Democracy VS Republicanism

Editors Note:

Many visitors of this blog have requested a post making distinction between a Classical Democracy and Republican form of government.

The following Piece is the courtesy of a great colleague of mine Mr. Youssouf Gabriel Bellamy, M.A.  describing  the Republican form government established in United States and its preference over direct form of Democracy for our Founding Fathers. I suspect that our international readers, in advance to the American, will find this post very informative and interesting.

Concerning the Proper Form of Government

…A Discussion on the forms of Democracy, and the most efficacious system in the eyes of the Framers

Today, some contend that the issue of adversarial partisanship epitomizes American government. Gridlock, resulting from conflicting notions surrounding concerns of the economy, healthcare, and overall direction for the general welfare of society has obstructed governmental efficiency. However, a much closer assessment of the system, and its current performance, indicates that although the Framers of the Constitution did not foresee the extremes of partisanship, or the development of political parties altogether, to their credit, they anticipated the occurrence of an overbearing majority in arising.  For this reason, the Framers and counterparts of the federalists supported a Republic (in which citizens ruled by entrusting representatives to govern on their behalf), as oppose to a Pure Democracy (in which citizens directly influenced the course of political decision making).  In favor of republicanism, the Framers (in the defense of liberty) advocated for the institutional components of checks and balances, bicameralism, and a separation of powers. These mechanisms the framer’s surmised, would thwart the ambitions of a probable overbearing majority (a plausible feature of pure democracy) and the threats that it could pose, not only to the system, but also to its citizens.

Subsequently, a brief discussion will outline the intent of the federalists and their advocacy for republicanism, highlighting salient Federalist Papers 10, 37,39, and 51, all of which justify the framer’s convictions as to the most efficacious form of government.

             Federalist papers 10, and 51 considerably, addresses how the Framers intended to preserve liberty within the republic, and the roles institutions would serve as mechanisms to protect such liberties, in a functioning representative democracy.  It was the probability of interests or groups in forming a faction, and potential majority that the founders perceived as baleful to the freedom of citizens. In summarizing this concern of the Framers, scholar Martin Diamond in Conservatives, Liberals, and the Constitution affirms,

“When a majority is included in a faction, it will be able “to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution”, because this is the necessary consequence of “the form of popular government”(Diamond, 1963, p. 81)”

To prohibit an overbearing majority from forming, Diamond argues, that Madison advocated for a multiplicity of factions, in a large extended commercial republic, in reference to the “theory of multiplicity, Madison affirms in Federalist 10,

“In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties and sects, which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good ”(Diamond, 1963, p. 82)

To filter the passions of the extended republic and the multiplicity of interests, Madison also supported the notion of a representative democracy (Republic), as oppose to a participatory democracy (Pure democracy). Within a large commercial republic, Madison felt representatives of the legislature, as delegates, through their expertise guided by their sagacity, would be able to reflect the will of the people, in order to translate such needs into effective public policy. It is also for this reason, that the legislature was given constitutional supremacy, as its representatives, were viewed as the “voice of the people’. Federalist 51 is also of great significance because of its discussion of checks and balances and the need for a separation of powers. As representatives filtered the passions and interests of the broad electorate, the separation of powers (at both federal and state levels) ensured that each branch of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) could not amass unbridled power. If left unchecked, Madison felt such power would threaten the authority of each respective branch and essentially the functioning of government.  In light of this separation of powers James Madison famously asserted,

“If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions”(The Library of Congress).

  In observing administrations of the past, and well into the present day, the issue of gridlock has become more prevalent during times of divided government. The contemporary debates over the debt ceiling, ObamaCare and controversial issues that incite contention along partisan lines, have led some to question the perceptibility of the Framers and ultimately the notion of republicanism. However, proponents of republicanism maintain that although the Framers did not foresee, let alone predict the manifestation of adversarial partnership, their ingenious is accredited to their defense of the theoretical ideals of liberty and justice, and the institutional frameworks they created to preclude the emergence of an overbearing majority, which was analogous to tyranny.

                Proponents in line of this reasoning argue, that republicanism facilitates the possibility of compromise as each representative strives to satisfy the interests of those whom they represent.   Political parties today, incensed by differing ideals and further divided by their devotion to differing constituencies, are able if willing to capitulate for the sake of the people. Nonetheless, in addressing concerns of governmental inefficiency perhaps observations of a changed electorate, and the shifts of polarization overtime, are necessary to understand the current status of affairs, in a democratic republic, designed to reflect the will and interests of its people.

