizens in affecting public policy? More specifically, should citizens attempt to influence the decisions made by their representatives? Is it good when citizens petition their representatives with letters and phone calls?
The answer to these questions depends on a nation's form of government. More specifically, the answers to these questions are different for a democracy and a republic.
The reason why America has yet to answer these questions is that citizens are uncertain as to their nation's form of government. Is America a democracy or a republic? What is the difference?
Ask a politician if America is a democracy or a republic. Ask the politician to differentiate these two very different forms of government. Upon reading this article, you will be able to answer all of these questions and more.
The way to answer these questions (and resolve many social problems) is to begin with precise definitions. Nebulous definitions lead to uncertainty and the inability to answer even basic questions. If we cannot answer basic questions, we cannot hope to resolve our broad social problems.
A perfect example of working with an unclear definition is the word and concept "democracy." "Democracy" is credited with two definitions. One definition is precise, resulting in clarity. The other definition is all-inclusive and can only cause confusion and uncertainty.
Democracy:
Government in which the citizen majority makes decisions binding on the whole group.
This definition is precise and easily understood. As such, it leads to clarity rather than confusion. In a democracy, citizens that have banded together to form a majority (more than 50%) get to make the rules after elections are over. In short, democracy means "the citizen majority makes the rules."
If the citizens make decisions directly, their government is a "direct democracy." If the citizens make decisions through representatives, their government is a "representative democracy." In either form of democracy, what the citizen majority says, goes.
Now consider the second definition of "democracy":
Government by the people or their elected representatives.
This definition is inclusive of two very different forms of government. In one government, the elected representatives make decisions according to the will of the citizen majority. Just as noted in our first definition of democracy, this form of government is rightly called "democracy" because the citizen majority makes the rules.
More specifically, the form of government is a "representative democracy." It is a "representative democracy" because the citizen majority makes the rules through representatives (not directly). Still, what the citizen majority says, goes.
In the other form of government, the elected representatives don't represent the citizen majority. They represent all the people equally. They shun the wishes of the citizen majority to do what is best for the District.
Because representatives in this form of government represent their District and not the citizen majority, all people are represented equally, even if they are in the citizen minority. In this form of government, the citizen majority does not make the decisions even though the government is "by the people or their elected representatives."
The two definitions of "democracy" are contradictory. The latter featured form of government contradicts the first definition because the citizen majority does not make the rules after elections are over.
It is because of this contradiction that college professors cannot distinguish a "Constitutional Democracy," from a "Representative Democracy," a "Direct Democracy," and a "Republic." Instead, they lump them together and call them "forms of democracy." Not only are they wrong technically, the lack of specification causes much confusion and uncertainty, resulting in our many social woes.
We are about to differentiate the various forms of government and remove the uncertainty. To do so, we must suspend temporarily the all-inclusive nebulous definition. Not only is the second definition too general to be useful, it is not needed because the first definition accurately defines democracy as "the citizen majority makes the rules."
The second (all-inclusive) definition prevents us from differentiating the various forms of government. Imagine referring to all forms of precipitation as "rain." If someone said, "It's raining, we wouldn't know if it were raining, sleeting, snowing, or hailing.
Before we differentiate the various forms of government, we need to make four important points.
Point #1: There is a big difference between the terms "democratic process" and "democracy."
Consider the following analogy. We can describe gasoline as "watery" because it flows like water when spilled. After all, at room temperature, gasoline is not rubbery or thick as are pizza dough and paint. We have no trouble making the distinction between the characteristic "watery" and the substance "water." Certainly, if someone said gasoline is watery, we would not attempt to drink it.
Our analogy makes the point that the characteristic of being watery does not mean the substance is water. Unfortunately, we do not make such a distinction between the characteristic "democratic process" and the substance "democracy."
To illustrate, if a dictator and his two sons made decisions by way of majority vote between them (a democratic process), would their government be a democracy? This question is revealing. Use of the "democratic process" does not make a government a democracy.
Point #2: When we say "majority," we mean "citizen majority."
Again, if a dictator and his two sons decided to make decisions by way of majority vote between them, would their government be a democracy? This question is revealing. When we speak of the majority making decisions, the word "citizen" is implied.
