Democracy’s Threat: Is Our Republic in Jeopardy?

By Earl Taylor, Jr.

In reflecting on the rationale behind America’s republican form of government, the Founders expressed significant concerns regarding direct democracy. Their belief stemmed from historical examples that illustrated the chaos often associated with mass participation in governance, leading to instability and, at times, tyranny. Ancient Greece serves as a notable case; democratic city-states frequently succumbed to disorder.

James Madison encapsulated these fears in the Federalist Papers, emphasizing the inherent risks in democracies: “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property…” He drafted a vision of a republic where power emanates from the people but is executed by elected officials, chosen for their judgment and reliability.

The Founders recognized that constant engagement with complex issues would overwhelm citizens, leading to apathy and reliance on charismatic leaders. Instead, they preferred a model where informed representatives handle legislative matters, allowing citizens to focus their energies on periodic elections to select their lawmakers, typically every two or four years.

Even the election of the President was designed to distance voters from direct decision-making. The electoral college was established to mitigate emotional decision-making, a structure that has undergone significant distortions over time, yet remains in place today.

Madison and his contemporaries advocated for a system where representatives are tasked with navigating the ever-changing landscape of political issues. An example from early New England underlines this point: during elections, clergymen often delivered “Election Sermons,” urging voters to prioritize moral integrity and wisdom when selecting their leaders. Samuel Langdon, in 1788, implored the public to be diligent in their choices, avoiding candidates lacking moral fortitude and honesty.

Current political landscapes, particularly in Arizona, reveal the validity of these insights. The recent ballot, spanning two pages filled with candidates, propositions, and legal complexities, overwhelms many voters. With multi-page pamphlets mailed to every registered voter detailing legal arguments, the practical question arises: who will invest the time to understand these materials? This scenario risks allowing decision-making to devolve into emotional reactions rather than informed choices.

Moreover, Arizona’s constitutional initiative process, which enables direct voting on legislative matters, raises constitutional questions. It suggests a deviation from the republican framework mandated by the U.S. Constitution, which specifies a republican form of government for each state.

Benjamin Franklin aptly captured the essence of this struggle, reportedly stating, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” The challenge remains: maintaining the principles set forth by the Founders in a modern political landscape rife with distraction and complexity.

Earl Taylor, Jr. is the President of The National Center for Constitutional Studies.