Several Georgia legislators have introduced this resolution (link added):
A RESOLUTIONInforming Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Carol W. Hunstein that Georgia is a republic, not a democracy; recognizing the great differences between these two forms of government; and for other purposes.
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2010, Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Carol W. Hunstein appeared before the Georgia General Assembly for the State of the Judiciary address, and in her speech Chief Justice Hunstein mistakenly called the State of Georgia a democracy; and
WHEREAS, the State of Georgia is, in fact, a republic and it is important that all Georgians know the difference between a republic and a democracy -– especially the Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court; and
WHEREAS, the word “republic” comes from the Latin res publica, which means “the public thing” or “the law,” while the word “democracy” comes from the Greek words demos and kratein, which translates to “the people to rule”; and
WHEREAS, most synonymous with majority rule, democracy was condemned by the Founding Fathers of the United States, who closely studied the history of both democracies and republics before drafting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the Founding Fathers recognized that the rights given to man by God should not be violated by an unrestrained majority any more than they should be restrained by a king or monarch; and
WHEREAS, it is common knowledge that the Pledge of Allegiance contains the phrase “and to the Republic”; and
WHEREAS, as he exited the deliberations of the so-called Constitutional Convention of 1787, Founding Father Benjamin Franklin told the awaiting crowd they have “A republic, if you can keep it”; and
WHEREAS, a republic is a government of law, not of man, which is why the United States Constitution does not contain the word democracy and mandates that “the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”; and
WHEREAS, in 1928, the War Department of the United States defined democracy in Training Manual No. 2000-25 as a “government of the masses” which “[r]esults in mobocracy,” communistic attitudes to property rights, “demagogism, … agitation, discontent, [and] anarchy”; …
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES that the members of this body recognize the difference between a democracy and a republic and inform Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Carol W. Hunstein that the State of Georgia is a republic and not a democracy….
Now maybe this is just a deep inside joke, but if it’s meant to be serious then it strikes me as the worst sort of pedantry. (I distinguish this from my pedantry, which is the best sort of pedantry.)
Whatever government Georgia has, and whatever government the English language has, it is not government by ancient Romans, ancient Greeks, the War Department Training Manual, or even the Pledge of Allegiance. “Democracy” today includes, among other meanings, “Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege.” That’s from the Oxford English Dictionary, but if you prefer the American Heritage Dictionary, try “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.” Government by the people’s representatives is included within democracy, as is government by the people directly.
It may well be that in Madison’s time, “democracy” and “republic” were more sharply delineated by some; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.” But even then, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”; John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted. More importantly, the dictionaries report that in standard English today — the time in which Chief Justice Hunstein was actually speaking — “democracy” includes direct democracies as well as democratic republics.
Naturally, the supposed logical arguments in favor of favoring “republic” over “democracy” are as weak as the historical arguments. That “the rights given to man by God should not be violated by an unrestrained majority any more than they should be restrained by a king or monarch” shouldn’t lead us to favor “republic” over “democracy” — after all, rights shouldn’t be violated by an unrestrained desire to serve “the public thing,” either. That “the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government” doesn’t help, either. Indeed, in the early years of the Constitution, many states were republican but not democratic, in the sense that they were governed by only a subset of the adult citizenry (even setting aside the fact that blacks and women were generally excluded). But today all the states, including Georgia, have pretty much universal adult citizen suffrage, and thus are both republican and democratic.
Thanks to Bill Raftery (Gavel to Gavel) for the pointer.
Bleh says:
Wow. What an unbelievably petty resolution…
April 9, 2010, 4:59 pmSill says:
Pedantic and absurd . . . wonder why legislative bodies held in such low opinion.
April 9, 2010, 5:02 pmJon says:
This form of pedantry is a favorite of the far right, for some reason. God forbid you call this country a democracy; the debate is lost.
April 9, 2010, 5:05 pmzuch says:
Somebody’s been reading Newtie’s “talking points”…. ;-)
Cheers,
April 9, 2010, 5:08 pmChris Travers says:
Hence Democrats have no place in the Georgian government!
I agree with EV, this is really, really bad if serious.
