Republicanism and Direct Democracy

895 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Direct democracy v representative democracy

Republicanism and direct democracy, these are two ways that a people can be governed. There is a major difference between these two systems. In a republican system the government represents the people. The representatives are chosen by popular vote and are given the power to make decisions on behalf of the people. The people do not get to voice their own opinions, the best they can do is vote for their representative and hope he wins. This can also be referred to as indirect democracy. Direct democracy which was exemplified in the ancient Athenian city-state, or the New England town meeting in modern times, is a government based solely on the people. The governmental decisions are passed only if the majority of the people vote for it. "People", that is the key word, the people themselves are included in making political decisions.

Race: the descendants of a common ancestor; distinct variety of human beings; lineage. These are the definitions the dictionary gives for race. However, what really is race? And what causes human beings to dislike a specific race? There are many who disagree as to what the answers to these questions are. I would like to discuss two specific writers that argue about this issue, W.E.B. Du Bois and Manning Marable.

According to Du Bois there are two aspects that differentiates one race from another. Firstly, all humans differ in regard to their physical attributes (hair color, skin color), plus language also differs widely among humans. These differences, says Du Bois, plays a great part in diminishing one's ability to better himself in society; " Any striving, no matter how intense and earnest, which is against the constitution of the world is in vain." The constitution of the world ...

... middle of paper ...

...with this issue, continues Madison, is to have a republic. The republic will control and stabilize the effects of a faction. By having political decisions passed through a chosen body of people, whose true interests are only to benefit the country, the decisions will be more consonant to the public good. Madison agrees that certain things have to be worked out in a republic; however, this type of government is the ideal.

In conclusion, I, myself agree with Madison's view, as to what type of government is ideal. Secondly, I feel, that Madison and Du Bois go " hand in hand" with one another, they both agree that a republic is the only way that the minority will be protected from the majority. Manning Marable stands alone, that no matter what type of government you have, you will never win. The minority will always be on the bottom and the majority on top.

Show More
Related

  • Analysis Of The New Federal Constitution A Radical Experiment

    809 Words  | 2 Pages

    He discusses how Madison noticed the problem of each of the 134 states having its own agenda. Madison even thought that people were interested in their local politics. They don’t think of the whole state or even the whole country (Wood, 2012). He wanted to change this and create a stronger government that would override certain state powers like money printing and the ability to pass tariffs. He suggested that democracy was not a solution, but a problem (Wood, 2012). Basically, on a state level, he wanted to elevate decision making to limit democracy which was actually causing more harm than

    Read More

  • Examples Of The Federalist Paper And Government Today

    1034 Words  | 3 Pages

    In today 's government political parties are a large part of government operations and how decisions are made in the government. In Madison 's The Federalist, No.10 Madison talked about how factions can control and cause harm to the government. A solution to this control was the use of a republic in order to limit the power of factions and keep them from having complete control. In our government however, factions have become a major part of the government system with political parties having complete control over the different branches of government. The use of this two political party system creates many problems within our government as the two parties fight for control over legislature and control over the government. Despite using a republic system as Madison mentions in his paper, factions continue to control and affect our government today. Madison 's views on government branches also affects our government today. Our government being in branches does help our government from being affected by corruption by each branch being independent from each other. These independent branches help prevent corruption by each branch having independent leadership and control and not being affected by the views of each other. At the same time these branches having unique views and control can lead to problems as the branches of government may not be able to interact properly with

    Read More

  • James Madison and the Federalist Papers

    739 Words  | 2 Pages

    James Madison, who glorified the benefits of the system of government outlined in the Constitution, wrote the tenth essay in the Federalist Papers. In his essay, Madison advocated a republic system of government instead of a democracy because it “promises the cure for which [they are] seeking.” According to Madison, in a republic, unlike in a democracy, a “small number of citizens [are] elected by the rest.” In other words, one difference between a republic and a democracy is the fact that a republic is based on representation, while a democracy is based on the rule of the majority (mob rule). Madison favors the republic form of government because representation (republic) recognized the inalienable rights of all individuals, while democracy is only concerned with the views or needs of the majority. Therefore, in Madison’s mind, a democracy is an unsuitable government, especially for the United States; Madison thought democracy is just handing power over to the ...

