In a PBS Civics Made Easy episode, I’m speaking about this topic in an interview that runs roughly from 3:15 to 6:30. Since the segment couldn’t present the full historical backing for my stance, I’m revisiting here an earlier post I wrote on the matter to provide that broader context.
* * *
The United States Is Both a Republic and a Democracy
Don’t take my word for it alone; consult the Framers and other early American statesmen: the idea of “Democracy” has long encompassed both representative democracy and direct democracy, while “Republic” was used to describe regimes that were not representative.
[1.] I frequently encounter the claim (often with strong zeal) that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. Yet that dichotomy is misleading. A common definition of “republic,” as the American Heritage Dictionary puts it, is “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them”—that is the condition we meet. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives”—and that also describes us.
The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a system where laws (and other governmental decisions) are made primarily by majority vote. Some lawmaking occurs this way at the state and local levels, but it constitutes only a small portion of all lawmaking. Nevertheless, we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.
[2.] The same two meanings of “democracy”—sometimes direct democracy, sometimes broader popular self-government—existed at the founding of the republic. Some commentators of the framing era drew distinctions between “democracy” and “republic”; see, for example, the Federalist Papers No. 10, as well as other Federalist numbers. Even then, “representative democracy” was recognized as a form of democracy alongside the idea of “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; Noah Webster did so in 1785; St. George Tucker in his 1803 Blackstone edition; and Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone also uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted.
Likewise, James Wilson, a principal drafter of the Constitution and among the early Supreme Court’s first justices, defended the Constitution in 1787 by distinguishing three forms of government—“monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical”—and stated that, in a democracy, sovereignty is “inherent in the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives.” He added,
Of what description is the Constitution before us? In its principles, it is purely democratical ….
Chief Justice John Marshall—who helped spearhead the Virginia Convention’s push for the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788—also defended the document there by portraying it as embodying “democracy” (not “despotism”), and without needing to add the qualifier “representative”:
I conceive that the object of the discussion now before us is whether democracy or despotism be most eligible. I am sure that those who framed the system submitted to our investigation, and those who now support it, intend the establishment and security of the former.
The supporters of the Constitution claim the title of being firm friends of the liberty and the rights of mankind. They say that they consider it as the best means of protecting liberty. We, sir, idolize democracy. Those who oppose it have bestowed eulogiums on monarchy. We prefer this system to any monarchy because we are convinced that it has a greater tendency to secure our liberty and promote our happiness.
We admire it because we think it a well-regulated democracy: it is recommended to the good people of this country: they are, through us, to declare whether it be such a plan of government as will establish and secure their freedom.
Sir William Blackstone, who was widely read and admired by the framers, likewise used “democracy” to include republics: “Baron Montesquieu lays it down, that luxury is necessary in monarchies, as in France; but ruinous to democracies, as in Holland. With regard therefore to England, whose government is compounded of both species, it may still be a dubious question, how far private luxury is a public evil ….” Holland, of course, represented a republic, while England combined monarchy with governance by elected representatives; Blackstone thus labeled such government by elected representatives as a form of “democrac[y].”
The same logic remains valid today. America is a democracy in the sense that it is neither a monarchy nor a dictatorship. (Some critics argue it is too oligarchic, which they present as a different charge about democracy—yet that would be distinguishing democracy from oligarchy.) America is not a direct democracy, but a representative democracy is indeed a democratic form.
[3.] And the Framers did not merely regard representative government as democratic—they also used the term “democracy” to describe direct democracy when discussing it as a form of republic.
One way to approach this is to ask which is the first nation the Framers would have called a “Republic”? Which is the most renowned old Republic—the one that gave us the term itself?
Naturally, Rome’s Republic comes to mind, and indeed The Federalist and many others treated it as a republic. Yet in the Roman Republic there was no elected, representative legislature.
The Senate, while powerful in interpretation and advisory roles, was not elected or representative, and the elected praetors could interpret the law in meaningful ways. The actual laws were enacted by direct popular vote in the assemblies (the comitia centuriata, the comitia tributa, or the concilium plebis). (If someone argues that Rome had an elected representative Senate, you can point out that it was neither elected nor representative, and not a legislature.)
Thus Roman lawmaking was direct lawmaking, albeit with a voting system that heavily favored the wealthy, not representative lawmaking. The laws did not have to begin in an elected legislative body first (remember, there were no such elective bodies); they could be proposed by a magistrate—such as a consul or a tribune of the plebs—and enacted by popular vote in the assembly. Think of it as a hybrid between today’s referendums and initiatives, but clearly a system of direct popular legislation, not a representative one.
And the Framers consistently called Rome a republic—indeed, they also labeled Athens a republic, even though Golden Age Athens is widely famous for direct democracy. Hamilton, in Federalist No. 6, notes that “Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics.” In Federalist No. 34, Hamilton discusses the Roman legislative assemblies yet still refers to Rome as a republic. Federalist No. 63, generally attributed to Madison, cites Rome as an example of a “long-lived republic.” (Professors Akhil Amar and Rob Natelson have written more extensively on these points.)
[4.] Today, the term “republican” tends to be used to describe representative systems, whereas “democratic” often refers to following the will of the people, whether through direct democracy or through representation—the exact meaning depends on context. If the question is whether to act by direct ballot or through representative procedures, you might ask whether we should be more democratic or more republican. If you’re pondering whether China would benefit from shifting more power to its voters, you might frame the question as more democratic or less democratic, regardless of whether the democracy is direct or representative.
To be clear, beyond being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts place checks on the democratic will to some degree. Consequently, the United States is also a constitutional republic. In fact, one could describe the country as a constitutional federal representative democracy.
However, when people use one term or the other, oversimplification is almost unavoidable. Still, both terms fit the core reality: since direct democracy—where most laws are decided directly by the people—would be impractical given the scale and complexity of laws a government must enact, “representative” democracy is essentially the only form that exists at the state or national level. (Referenda at the state or national level occur, but they represent only a small portion of lawmaking.)
There are many arguments one could raise about how our government should be structured: whether it should be more or less democratic, or differently democratic; whether it should incorporate more or fewer elements of direct democracy; whether stronger supermajority requirements or constitutional constraints (or filibuster rules) should be in place; which jurisdictions—federal, state, or local—should hold more or less power; and so on. Yet asserting that we are solely a republic and not a democracy (or the reverse) seems inconsistent with how the terms have been used in modern times and how prominent figures of the Framers and early republics employed them.