Who appointed the Chief Justice of the Georgia supreme court? Was it by chance a Democrat?
Update: Yep. turns out that she was appointed by a Democrat. Maybe it is an inside joke….
April 9, 2010, 5:12 pmzuch says:
Prof. Volokh:
The ‘arguments’ in favour of this distinction are rhetorical (see Gingrich’s “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control” …. ooooohhhhh, Newtie said “control“!!!!) I suspect the reasons are the same as that for calling the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”.
Cheers,
April 9, 2010, 5:16 pmSara says:
It maybe even worse. I just searched her speech and there is one passing reference to separation of powers, being essential to “our nations democracy,” and a quote from Learned Hand using the word democracy. That’s it!
April 9, 2010, 5:17 pmNot Butter says:
This is dead serious.
this is a serious sticking point with many far righties – what does it mean? How can this mean anything in practice unless Republicans are planning on revoking [some] people’s right to representation? We’ve already heard of fanatics like Tancredo asking for “tests” to determine who gets to vote.
These people don’t want a “republic” or a “democracy” – they want an aristocracy.
April 9, 2010, 5:18 pmPeteP says:
Gene, I never knew you were a pedantrist !
April 9, 2010, 5:19 pmChris Travers says:
So you say this is serious, but it funny, don’t you think, that a Republican controlled legislature is trying to tell a Democrat-appointed chief justice that the state is a republic and not a democracy?
This has to be a joke. Otherwise it is the worst form of partisan politics….
April 9, 2010, 5:26 pmSarcastro says:
Yes! Politicians are never petty, this must be a precursor for oppression! Read the signs people! The Right is gonna kill us all like Nazis, starting with Georgia!
9/11 fits in there somehow as well.
April 9, 2010, 5:27 pmAnderson says:
I’m well into Gordon Wood’s Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, and the tension between “democracy” and “republic” is pretty much foundational to our country. It’s unsurprising to see it still in play, though IMHO the Repubs should be the ones touting “democracy.”
April 9, 2010, 5:29 pmzuch says:
Isn’t that some kind of heinous crime?
Cheers,
April 9, 2010, 5:35 pmzuch says:
[Sarcastro unmasked at last!!! He's Rudy Giuliani in intellectual "drag".]
Cheers,
April 9, 2010, 5:37 pmSteve says:
Perhaps this resolution should have been directed to all those Republicans who recently proclaimed that a law passed by an elected majority is tyrannical unless the polls show that the people are in favor of it as well.
April 9, 2010, 5:37 pmMark N. says:
Yeah, it seems to sit poorly with the sort of generally populist, anti-elitist tone that the Republicans are currently taking. In the democracy v. republic debate, isn’t the “democracy” side the populist, anti-elitist one? The Founders who emphasized the “republic” aspect generally did so to stem populist urges, and to institutionalize some notion of rule by elites; hence the original indirect election of Senators.
April 9, 2010, 5:37 pmCrazyTrain says:
Thank you for this post. One of my pet-peeves is people confusing the concept of “representative democracy” with “republic” apparently because they kind of sound the same. Republic, however, comes from the Latin Res Publicae — public thing — and was used to distinguish the Roman Republic from the prior government, which was a monarchy. Republic has nothing to do with “representative.” Britain is most assuredly a democracy, but it is not a Republic. Egypt is a Republic, but it is not a democracy. The United States, France, Germany, etc., are both republics and democracies. Republic means a public government — ie, that sovereignty rests with the people and not with a person such as a king or queen (thus, the “Republican movement” in Britain seeks to get rid of the monarchy).
And I do recognize and agree with Professor Volokh that word meanings evolve, and that looking to foreign language roots is far, far from determinative. But having that said that, the common misconception that Republic = Represenative Democracy is wrong.
April 9, 2010, 5:40 pmSara says:
Maybe, it’s because before and during the civil war, the party of Jefferson-Jackson was referred to often, even by Whigs and Republicans as “the Democracy”?
