Democracy has come to have a positive connotation, which is why its meaning
has become so broad. People now often use "democracy" to describe whatever
political system or program they support, however far removed it may be from
simple majority rule.
The framers feared "democracy" because for them "democracy" signified simple
majority rule through frequent plebiscites, without checks and balances. In
their era even "representation" was seen as anti-democratic.
Today I think that most people think of representative democracy when they
speak of democracy. The framers supported representation and opposed
plebiscites, so in this sense modern "democracy" is more in keeping with their
concept of government than (for example) Greek democracy would be.
I think that it would be a mistake, however, to try to separate the concept of
democracy from the concept of majority rule. Majority vote, in certain
circumstances, is one necessary element of just government. It is useful to
have a word for it, and the traditional word is "democracy". "Self-rule",
whatever that means, is something else again. "Democracy" signifies majority
rule, which is often useful, but can lead to excesses, if pursued without
constraint.
Tim Sellers
>===== Original Message From Discussion list for con law professors
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =====
> Thanks to the members of the list who have generously responded to my
>requests. As you will see, I am genuinely confused about the historical and
>normative analysis of 'democracy' and 'republicanism.'
>
> One problem I'm facing in trying to understand the Founding
>generation's conception of democracy is this. Today, it seems that democracy
covers a
>wide spectrum of related ideas from virtually unconstrained majoritarianism
to
>more complex conceptions invoking such political and moral concepts as
>equality, self-determination, deliberation, representation, and so forth, And
these
>additional features of democracy provide an explanation of 'democracy' and
>accordingly can be redescribed as canonical elements in the conception of
>'democracy' itself.
>
> If today no one would embrace the Founding conception of 'democracy'
>because it is an impoverished conception of self-rule, then it isn't terribly
>interesting if the Founding generation rejected that conception of
democracy.
>If our present conception of 'democracy' is richer and more complex than the
>Founders,' the historical question seem to be whether the Founders would have
>rejected our conception of 'democracy.' If not, why should we care about an
>impoverished sense of democracy that the Founders rejected?
>
> I suppose the link between democracy and republicanism is self-rule,
>and the spectrum of conceptions of self-rule begins with direct (virtually)
>unconstrained majoritarianism and leads to a conception of (republican)
self-rule
>containing several important constraints on majoritarianism. But then the
>contrast between republicanism and democracy is stark only when democracy is
>interpreted as direct, unconstrained majoritarianism. If few theorists today
>embrace this sense of democracy, the contrast between democracy and
republicanism
>ceases to be very interesting. Both democracy and republicanism may include
>such constraints or filters as representationalism, deliberation, a concern
>about the common good, and so forth. Given the elasticity in the term
'democracy,'
>it is absolutely necessary as both a historical matter and a normative matter
>to define the term as precisely as possible when answering whether the
>Framers conceptually rejected the concept of 'democracy' as well as whether
>democracy is superior to 'republicanism.'
>
>Bobby Lipkin
>Widener University School of Law
>Delaware