For purposes of clarity, we have added the word "citizen" when appropriate.
Point #3: The Democratic process is universal.
Most countries are simply too large to be practically managed by one or even several individuals. In such cases, the democratic process is often the most practical way to get things done. Majority vote works especially well in distributing authority and minimizing the power that may otherwise be absconded by an ambitious rival. As such, in every form of government (including dictatorships), decisions are often made democratically by generals and especially the nation's legislative body.
Naturally, all decisions are subject to the approval of the dictator or controlling party or president.
As such, a country does not become a democracy because it employs the democratic process to make decisions at one or more levels of government. If it did, then every nation would be a democracy and we wouldn't need the word.
Point #4: The elections process doesn't differentiate governments.
The argument that America is a democracy because the people elect their president and representatives democratically is fallacious. Contrary to popular opinion, most countries hold elections in which the outcome is determined by popular vote (the democratic process).
As recently as 2007, eight countries in South America held elections in which citizens chose their leaders by way of citizen majority vote (a democratic process). In every case, the leader chosen was a dictator. In every case, the country remained a dictatorship after elections were over.
If a nation's form of government is not determined by how its officials are elected, on what criteria then are governments differentiated? It turns out that a nation's form of government is determined solely by who makes the decisions AFTER elections are over.
Keeping these four important points in mind, we are ready to identify the various forms of government.
Differentiating Forms of Government...
We will begin with a blank canvas. On this canvas we will work through the logic, differentiating the various forms of government as we go.
The first step is to determine who makes the decisions after elections are over — the citizen majority or representatives.
If the "citizen majority" is responsible for making decisions, there simply is no other way for them to do so but to employ the democratic process in which voting takes place and what the majority says goes.
If the citizen majority is still responsible for making decisions after elections are over, and if they do so directly (not through representatives) without restriction, that form of government is called a "Direct Democracy."
If only some people have the authority to make decisions after elections are over (representatives by some arrangement), and they do so directly without restriction, the government is called an "Oligarchy."
An Oligarchy means rule by a few. If the "few" is one, the government is an "Autocracy" and may be a Monarchy (if inherited) or a Dictatorship (if elected or if power is usurped by force).
If the "few" are a group, the government is an "Aristocracy" and may be controlled by a gang, a party, or an ideology such as Communism.
The next step is to determine if the nation has a document limiting the power of those making decisions. Such a document is typically called a "constitution."
To be valid as a limiting document (not just a "constitution" in name), the constitution must be from "all the people" and remain in the hands of "all the people." Otherwise, the constitution can be nullified by the whim of the "citizen majority" or the "few" that are in charge.
If decisions are made by the "citizen majority" and there are restrictions placed on the citizen majority by a constitution, the nation's government is called a "Constitutional Democracy."
If the citizen majority can change it, the constitution would be meaningless. For the constitution to offer protections from the citizen majority, some number greater than a simple (51%) majority must be required to change it.
If a constitution exists and the decisions are not made by the "citizen majority," then the constitution must call for representatives to make the decisions. However, we need more information to know what kind of government exists when "representatives" make the decisions and they are guided and limited by a constitution. We need to know the responsibility of the representatives. Must they answer to the citizen majority, or must they serve all the people equally?
If representatives are constrained by a constitution and obligated by law to cater to the citizen majority, the nation's government is a "Representative Democracy." (The citizen majority is still in charge.)
If representatives are constrained by a constitution and obliged to serve all the people equally, the nation's government is called a "Republic." (The citizen majority has does not any more power than those in the minority.)
Importance of Differentiation...
The obligations of citizens in a republic are entirely different from citizens of a democracy. The problem with remaining uncertain about our form of government is that Americans don't know their obligations as citizens. It is because of the uncertainty that people don't know if protesting in the streets in America is patriotic or un-American. It is because of the uncertainty that Americans don't know if they are obligated to vote even if they have no idea what the issues are and who the best candidates might be.
Even our elected politicians cannot answer basic questions such as "Is protesting in the streets really the highest form of patriotism?" and "Do citizens have an obligation to vote even if they are politically ignorant?"