April 9, 2010, 5:45 pmtamerlane says:
References to “republican government” occur twice in the federal constition; the word democratic never. Words do matter and the writers of the Constitution were consumnate rhetoricians. I’m curious if all those dumping on the Georgia legislature were as dismissive of George P. Fletcher’s screed Our Secret Constitution which is essentially nothing more than an extended “liberal” argument that Abraham Lincoln crafted a revolutionary reworking of Constitutional interpretation purely by getting the citizenry to think of themselves as a “nation” rather than a “republic”. As I remember, this 2001 book was very well-received by the
April 9, 2010, 5:48 pmrepublic’snation’s intelligentsia.Ariel says:
My very liberal Con Law professor asked us our form of government. Some said democracy, and I said republic, to which she agreed. A constitutional republic means that the government has certain powers and not others, regardless of what the majority of the people want. For example, even if 51% of the people wanted to vote for a 31-year old for President, they could not do so. We are not a democracy, but a democratic constitutional republic. I don’t think it’s mere pedantry, particularly if you believe the government should be one of limited powers (as many libertarians do).
[Ariel: I think you have hit on the distinction between a constitutional democracy and a pure majoritarian democracy. One can imagine either a direct democracy or a representative democracy (which one might call a democratic republic) in which there are no legal or customary constraints on the majority -- whether the majority acting directly or through its representatives. One can likewise imagine an undemocratic republic (e.g., one in which only a small aristocracy elects the governing officials) in which there are no such constraints on the representatives. Or one can imagine either a pure democracy, a representative democracy, or an undemocratic republic which do have such constraints. The term "constitutional" is what usually embodies such constraints on the will of those whose will counts -- not the term "republic." -EV]
April 9, 2010, 5:51 pmcorneille1640 says:
Well, if a military training manual written in 1928 thusly weighs in on the debate, then I’m convinced.
April 9, 2010, 5:51 pmSteve says:
A constitutional republic means that the government has certain powers and not others, regardless of what the majority of the people want.
And a constitutional democracy would be different… how?
April 9, 2010, 5:55 pmAnonAnon says:
I think we now all patiently await step 2, which is for people to start arguing that the various “Republics” around the world without democratic processes for selecting leaders are not, in fact, republics.
April 9, 2010, 5:56 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Someone should inform the author, given the serious nature of this issue and his attention to rectitude and accuracy, that there is no God, at least not one that can withstand his preferred level of precision and proof. Superstition has no place in such an important matter as this.
April 9, 2010, 6:01 pmneimoller says:
EV, I love you.
April 9, 2010, 6:02 pmneimoller says:
This seems like a logical conclusion of the movement started a couple of years ago to call it the Democrat party instead of the Democratic party.
April 9, 2010, 6:03 pmAriel says:
A Constitution defining the powers of government is the hallmark of republican government. A constitutional democracy would not be different, b/c it would be a constitutional republic.
April 9, 2010, 6:04 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Count me in the group of people who couldn’t disagree with you more about the importance of the distinction, however petty one perceives the motives for which it is being observed.
April 9, 2010, 6:08 pmRandy says:
“In the democracy v. republic debate, isn’t the “democracy” side the populist, anti-elitist one? ”
Not necessarily. There is a notion on the far right that we currently being swamped with minorities, such as Hispanics, blacks, gays, and so on, they generally vote the Democratic party ticket, and they favor things like free health care. Since they will soon be the majority (along with some traitorous straight white libruls), we can no longer afford a representative democracy and will have to have a rule of the non-elites, i.e., Real Americans, in order to stem the tide.
April 9, 2010, 6:11 pmCrazyTrain says:
Ugh. Wrong. Great Britain is a constitutional democracy. It is NOT a Republic.
April 9, 2010, 6:15 pmcboldt says:
– For example, even if 51% of the people wanted to vote for a 31-year old for President, they could not do so. –
April 9, 2010, 6:15 pmThe responsibility for maintaining qualifications doesn’t lie with the voters (who chose electors), it lies with Congress.
Eugene Volokh says:
SuperSkeptic: There surely is an important distinction between direct democracy and representative democracy. It’s just not a distinction that is today captured in the words “democracy” and “republic” (or that was clearly captured in those words even in the late 1700s).