Youssouf Gabriel Bellamy, M.A.  

It’s Time To Choose Gray II:

    Throughout last decades everything seems to have became black and white. Our sense of judgment has not been immune from such sin either. In the previous section I implored my readers to get more involved with policy proposals and demand more in-depth explanation from their elected representatives by sending the right signals indicating that they would not be satisfied with simple black and white sugar coded messages presented by advocators of policies. Thus, one may ask what steps should be followed in order to become more politically engaged and involved? I did some research throughout the years of my studies in undergrad and grad school on this regard. In this post I will strive to point some tactics that I have found the most useful.

Look throughout the Spectrum of Bias in Order to Avoid Bias:

    If most media and news outlets are politically biased or some tend to lean toward a specific political position, the best way to assess policy has become to gather information across the spectrum of political bias. In other words, we should check out at least couple of media outlets that have different visions regarding a particular position just to make sure that we have gathered as much facts as possible. It is very common and also empirically proven that conservative or liberal citizens have different sources of newsgathering and tend to stay with them throughout their lives. Having our opinions approved by like-minded news sources seems convenient and natural, but after a while it will lead to these news agencies to become conveniently dominant over our judgments. As well, how can one become more critically involved if that person does not hear the opposing arguments? Few days ago I came across a very interesting article posted on datascience.berkeley.edu presenting us with a spectrum putting different news outlets on a political biased spectrum. As you might have guessed the right side tends to represent more conservatively biased and the left is more liberal outlets. Picking couple of these channels as our source of news gathering on certain issue could assist us a lot with becoming more familiar with the pros and cons of each side of an argument regarding public policy.

Go Beyond Visual Outlets to the Written:

    We should utilize this tactics for two reasons. First, as most newspaper and written tabloid sells-associates tell us, “ the written news are more detailed and investigate issues more in-dept.…” This means one could gather more information that falls on the gray area through written newspapers or online credible sources, while the written news and professional credible blogs tend to provide us with more in-depth arguments between the two sides of every debate. The second reason is that one can search the relevant issues much easier throughout the written press thanks to technology and search engines online. While we could easily search through thousands of sites online, we could easily find the relevant topics that concern our lives by resorting to online searches. We could even bypass the “gate kept” selected news agendas chosen by the top news agencies and decide what matters most concerning our communities and cultures setting up our own agenda by utilizing this tactic.

Ask for Scholarly Opinions Online:

     As I mentioned, citizens could access more in-debt arguments through written news outlets online. Parallel to the last technic, thanks to the new Internet technologies, we could easily ask for scholarly opinion and find about pros and cons of every policy or policy proposal online. In addition to this, for those of us who are more engaged, there are scholarly reviewed websites that provide us with credible arguments regarding pros and cons of certain legislation, policy proposal or bill in congress or senate. This tactic could assist us to make decisions that are based on empirically done research and educated opinions and tend to lead us to make more efficient decisions when asked to directly or indirectly vote toward an issue.

For International News Go Beyond National Resources:

    If one thing most news agencies inside any country would agree upon the most is the field of international issues. Coverage and analysis are very much alike when one goes through the domestic media resources for international information, especially here in the U.S. An “engaged” citizen might be able to gather more information on different issues by going beyond medial outlets available domestically, but international news demand more time and energy on behalf of the citizens. For example if CNN, Fox News, CNBC might be a good combination of news review for internal matters here in the U.S, one should resort to other international outlets such as Aljazeera, RT News, Press TV and other international news channels for the purpose of gathering every side of an global debate. This does not mean that these other resources have a better or a more fair coverage and analysis of issues. My point is for citizens to get the right amount of information before they use their judgment and sending signals to their representatives.

In Sum:

   Overall the goal for this post was to provide my readers with tactics to get familiar with the gray area of each policy, bill, legislation and policy proposal as much as possible. As much as we all are pressed on time and tend to enjoy our parade marching with the like minded, it is possible and likely that we might be wrong on a hand full of issues. It also might be true for us to be misled by Public Relations and Marketing technicians working for most news outlets.  Overall becoming interested in gray area is a good “political cultural” trait that should be improved in any democratic or representative country.