The answers to these questions are different for a democracy and a republic. Therefore, to answer these questions absolutely and assuredly, we first need to understand our form of government.
As we have discovered from the illustrations above, there are five basic forms of government — Direct Democracy, Constitutional Democracy, Oligarchy, Representative Democracy, and Republic. We differentiate these forms of government by who makes the decisions after elections are over. The basic choices of who makes the decisions after elections are over are: (1) an unchecked citizen majority, (2) a checked citizen majority, (3) an oligarchy (unchecked by definition), (4) the citizen majority through representatives, and (5) representatives restricted by law that are free of the citizen majority and obligated to represent all the people equally.
Because we now know the differences between the basic forms of government, we must recognize America's government for what it is. America is and always was a republic. Even though decades of indoctrination have caused us to believe otherwise, America is not, was not, nor was it ever meant to be a democracy.
Contrary to what we have been led to believe, democracy is not the best form of government. In fact, several inherent flaws insure that all democracies will fail from runaway debt. As history has demonstrated, democracies never last more than a few years. They are forever divided, noisy, inconsistent, and inefficient, and they always self destruct. This is why the founders purposely created a republic and specifically avoided forming a democracy.
We can best demonstrate the limitations, drawbacks, and pitfalls of democracy with an analogy to the formation and management of a new rock band. Imagine that five talented and seasoned musicians decide to form a group with the hopes of making it big in the music business. Originally, the band was founded by one person that recruited the others. He made all the decisions and made most of the money.
The band was run as a dictatorship.
Besides reaping most of the rewards, the bandleader was overbearing and generally disrespectful of the other members. Eventually, after much unrest, the disgruntled band members revolted. They decided to form a new band and invite one of their friends to fill the vacancy.
They overthrew the dictatorship.
Because the members are now equal in stature, they agree to make decisions by voting on issues and going with what the (citizen) majority decides.
They have formed a democracy. The definition of a democracy is the "citizen majority makes the rules."
They share a dream of making it big in the music business, so they agree to relocate to a major music market. Making decisions as a democracy, the five members vote on where they will establish their new home. Will it be New York, Nashville, or Los Angeles?
Suppose that two members vote for New York. One has a girlfriend who lives there; the other has family members living up and down the east coast. The other three band members have no personal ties outside of Kansas. They vote for Los Angeles because of its reputation for hot women and wild parties. Although the two members in the minority adamantly oppose the decision, the (citizen) majority makes the rules, so off to Los Angeles they go.
It is obvious that the band members have no idea what they are doing. They have begun their professional music career (and their democracy) basing their first important decision on the wrong criteria.
Ineptitude is the first problem with democracy.
Ineptitude dooms the possibilities of democracy. Someone once said, "Forming a democracy sounds great until you talk with the average voter."
The two members in the minority that want to establish their home base in New York are not happy. Fortunately (for them), the band is a democracy, so the voting is not over. The disgruntled members need only to get one of the other three band members to change his mind.
While flying to Los Angeles, the two band members in the minority (New York) attempt to convince the members in the majority (Los Angeles) to reconsider, hoping one will change his mind and want to establish the band's home base in New York instead of Los Angeles.
A member of the minority (New York) pulls out a picture from his wallet and passes it around. The picture is of his girlfriend and her best friend. Although his girlfriend is pretty, her best friend is drop-dead gorgeous. In conversation, he mentions that both girls live in New York City. Overwhelmed by the image in the photograph, one of the three band members in the original majority (Los Angeles) changes his mind as to where the band should relocate. Searching to justify his change of heart, he says, "The people on the east coast are real."
As we learned in The Essence of Man (Chapter 13), human beings find it easy to justify the decisions they make. As a species, it is what we do best.
As soon as they get off the plane in Los Angeles, the new majority (New York) demands another vote. The two members of the new minority (Los Angeles) are outraged. However, being a democracy, the majority rules and off to New York they go.
The second problem with democracy is that it is inconsistent. Because decisions are based on the (citizen) majority will, democracies regularly experience coups, new administrations, and new directions.