April 9, 2010, 6:19 pmPerseus says:
The very fact that common usage now elides the distinction between direct democracy and representative (indirect) democracy represents a great triumph for republicanism. The whole point of representative democracy is to withdraw the people from all direct say in making, enforcing, and adjudicating the law because while the people may intend the good, they are not good judges of how to produce the good. Thus, by its very nature, representative government tilts toward aristocracy because the few rule over the many (though the aristocratic principle is heavily diluted by having the many judge the few at periodic intervals), which is why the Anti-Federalists plausibly charged that the new Constitution was aristocratic. What’s interesting is that many on the Right frequently rebuke government officials (especially the judiciary) for failing to follow the will of people, while many on Left (see above) sneer at those who insist on retaining the distinction despite embracing it because it can help protect what they regard as oppressed minorities.
That “the rights given to man by God should not be violated by an unrestrained majority any more than they should be restrained by a king or monarch” shouldn’t lead us to favor “republic” over “democracy” — after all, rights shouldn’t be violated by an unrestrained desire to serve “the public thing,” either.
Actually, that seems to be one of Madison’s main reasons for making the distinction. Any pure ruling principle or unmixed constitution is liable to afford insufficient security to the rights of individuals.
April 9, 2010, 6:21 pmcityduck says:
Kerr and Volokh are going to have their conservative credentials revoked if they don’t stop this traitorous talk. We’ll never see anyone on this site sit on the S.Ct. because they’ll be opposed by the conservative base of the Republican Party.
April 9, 2010, 6:21 pmRodger Lodger says:
Plenty of liberals I read put the argument that the health mandated insurance in the same category as the Georgia baloney.
April 9, 2010, 6:30 pmChris Travers says:
At least we don’t live in a Hippocracy (at least until Horses are appointed to the Senate…)
I hereby think we should start the Hippocratic party, with the platform of electing our equine friends into high offices….
April 9, 2010, 6:40 pmzuch says:
Prof. Volokh:
If there’s no constitution (or fundamental law, or even Roberts’s Rules of Order), how does one even determine what the “majority” has decided? Maybe one school says that the largest number of “ayes” have it, but the other side cavils that it’s the side who happened to wear the most things green that day. Sure, one could posit that prior enacted “laws” concerning resolution of such disputes should hold, but what happens if the losing side, preferring their own ‘rules’, says that such prior procedural laws were not properly enacted (or are subject to amendment by a majority of those wearing green)?
Agreed, in practise, this is unlikely to happen; adherence to precedent from past forms of government might constrain the ‘legislative’ process a bit just as a matter of practicality, but really, isn’t there some requirement for at least some implicit ‘fundamental law’ in all legal systems? This is not to say that any such basics couldn’t be subject to amendment … subject to procedures under those rules. Even so, is it possible that there’s some ‘amendments’ (such as abolishing completely the fundamental rules and rewriting them to say the exact opposite) that are intrinsically of such nature that they are practically if not logically prohibited? Could they write laws that say a minority is to be deemed a majority (and then apply this recursively)?
Cheers,
April 9, 2010, 6:41 pmtom says:
As a Georgia resident, I personally hope this resolution passes by a wide majority. I would note the the 4 named sponsors, Bobby Franlklin, Sean Jerguson, Charlice Byrd & Bobby Reese are all Republicans. I want this to pass for one only reason…the next time any of these idjits say something like the majority of the voters agreed to ammend the constitution to prohibit X, Y or Z.
I want to be able to trot out their resolution and point the the 5th clause…
just to see them gawping like a fish out of water while they try to explain how that only applies when they agree with the position being voted on.
April 9, 2010, 6:44 pmPositive Liberty » Volokh on Republic v. Democracy says:
[...] Eugene Volokh has an outstanding post that argues, correctly I might add, that the concepts of “republic” and “democracy” are not mutually exclusive. The United States, as founded, is aptly termed both a republic AND a democracy. It is not a “direct” or a “pure” democracy, rather a representative democracy. Terms like that, representative republic, democratic-republic, are six and one half dozen of the other. [...]
April 9, 2010, 6:51 pmClaritas says:
The distinction between a “republic” and a “democracy” was undoubtedly significant in the 1780s and 90s, but I agree with Prof. Volokh that the terms are essentially synonyms in modern political discourse.
