Sparks Commentary: What's the difference between a “democracy” and a “republic”?

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government ... "

- Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution

Is there a difference between a "democracy" and a "republic"?

The meaning of words tends to change over time, and the words "democracy" and "republic" are no different in this respect. For example, if you were to ask Americans on the streets today whether there's a difference between the two words, many would reply that they are the same (or, at least, close to the same), and some dictionaries even define them as synonymous today. Among them is the website of Princeton University, which offers multiple definitions for each word. One of these definitions is even the same for both words, and their website lists the two words as accepted synonyms for each other in this context. Their shared definition, in case you're wondering, is that they are "a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them" (Source: entry on "democracy" and entry on "republic") The contemporary use of these words is thus somewhat interchangeable, and the common meaning of these words would admit few (if any) distinctions between them.

James Madison

The Founding Fathers thought there actually was ...

Yet there is a historical distinction between the two that our Founding Fathers recognized. One of them even offered these definitions explicitly in the Federalist Papers. These definitions show a distinction between the two in the mind of this particular Founding Father. This distinction existed in his mind long before the Constitutional Convention, even if he had not yet included it in the Federalist Papers. The Founding Father was James Madison, and he essentially said that a democracy was a direct democracy - or in other words, where people vote on everything directly in person. His phrase for a direct democracy was a "pure democracy," and he defined it as "a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person" (Source: Federalist No. 10). A good example of this system might be Ancient Athens, the most successful city-state within the lost world of Ancient Greece. Madison's definition of a republic, by contrast, was that it was "a government in which the scheme of representation takes place" (Source: Federalist No. 10). In other words, he said, the definition of a republic is where the people elect others to make those decisions for them. Which is better, you might ask? Are there greater dangers in delegating these powers to our elected representatives, or do the greatest dangers come from other sources, like the "tyranny of the majority"?

James Madison

They believed that direct democracy was a dangerous thing ...

James Madison believed that direct democracy was a dangerous thing, and the Federalist Papers basically argued this in its defense of a six-year term for United States Senators. In a famous passage from the Federalist Papers, either Madison or Alexander Hamilton said that the Senate "may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions ... there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion ... may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn." (Source: Federalist No. 63) In these critical moments, this author asked, "how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to ... suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?" (Source: Federalist No. 63)

The execution of Socrates (which was by drinking hemlock poison)

... which led to tyranny of the majority

In the infamous trial of Socrates, for example, Ancient Athens executed its greatest philosopher by forcing him to drink hemlock poison, because he had offended a majority of the people by preaching his unpopular doctrines (although his doctrines have since become more popular, I should acknowledge here). "What bitter anguish," the Federalist Papers then asked, "would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next." (Source: Federalist No. 63) In the case of Socrates, he implied, the majority oppressed and executed a minority with the "hemlock" poison, because the "direct democracy" provided no checks on the majority's power to do so. Thus, he concluded, direct democracy is not the best way to protect the basic rights of the people. (Also something of a criticism of Rousseau's "general will" concept, I would think - but that's a topic for another post.)

The Pynx in Greece, the meeting place of the people of Ancient Athens

The concepts "democracy" and "republic" come from the Ancient Greeks and Romans

The word "democracy" is itself of Greek origin, and literally translates into English as "rule of the people." The word "republic," by contrast, comes from the culture of Ancient Rome - a culture which spoke Latin as their native language. The Latin phrase "res publica" (from which our word "republic" comes) literally translates to "public thing" in English, but it is sometimes rendered as "public entity." Even the Ancient Greeks had some degree of representative government, as it turns out; since they had to have someone to execute the laws that they themselves would pass, and someone had to keep the assemblies from descending into chaos as people tried to talk over one another in the meetings. But the presence of representative government is most recognizable in the Roman Republic, which had a legislature that they called the "Senate" - which comes from the Latin word "senatus," incidentally, a word translating (somewhat chauvinistically) to "rule by the eldest men." Although it no longer connotes a specific age or gender, I should make clear, the word "Senatus" comes from the Latin word "senex" (meaning "old man"), and the United States Senate gets its name from this ancient body. The distinction between these two words was an important one for the Founding Fathers. One of the interesting things about the United States Constitution is that it never used the words "democracy" or "democratic" even once. It did, however, use the word "republican" in the following passage here: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government" (Source: Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution). Thus the Founding Fathers made clear which word they preferred to use in this context, and made clear their preference for representative government by so doing.

Popular representation of the Roman Senate

A faction has interests "adversed to the rights of other citizens"

The most famous discussion of the advantages of republican government may come from James Madison himself, who wrote a definitive essay on this subject in the Federalist Papers. He essentially said that a republican government is much better at controlling what he called the "mischiefs of faction." Just as he defined the words "republic" and "pure democracy" (as noted earlier), he also defined what he meant by "faction" as follows: "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." (Source: Federalist No. 10) Madison then continued by saying that "There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects." (Source: Federalist No. 10) With regards to the first part about "removing [the] causes" of faction, he said that "There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests." (Source: Federalist No. 10) The second method of giving everyone the same interests would be impossible, he said; while the first remedy would be "worse than the disease" that it is supposed to cure. He said that "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency." (Source: Federalist No. 10) Incidentally, this timeless analysis of factions shows the influence of the Scottish philosopher David Hume - but that's a subject for another post.

Title page from the original printing of the Federalist Papers

Direct democracy offers no cure for these "mischiefs of faction" ...

"It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests," Madison continued, "and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." (Source: Federalist No. 10) Thus, he continues, "The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS." (Source: Federalist No. 10) After discussing the "tyranny of the majority" (in words other than this famous phrase), he says that "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 [like Socrates]. Hence it is," Madison says, "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." (Source: Federalist No. 10)

Socrates

... but a republic does

What is the solution, then, for the "mischiefs of faction"? Madison gives the answer here in this passage: "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union ... The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic," he continued, "are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended." (Source: Federalist No. 10)

Independence Hall

A large republic actually makes it harder for factions to gain power

Interestingly, Madison also says here that a large republic is much better than a small republic in this respect; and not just for the defensive advantages that its presence confers to the parties involved. Specifically, he said that "The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other." (Source: Federalist No. 10)

United States Capitol

Majority rule vs. minority rights

Madison concluded this famous essay by saying that "In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government." (Source: Federalist No. 10) The best way to curb factions, in other words, is to have a large republic with a diversity of parties and interests in it, where it will be less likely for a majority to form with a coordinated plan of oppressing others. The essential problem with a direct democracy is that it puts all the power in one place - namely, directly with the majority - and thus has no separation of powers whatsoever. It has no checks and balances upon the power of this majority. Thus, the entire system of separation of powers depends upon the institution of representative government to put these checks and balances into place.

Majority rule is still a good principle for republican government, Madison admitted, but there must also be solid respect for minority rights; and the balance between them is of the utmost importance to any free country.

Footnote to this blog post:

Either Madison or Hamilton once wrote that "liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power; that there are numerous instances of the former as well as of the latter" (Source: Federalist No. 63).

If you liked this post, you might also like:

So what are the "Federalist Papers," anyway?

"Publius": The secret pen name of three Founding Fathers

Some of the credit for "separation of powers" should go to Polybius

How to prevent tyranny: Separation of powers and checks & balances

Do checks and balances conflict with separation of powers?

Part of a series about the

U. S. Constitution