Legend has it that as the Constitutional Convention adjourned that a woman questioned Benjamin Franklin, “Sir, what kind of government have you given us?” The old curmudgeon quipped, “A republic, if you can keep it.” It is not a good sign that for the last three score and some years we have used as common parlance to describe our system, “democracy.” It is mildly sloppy, but not intentionally insidious to treat “republic” and “democracy” as synonyms. Being pedantic on the differences, however, can prove helpful in promoting truth, justice and the American way.
A republic is a government of law. Res, Latin for law and publica, that which stands in the place of the people, means that the law is that which governs, rather than the government itself. Under a republic the guiding principles exist prior to those called to protect and defend. This is why our founding documents acknowledge that our rights are not granted by the state but by God and why our Constitution is structured more to restrict the central government than the people. This is why the Constitution includes the Bill of Rights.
A democracy, on the other hand, is a government by the demos, the people of the nation. In a democracy the will of the majority determines the law. While again the word might be used loosely and technically incorrectly to describe a republic, it’s actual meaning is rule by the people. Under a democracy, if 51% of the people believe the other 49% cannot own guns, or should be taxed at a rate of 100%, or have no right to live, such is what the law will do.
You may think that majorities would not do that, and you would be wrong. I will provide three examples. Most recently we have the government in Gaza. Gaza is not, contrary to leftist propaganda, an occupied territory. It is a nation that held democratic elections which elected Hamas, a terrorist organization that has in turn used those who voted them into office as human shields.
The second example is like unto it. Part of the language used to raise public support for war in Iran under the younger Bush administration was that we would be “spreading democracy” into the region. When Hussein was toppled, and US forces had control over the nation, we waited years before allowing democratic elections. Why? Because the people would have voted for bad rulers. The bizarre result is that we conquered a nation, overthrew its ruler and refused to allow elections, all in the name of “spreading democracy.”
The third example is mildly more complex. There was a government that was duly elected in a complicated parliamentarian system that used propaganda and threats to expand its power base. It all started, however, with free elections. The party was known as the National Socialist Worker’s Party, and the nation was Germany. The standard bearer for the party that year was Adolph Hitler. Hitler was democratically elected, and from there made himself Fuehrer.
The will of the people is often wrong. There is nothing in the least sacred about it. What is sacred is the will of God, who commands of the state that they rule justly, and be His ministry of justice. If we mean by “democracy” republican government, yea and amen. If we mean what it actually means, majority government, it’s folly to be rejected.