Of course, at the time the Constitution was adopted, everyone agreed they were not creating a democracy, but there was substantial disagreement as to what a “republic” was. See McDonald’s Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Foundations of the Constitution (drawing a distinction between ideological and non-ideological republicans, and among the former variety, between puritan and agrarian republicans, with profound implications for the preferred structure and level of participation in government). McDonald argues too that Madison in the Federalist was responsible for crafting the meaning “republic” has today, as essentially representative democracy.
So the pedantry of Georgia’s resolution is all the more silly because it is not historically informed.
April 9, 2010, 6:59 pmCharleyCarp says:
Georgia isn’t a republic. It’s a state.
I guess I’m not surprised that people are unable to distinguish between the role and scope of the limited national government, and that of a state government. But really now — why on earth would it make any difference how Madison and Hamilton refer to the United States if one were deciding what Georgia is? Who cares how many times ‘republic’ is in the US Constitution?
This, by the way, is sec II paras I and II of the Ga Const.:
Paragraph I. Origin and foundation of government. All government, of right, originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole. Public officers are the trustees and servants of the people and are at all times amenable to them.
Paragraph II. Object of government. The people of this state have the inherent right of regulating their internal government. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people; and at all times they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it.
April 9, 2010, 7:07 pmneimoller says:
that’s what putin said too.
April 9, 2010, 7:23 pmCharleyCarp says:
That should be art I sec II paras 1 and 2.
The other Georgia is more fun:
The people of Georgia whose strong will is to establish a democratic social order, economic independence, a social and legal state, guarantee universally recognised human rights and freedoms, strengthen state independence and peaceful relations with other countries, universally announce this constitution based upon many centuries of state tradition and the main principles of the Constitution of 1921
April 9, 2010, 7:25 pmPeteP says:
“Georgia isn’t a republic. It’s a state.”
Ummm…. bzzzt.
Georgia’s constitution is that of a representative democracy organized as a unitary, semi-presidential republic.
Situated at the juncture of Eastern Europe and Western Asia,[5] it is bounded to the west by the Black Sea, to the north by Russia, to the south by Turkey and Armenia, and to the east by Azerbaijan. Georgia covers a territory of 69,700 km² and its population is 4.385 million.
April 9, 2010, 7:35 pmCharleyCarp says:
I think I left a pedant tag open . . .
April 9, 2010, 7:37 pmCrunchy Frog says:
I for one welcome our new equine overlords…
April 9, 2010, 7:56 pmzuch says:
You’re confusing Georgia with Gruzia (Грузия).
Cheers,
April 9, 2010, 8:03 pmPeteP says:
“I hereby think we should start the Hippocratic party, with the platform of electing our equine friends into high offices…. ”
Why not. We already have their hind ends running the country .
April 9, 2010, 8:18 pmThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Whole Lot of Error Going On says:
[...] comment on the republic vs. democracy thread struck me as worth noting, because the errors in it seem to me to be pretty common. Recall that in [...]
April 9, 2010, 8:38 pmEugene Volokh says:
zuch: There are two Carolinas, and two Georgias.
April 9, 2010, 8:39 pmChris Travers says:
I wonder how many folks know enough Greek to get the joke…
April 9, 2010, 8:44 pmzuch says:
My Russian teacher was from Ukraina, and she referred to it as Gruzia. Was she wrong?
BTW, my comment “you are confusing…” was directed at the other jokesters here, not you, Prof. Volokh.
Na strovye,
April 9, 2010, 10:17 pmEugene Volokh says:
zuch: She was right to call it Gruzia in Russian, because that’s the country’s name in Russian. We’re right to call it Georgia in English, because that’s the country’s name in English. Likewise, we’re right to call Germany Germany in English, even though the French are right to call it Allemagne in French.
On the other hand, I’m not sure what you mean by “Na strovye” in that context.
April 9, 2010, 10:23 pmCharleyCarp says:
A-and South Georgia is a territory.
April 9, 2010, 11:00 pmMark Field says:
I don’t speak a word of Russian, but judging from zuch’s other posts he intends it to mean “cheers”.