I hope you enjoyed my positive citizens’ message of this period!

Best,

Admin

Source for the spectrum:

http://datascience.berkeley.edu/data-media-map-bitly/

There will be a new post this Friday!!

Folks, I will post a new blog this Friday. After that, every two weeks,  I will blog a new post on Fridays.

Best, 

Admin

It is Time to Choose Gray!

    Unlike the over simplified version of persuasive editorials that we face in blogs, newspapers and speeches of interest group advocates, most political issues concerning public policy are not black and white.  How one labels another person socialist, racist, conservative, extremist or communist? Most of the times these labels are created by the opposition for oversimplification and fast delivery of a message. Sadly, often society in a way that they overshadow the facts and true nature of an argument adopts these labels. As I mentioned in the previous post, a “political culture” that is conducive toward endurance of a functioning democracy includes certain important traits.

      In my opinion, one of these important traits is sending the right signals to our elected officials asserting the point: us as citizens are more sophisticated and matured than what PR advisors and consulting firms have noted in their reports. This involves in reading and investigating the legislative proposals in a more coherent and deep manner while keeping in mined that most issues don’t fall on the extremes of a horizontal line. Political Issues are not specifically about extremes; should we regulate or should we not regulate a certain sector, should we assist the poor or should we not, should we provide the citizens with universal health care or should we leave that to the free market economy? To the mind of a modern and engaged citizen these questions are rather obsolete and old news. The truth is that there are rarely any forms of political systems that lack regulations. There are rarely any political systems that lack needy-assistance programs and hardly any governmental entities that don’t provide their citizens with some sort of universal health care.

    Thus, the questions that our policy makers face everyday are not as oversimplified as most advocacy groups strive to portray. Modern democracies with such intricate socio-economical structures deal with much more sophisticated questions. Rather than should or shouldn’t, our policy makers usually deal with the extent, jurisdictions, time and means of governmental involvement in social and economical programs. In other words, they deal with the gray area not the extremes! Since there are not any form of government entities without regulations, it is important for the citizens to become more deeply involved studying the policies and programs that strive to regulate or intervene in any sector concerning our lives. In this regard, instead of adapting to shallow approaches that involves in taking an extreme side of any debates, we should get to the knots and bolts of proposed policies better studying their implementation outcomes and their sole purpose of emergence. 
    Of course some policy plans might be advertised with fancy titles claiming to introduce humanitarian policies, while some might be demonized and portrayed in the most negative way. But, the truth is that most demonized policies are not as bad as they sound and many of the fancy titled ones are too good to be true, hence their content will eminently fall on the gray area. Remember, the science of marketing and advertising has became much more developed and sophisticated throughout the last half century, and the political adds are designed to tickle with our extremist urges to make decisions on policies in a rather simplified and shallow manner. In the next post I will suggest how one could more efficiently approach governmental policies in a way to provide the best policy outcome.

Cheers,
Admin

Political Culture

                                                             

    What is the most important indicator of political behavior? What contributes the most in evolution of a person to an effective citizen? The answer to such questions would certainly include the concept “Political Culture”. Scholars Verba and Almond first introduced this term in their book Civic Culture almost half a century ago. The main purpose of such introduction was to provide Political Scientist with an abstract unit to measure and explain political behavior. “Political Culture” is the manifestation of cultural norms, values and beliefs accepted by the public as a whole toward political system. “Political Culture” is the main determinant of what citizens of a certain country would tolerate as their governing body and source of public policy. For example, political culture determines: what type of politicians could gain public support; what type of political system could establish in a designated environment; what type of policies could emerge from such system and etc.

   You might ask why should one care about a term that was introduced for the sake of providing political scientist with a tool to study political behavior? This is because many scholars believe that “Political Culture” is the single most important indicator in emergence of a political system that is dominant in a country. In other words, people will consciously or sub-consciously tolerate the political system that surrounds them. And yes! They could be sub-consciously tolerating a political system even if they deny this.

  Since the emergence of political systems are dependent upon the “Political Culture” of its subjected citizens, a democracy could not endure unless the overall cultural norms and values of the citizens are supportive toward its core philosophy.

     As a “Positive Citizen” it is imperative for one to make sure of his/her congruence to standard cultural norms and values that are supportive toward a democratic system.

I will further elaborate my points regarding “Political Culture” in my upcoming post.

Best,

Admin