Founding Fathers and Democracy

American Democracy A nation wherein the masses elect representatives to the government, thus ensuring the law is shaped by public opinion (so long as this opinion is Constitutional) is considered a republic. This was the aim of America's Founding Fathers. Democracy closely resembles a Republic; however, a key point of distinction between the two is the representatives.

The founders were worried about citizens' criticism that they were assuming too much control themselves and hence, there was a need to prove to citizens that it wasn't the President, but the law, that governed the nation. Following the very ineffective attempt at enforcing the Articles of Confederation, the founders ultimately found success with the Constitution -- American history's most famous text -- which ensured federal power was limited to only matters included within the Constitution. Without the Constitution, the U.S.

would be an absolute democracy with all citizens doing whatever they felt was the law. This has been described brilliantly in Plato's Republic, where the Greek philosopher states that democracy gives rise to Anarchy, which ultimately results in tyranny. History reveals that after the French Revolution's historic Bastille Day, anarchy surfaced; shortly after this occurrence, the world saw Napoleon Bonaparte, allegedly the 'Greatest Frenchman'. Hence, it is reasonable for the Founders to try to avoid anarchy and set up a government that didn't ultimately reduce to anarchy.

America's Founders greatly feared setting up a government with an overly large number of aspects or characteristic of pure democracies. They were afraid of the destructiveness inherent in the majority's attempts at achieving social equality, in the form of appropriating property, property rights, and God-given fundamental freedoms. They expected a Robin-Hood attitude to develop, where the rich are 'soaked' and the poor profit. It represents a democratic shift towards socialism. A fine example is the planned initiative, "Universal Healthcare." The founders' fears were well-grounded.

They were all well-informed individuals who had discussed, at length, how disastrously earlier democracies, including Athens, failed. In the words of Paul Gagnon, U.S. history traces back to Christian and Jewish texts, Athenian democracy's rise and fall, the Feudal era, etc. and in order to explain American values, history teachers must go back there as well. A historical work has been circulating for many years, on the principles the Founders were highly familiar with: Democracies are unable to survive permanently as governmental forms.

They only thrive as long as citizens do not realize their ability to vote themselves bounty from the nation's coffers. But the moment this realization sinks in, the majority will always elect candidates who assure them maximum benefits out of the public exchequer, resulting in governmental collapse over a weak fiscal policy; the end result will be dictatorship.

The greatest civilizations in the world have, averagely, lasted two centuries and advanced along the following steps: Subjugation -- Spiritual faith -- Valor -- Freedom -- Prosperity -- Self-centeredness -- Indifference -- Dependence -- Subjugation (Adams, 2008). The Founders universally spurned democracy, hoping America would never witness it in the years to come. They used the term "Republic," rather than "Democracy"; the latter term does not appear in the Articles, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution.

The patriotic vow also entails pledging allegiance "to the Republic for which it stands." Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin, has aptly described democracy as a lamb and a couple of wolves deciding what they should eat for lunch. Further, liberty signifies the adequately-armed lamb who contests the vote. Democracy was basically rejected owing to its inherent flaw -- the "wealth-sharing" ideology -- that succeeds only until one has a share in somebody else's money. People who receive money are gratified with having their wants fulfilled for nothing.

However, individuals coerced into relinquishing their lawfully-earned money cannot enjoy the rewards of their hard toil, to serve their self-interest. Hence, jobs are created irrespective of how funds are spent. Further, hard workers begin losing the incentive to work hard. The two-centuries-old work "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic" by Fraser Tyler rightly stated that democracies are unable to survive permanently as governmental forms. They only thrive as long as citizens do not realize their ability to vote themselves bounty from the nation's coffers.

But the moment this realization sinks in, the majority will always elect candidates who assure them maximum benefits out of the public exchequer, resulting in governmental collapse over a weak fiscal policy; the end result will be dictatorship. All "good" that the State does for its people comes from somebody else's pocket -- willingly given money is charity, while coercion in giving up part of one's earnings is tyranny.

The beneficiary gets increasingly entitled the longer and the more he is provided such free money and ultimately, he boldly begins demanding for a larger share of others' money, believing it is his natural right to do so. This will only work until the rich become paupers themselves, and all become equally poor. Ultimately, the entire nation's living standards fall, as was witnessed under communist economies in the last century. Democracies only offer the following principles: rule by majority choice, and regular voting with a number of options.

It fails to safeguard citizens from the governmental "wealth redistribution" philosophy, which unfairly gives less productive societal members something for no effort. Republics also have a system of regular voting with options. Majority rules are given weight to a certain extent only, as the majority isn't right in all regards. Moreover, Republics are founded on universal, indisputable, fundamental rights coming from God (e.g., life, freedom, pursuit of personal happiness, etc.). Republics safeguard minority rights from majority citizens.

Meanwhile, democracies are lynch mobs, where all but the individual being lynched has a say. Republics rescue that individual and offer him fair trial, full with witnesses and a legitimate judge. They emphasize individual differences and not total equality. Republics view individual dissimilarities as an asset, not a weakness, unlike democracies, which equate sameness with equality. Another key component of Republics is limited government, restricted from dominating citizens' lives. To obtain further power, they have to go through a well-defined process and a series of functions.

Lastly, a healthy anxiety exists that public emotion will undermine natural law, which forms the basis of real freedom. Hence, the Founding Fathers established a Republic, instead of a Democracy, with the Constitution developed in a way to guarantee America remains a Republic. Leaders must strictly follow the document for maintaining current and future citizens' liberty (Pease, 2010). Although the American Constitution is often acclaimed as a democratic governance symbol, the text, in reality, significantly distrusts this system of governance.

The Founders instituted a Republican government aimed at restricting democracy's excesses, using safeguards like the balances and checks, the Senate, unelected courts, and Electoral College. Citizens in democracies would elect their national leader directly, via a one-vote-per-person system. But, the American Constitution instituted an Electoral College to choose the President. The chief reason for doing so was the Founders' mistrust of majoritarian democratic systems. During the days of the Constitution's drafting, the thirteen states that constituted the nation varied vastly in terms of culture as well as size.

For instance, Massachusetts inhabitants couldn't relate to a South Carolina presidential candidate. Also, the Founders believed direct election would simply end in citizens voting for their "favorite," a candidate belonging to their native state. Consequently, candidates from the large densely-populated states would alone win, consistently. The Electoral College served to resolve this issue, enabling individual states to pick a particular number of Electoral College members via state-determined unique processes to elect the nation's President.

Although a slight change has been effected to this process, the basic principle of not having direct voting (since it won't work fairly) persists. Senate Although the 'House' was actually established to be filled by democratically-elected members, the Founders believed the situation would again get out of control. A chief problem the Founders had with democracy was the system's propensity towards "tyranny" by the majority.

Here, a very small majority (only 51%) had control over the whole government and this, according to the Founders, was dangerous for a highly diverse nation like America. Hence, the Senate was instituted for curbing the House's potential tyranny. Originally, Senate members were to be selected by state legislatures which, according to the Founders, would shield Senators from voter interests, as they wouldn't ever be selected through public voting. Balances and Checks In democracies, majority decisions invariably decide the policy.

However, the American Constitution instituted a thorough system of balances and checks for thwarting majority rule. Although the nation doesn't directly choose its President, he has, for instance, the power of vetoing any legislation approved by both the Senate and the House. Similarly, the Congress enjoys the power of overseeing the President's actions with respect to signing treaties or appointing government officials, and approving/disapproving of them. Such a system aimed at restraining the government, and ensuring no one faction could emerge dominant. The idea was a direct result of.