April 9, 2010, 11:14 pmAndrew says:
I think that really when you factor in all of the evidence, the only sane conclusion is that the word “democracy” has ceased to have any meaning beyond “form of government of which the speaker approves”. Democracy is good! Undemocracy is ungood!
April 10, 2010, 12:46 amzuch says:
Correct. That was the intent. Or a little more accurately, “to your health”. My phonetic translation is bad. Sorry.
На здоровье,
April 10, 2010, 1:40 amEugene Volokh says:
Oh, I see — but to my knowledge that’s not used as a farewell (the way “Cheers” or “All the best” might be in English); rather, it’s used when serving food or drink. But maybe I’m not up on the idiom; I’ve led a fairly sheltered life when it comes to Russian.
April 10, 2010, 2:18 amEugene Volokh says:
Andrew: I don’t think that’s right. While people can of course lie, it’s hard to call (say) North Korea, Cuba, or Saudi Arabia “democracies.” I would think that even honest people who approve of the Saudi government wouldn’t call it a democracy.
Likewise, I’m not opposed to the way the Catholic Church is run, but it’s not democratically run, and I don’t think that most loyal Catholics would argue otherwise.
April 10, 2010, 2:25 amJohn says:
@CrazyTrain, *ahem* the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a constitutional monarchy, and in no way a democracy. However, over the years evolution in the division of power and voting rights with respect to the House of Commons have lead to its constitution having a democratic flavor, similar to the democratic flavor of the US Republic.
Prof. Volokh, I think it’s pretty clear that a legislation in a Democracy is (at least in principle) passed by the assent of the assembled citizens, something that is only allowed in terrible states like Washington and California. This is really not a pedantic point.
April 10, 2010, 2:52 amMick says:
Volokh said:
“It may well be that in Madison’s time, “democracy” and “republic” were more sharply delineated by some; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.””
I don’t know how you call yourself a conservative if you don’t believe in an originalist reading of the constitution. The delineation of the concepts of Republic and Democracy mean the same today as they meant then. The fact that we are not a Democracy is born out in the Electoral College, and the FACT that a candidate can receive more votes in a National Presidential election and still lose. If we were simply a democracy then the citizens could simply vote to change the Constitution and not have to convene a Constitutional Congress to Amend it; and there is the stark difference, Law is Supreme to man— Natural Law. But who are you kidding Professor Volokh? You fail to understand the meaning , concept or Natural Law Theory of the term Natural Born Citizen (born in a country of parents who are it’s citizens, or as Trout puts it: Born within a country’s territory AND ALLEGIANCE). We are being led by a Usurper (Barack Obama 1 was not a citizen when Obama 2 was born). Natural Law is our Common Law, and is Supreme to the laws of man.
April 10, 2010, 9:31 amMark Field says:
Well, it does get used as you suggest in Fiddler on the Roof…
April 10, 2010, 10:40 amzuch says:
Indeed. I was beer in hand. ;-)
Tally-O! [Or do svidanye?]
April 10, 2010, 10:54 amEugene Volokh says:
John: You say it’s “pretty clear,” but that’s not what the dictionaries say. It wasn’t even “pretty clear” to Adams or Jefferson, who recognized that a democracy could be a representative democracy; but in any event, we’re speaking now, using the English language of 2010. What basis do you have for insisting that your definition of the word is the only proper one, given all the contrary evidence about actual standard English usage?
April 10, 2010, 11:03 amJoe says:
Would you please fix the Jefferson link in the article. I was curious to see where Jefferson said this. Thanks
[Sorry, fixed it -- but it's just what I found through Google Books; if you're ever curious about whether and how some noted author used a phrase, a quick Google Books search will often be quite helpful. -EV]
April 10, 2010, 2:08 pmA. S. Haley says:
It seems to me that on this topic, as Justice Holmes observed in New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921), “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.” The original democracy in Athens differed from the first Roman republic in many ways. One of the chief differences, which I have not yet seen mentioned, is in the separation of powers that distinguished the latter (the ekklesia of Athens tried Socrates and sentenced him to death). Surely our founding fathers, in referring to what they had created (based in part on Montesquieu’s treatise) as a “republic”, meant to draw on this essential difference. “Separation of powers” entails (with the adoption of a constitution) checks and balances among them, another feature of the Roman republic that was absent in the Athenian democracy.