Again, those in the minority (this time, Los Angeles) are not satisfied, and they know they need just one member from the new majority (New York) to change his mind. Throughout the six-hour flight, rather than write a song, think of ways to improve their show, or prepare for when they arrive, the debate goes on.
Inefficiency is the third problem with democracy.
Eventually, they get fatigued and hurtful words are exchanged.
Divisiveness is a fourth problem with democracy. A never-ending debate is bound to get ugly as people wear down, become frustrated, run out of arguments, and lash out, making the debate personal.
While flying over Kansas, the member of the band who fell in love over a photograph (the deciding vote in the new majority) discovers his unsuspecting new girlfriend is happily married with two children. Devastated, he says, "It never rains in California," and the majority shifts again.
Because the (citizen) majority rules in a democracy, and those in the minority are typically left uncompensated, the tone set by the majority is akin to victory in battle in which to the victor go the spoils. As such, in a democracy, those in the minority are never satisfied, always disgruntled, and often oppressed.
Oppression is the fifth problem with democracy.
This little demonstration illustrates the drawbacks, ills, evils, and problems intrinsic to every democracy. Ineptitude, inconsistency, inefficiency, divisiveness, and oppression of those in the minority are its consequences.
Rather than focus on things the band needs to do to become successful in the music business, the members argue over a management decision they are not qualified to make. If the band continues to operate as a democracy (as most bands do), the members will bicker over management issues until they become emotionally spent. Eventually, the members will drift apart and the band will fail.
Most musicians are nodding in agreement.
The members of the band finally realize they must remove themselves from the voting process if they are to remain friends and become productive. Once back in Los Angeles, the weary musicians each hire a representative to work on their behalf, effectively removing them from the debate. They only have to inform their respective representative which way to vote (New York, or L.A.).
However, in short time, the band members realize they are no better off than before. Now their representatives are fighting and making deals, attempting to gain the majority, and the band is still flying back and forth across the country.
A government in which representatives are obligated a vote in accordance to the wishes of the majority they represent is called a representative democracy. In both a direct democracy and a representative democracy, the same outcome is obtained from the same majority. The difference between the governments is only that the majority makes the rules by proxy in a representative democracy.
The band members realize they need a manager — a professional with contacts and expertise. They fire their individual representatives and meet with several managers in the area. While interviewing an applicant to manage their band, members ask him if he is comfortable with following directions. The manager immediately objects and explains that, if he is to be merely a "yes-man" to the wishes of the prevailing majority, the band will continue to argue and debate over management issues.
If the manager answers to the will of the (citizen) majority, the band would essentially be a representative democracy.
The manager explains further. If the band is to be successful, the musicians must change the way they think. As their manager, he would be obligated to represent all the members when making decisions. More specifically, as manager, his job would not be to represent the (citizen) majority, but to do what is best for the band. This necessitates that he not be bound to follow the majority opinion. Instead, he must be free to act autonomous from the will of the (citizen) majority.
Suddenly, oppression of minority groups, the fifth drawback of democracy no longer exists.
Naturally, the band members are concerned about giving away too much authority to the manager, so they draw up a contract. The contract limits the length of the arrangement formed between the manager and the band. In addition, it limits the amount of money the manager may spend without special permission, and it assures members protection from certain affronts (such as having to dress in drag). They might even include a process for impeachment and legal grounds on which they may break the contract.
A contract to the band is analogous to a constitution for a country. Like a contract, a constitution rests in the hands of the people and guides and limits those in charge.
When the contract is up for renewal, a new vote will determine the future relationship of the manager with the band. By majority vote (a democratic process), the manager will be reelected or replaced.
The band has made an important change in their form of government. They have set up a system in which they regularly elect a manager by the democratic process. Although the manager is guided and limited by law, he has both the authority and the obligation to act on behalf of all the members of the band, not just those in the majority. In fact, his loyalty is to the band, not its individual members.
In our demonstration of government, the band began as a dictatorship. It was transformed into a direct democracy, then a representative democracy, and finally into a republic. In doing so, the members resolved the problems of democracy — ineptitude, inconsistency, inefficiency, divisiveness, and oppression of those in the minority. Now the band can get busy writing songs and preparing for a great show.