To mix the two is certainly permissible in logic and language, but that does not give one license to detach the concepts from their origins. (See Holmes, supra.)
April 10, 2010, 4:23 pmA. S. Haley says:
Sorry — a correction on one point: it was a jury of 501 dikasts, chosen by lot from the citizens of the full ekklesia, who decided Socrates’ fate. But the point stands: Athenian democracy was not distinguished by a separation of powers, or still less by checks and balances.
April 10, 2010, 4:39 pmEugene Volokh says:
A.S. Haley: We’re English speakers. We don’t need no stinkin’ licenses to detach concepts from their origins. Check out “journal” or “caption” or who knows how many other terms.
April 10, 2010, 5:18 pmA. S. Haley says:
Do you mean, as in “conspiracy” (the second definition)?
April 10, 2010, 5:34 pmJoe says:
Thanks for fixing up the Jefferson link. It’s an interesting letter showing how he used the term democracy later in life, whereas he avoided it in his earlier years. The quote in fact illustrates your point nicely …
“[The war] has manifested the strong and the weak parts of our republican institutions and the excellence of a representative democracy compared with the misrule of Kings”
Plus a nice shot by Jefferson at preachers who discuss politics from the pulpit.
April 10, 2010, 5:57 pmcboldt says:
There is a wide and fascinating intersection of “communism” and “democracy” as well. See, e.g., “Direct Communist Democracy: Towards a pragmatic post-Marxist communist teaching.”
April 11, 2010, 8:49 amThe label “democracy” is a powerful tool for inciting radical government-social change. Over time, of course.
Michael McNeil says:
The delineation of the concepts of Republic and Democracy mean the same today as they meant then. The fact that we are not a Democracy is born out in the Electoral College, and the FACT that a candidate can receive more votes in a National Presidential election and still lose. If we were simply a democracy then the citizens could simply vote to change the Constitution and not have to convene a Constitutional Congress to Amend it….
Nonsense. As the Oxford English Dictionary definition that David referred to before notes: “democracy — a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives.”
A “voice in the exercise of power” (which the American people indubitably do have) isn’t the same thing as being able to win anything and everything instantaneously be a mere majority vote.
April 11, 2010, 6:35 pmThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Originalism and Linguistic Questions says:
[...] understands it to mean, which includes both direct democracy and representative democracy — as I noted, it often meant this even around the time of the Framing, but it certainly has this broad meaning [...]
April 12, 2010, 2:04 pmSouthern Appeal » Obamacare: Majoritarianism vs. The American Republic says:
[...] The usually worthy Volokh blog recently made a hash of “democracy” vs. “republicanism.” [...]
April 16, 2010, 12:19 amSocial studies insanity spreads through South « Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub says:
[...] of the scrub brush to the Volokh Conspiracy, where you’ll find erudite and entertaining comment, and where Eugene Volokh wrote: Now maybe [...]
April 23, 2010, 8:57 amKatie says:
“Prof. Volokh, I think it’s pretty clear that a legislation in a Democracy is (at least in principle) passed by the assent of the assembled citizens, something that is only allowed in terrible states like Washington and California. This is really not a pedantic point.”
I laughed (but in the “too true” way). ;D
May 12, 2010, 12:33 amjust taught a college student what form of goverment we have says:
[...] starts to teach the truth. Unfortunately you misled the student with hyperbole. Read this: The Volokh Conspiracy – More on the Republic vs. Democracy Debate: [...]
June 28, 2010, 7:12 pmRepublic, Not Democracy - INGunOwners says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy More on the Republic vs. Democracy Debate [...]
July 14, 2010, 9:54 amCRF Blog » Blog Archive » America: Democracy, Republic, or Both? says:
[...] in the Federalist Papers. First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh has discussed this argument on his Volokh Conspiracy blog, and presents an etymology of the word “democracy” as to what it meant in the time [...]
September 15, 2010, 6:02 pm