However, there is one rub, and the point to the analogy. The republic they established is only as good as their willingness to abide by it. What is required of all the band members that are now governed as a republic is that they must respect and adhere to the system regardless of the decisions made by their democratically elected manager. For their republic to stand, unpopular decisions will have to be honored by the members of the band.
If members that disagree with decisions made by the manager vehemently object and protest, the pressure from the prevailing majority will eventually destroy the band. Either the divisiveness will tear the band apart or the pressure will eventually extort from the manager decisions that are more likely to get him reelected. Over time, their form of government will revert to a representative democracy, and ineptitude, inconsistency, inefficiency, divisiveness, and oppression of those in the minority will surface again.
Nothing is perfect, and some decisions made by the manager will prove to be less than best for some members and sometimes even for the band. People make mistakes and some things will not work out as predicted even if by chance. Yet, the alternative to honoring the system is assured self-destruction. After all, with every decision comes a minority position. If every person in the minority objects to every decision it loses, the system will forever remain in constant turmoil until it fails from fatigue.
In contrast, a republic has a built-in mechanism for making changes without destroying the system. The opportunity to correct the system comes around every few years. It is called "open and free elections."
When the contract is up, members will once again have the opportunity to choose the manager that is to represent them.
Analysis
By limiting the definition of democracy to the "citizen majority makes the rules," the other forms of government become easy to identify and differentiate.
Let's not confuse matters by using the word "democracy" loosely. We use specific words to identify different forms of precipitation for a reason. It helps clarify conditions and what to do about them.
For example, to refer to sleet as rain would not indicate the impending danger of slippery conditions. The forms of government known as Direct Democracy, Constitutional Democracy, Representative Democracy, and Republic are as different from one another as sleet is to hail, snow, and rain. To identify these very different forms of precipitation as "rain" would only leave us uncertain with what to do about the weather.
We must be careful to make the distinction between "democratic process" and "democracy." In addition, we must remember that a nation's form of government is not determined by how officials are elected. A nation's form of government is determined solely by how decisions are made after elections are over.
A republic is not a form of democracy, nor is it derived from democracy. A republic is one of three basic and distinct forms of government — democracy, oligarchy, and republic. In a democracy, the citizen majority makes the rules. The citizen majority is either limited or unlimited in its authority and either makes decisions directly or through representatives. In an oligarchy and republic, decisions are made by representatives, not the citizen majority. However, in a republic, representatives are guided and limited by a moral document called a constitution.
To qualify as a moral document, a constitution must be created by and for the people, and must be ultimately in the hands of the people. For example, in America, 75% of the States must concur with any proposed change to the U.S. Constitution for it to become official.
America is not nor was it ever a democracy. America is and always was a republic because its constitution bounds and limits the power of representatives who are duty-bound to represent equally all the people within their district or state. Representatives are not supposed to favor citizens who are in the majority as they would if America were a representative democracy.
That representatives don't know this causes them to stray from their obligation to remain independent of the citizen majority will. Add the pressure of winning reelection, and America is predisposed to perform as a representative democracy, resulting in ineptitude, inefficiency, inconsistency, divisiveness, and oppression of those in the minority. Still, the official government of America was designed to be a republic and has never been changed officially to a representative democracy.
Summary
If America were a democracy, protest would be considered patriotic because democracy is all about getting what you want for you and your family, neighbors, and friends. Likewise, voting even if a citizen were politically ignorant would be an obligation, and citizens getting involved in making decisions would be appropriate.
However, because America is a republic, protesting in the streets is senseless and destructive, and therefore inappropriate. Unlike in a democracy, citizens of a republic are obligated to NOT vote unless they become politically literate and informed before voting. Finally, rather than get involved in day-to-day decisions, citizens in a republic should allow their elected representatives to make decisions on their behalf (honor the system). In doing so, America will run more like a quiet, confident, and united corporation instead of a noisy, indecisive, and divided third-world democracy.
Educating the citizenry about these concepts is the responsibility of Congress. Making these clarifications for citizens is essential if we are to remedy the divisiveness in society, the inconsistency and inefficiency in government, and the animosity between groups.