    Read More

  • James Madison As A Hero Essay

    552 Words  | 2 Pages

    As a leader Madison legitimately wanted the best for the American people. As he grew into a politician of authority, he did the best he could at the time to accomplish what the people as a nation needed to be able to thrive for years on after with efforts towards the “Constitution,” “Bill of Rights”, and “Federalist Papers”. All of which are still effective today in the United States Government. James Madison not only wanted the best for his people, he loved what he was doing as well. From a young age he was interested in the political debates over independence. He continued and rose up the ladder in his career because of his passion for what he did and the care he put in his work knowing it will benefit many people other than

    Read More

  • Factions and the Constitution

    419 Words  | 1 Pages

    In Madison's Federalist 10, it is evident that he was not in favor of the formation of factions. He states, "…The public good is often disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties…" Madison made the point that the dangers of factions can only be limited by controlling its effects. He recognized that in order to abolish political parties from the government completely, liberty would have to be abolished or limited as well. For this reason, the government had to accept political parties, but it did not have to incorporate them into being a major part of the government. He says that the inclination to form factions is inherent, however the parties effectiveness can be regulated. If the party is not majority than it can be controlled by majority vote. Madison believed that in the government established by the Constitution, political parties were to be tolerated and checked by the government, however the parties were never to control the government. Madison was absolutely convinced that parties were unhealthy to the government, but his basic point was to control parties as to prevent them from being dangerous.

    Read More

  • Federalist #10

    935 Words  | 2 Pages

    To Madison, there are only two ways to control a faction: one, to remove its causes and the second to control its effects. The first is impossible. There are only two ways to remove the causes of a faction: destroy liberty or give every citizen the same opinions, passions, and interests. Destroying liberty is a "cure worse then the disease itself," and the second is impracticable. The causes of factions are thus part of the nature of man and we must deal with their effects and accept their existence.

    Read More

  • James Madison on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

    1007 Words  | 3 Pages

    James Madison, an American statesman and political theorist that was present at the constitutional convention. Many of the ideas proposed by Madison are part of the reason that the Constitution has withstood the test of time. Madison was ultimately prepared to deal with one of the biggest problems this new government would face in his eyes, factions. Factions, which as defined by Madison are “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” (Madison 156). Madison addresses various ways that he sees factions can be cured of its mischiefs such as removing a faction’s causes and also controlling their effects. Madison points out that this is would potentially create an even bigger problem than the factions themselves by stating, “Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an ailment, without which it instantly expires” (Madison 156) Madison also stated that the way for a government to remove the cause of faction was either to destroy the liberty that causes factions to exist in the first place or to give every citizen the same beliefs and opinions. Madison deemed this impractical, because it is nearly impossible to give everyone in a given place the same opinions and destroying the liberty would take away the very thing that the colonies fought for 4 years earlier. The fact is Madison knew that the country wouldn’t be able to count on a well-educated statesman to be there any time a faction gets out of hand. Madison knew the only viable way to keep factions under control is not to get rid of factions entirely but to set a r...

    Read More

  • Federalists and Anti-Federalists

    1659 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...he other hand, Madison discusses the topic of liberty in that it is what fuels factions. He says that removing liberty is one of the only ways to destroy a faction. He proceeds to state that this is not probable, and that factions can not be destroyed, but we must control their consequences in order to have a stable government. Madison believes that the Constitution preserves man's liberty by fairly representing them in a central government.

    Read More

  • Unequal Distribution Of Property And Factions

    1079 Words  | 3 Pages

    In conclusion, Madison thinks the human nature is ambitious, and the fixed outcome of human ambitions is people create factions to promote their own interests. In the case of preventing corrupt or mischief by factions, he believes majority and pure democracy is not a solution. The method he advocated is a large republic with checking system. He converts human ambition to provide internal checks and balances in government. His point of view stimulated the approval of the proposal of the United States Constitution.

    Read More

  • Pluralism

    1378 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Federalist No. 10, James Madison stresses that “measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” Madison philosophized that a large republic, composed of numerous factions capable of competing with each other and the majority must exist in order to avoid tyranny of majority rule.# When Federalist No. 10 was published, the concept of pluralism was not widely used. However, the political theory that is the foundation for United States government was the influential force behind pluralism and its doctrines.

    Read More

  • Direct Democracy Vs Representative Democracy

    950 Words  | 2 Pages

    Direct Democracy vs Representative Democracy The term Democracy is derived from two Greek words, demos, meaning people, and kratos, meaning rule. These two words form the word democracy which means rule by the people. Aristotle, and other ancient Greek political philosophers, used the phrase, `the governors are to be the governed', or as we have come to know it, `rule and be ruled in turn'. The two major types of democracy are Representative Democracy and Direct

    Read More

  • The Power Of Tyranny

    700 Words  | 2 Pages

    At this time, there was a battle going political between the founding father. The question was should the colonies be a huge republic or should the colonies have small democratic states? Let’s look at Madison article, Federalist 10; here Madison states why a democratic representation would fail in the colonies. Madison contradicts the idea of power; in one sense he stated prior to Federalist paper that people have the ultimate power in controlling the government but stated the need for representatives. Madison is against a direct democracy and comprehends the necessity of a republic. In Federalist 10, Madison gives us the main reason why a democratic representation is an insufficient protection from tyranny, he states that in a democracy will not be protect and fit to handle factions. Thus, seeing the big picture, how could a democratic state with faction protect itself from tyranny? Each state has there own set of rules more and could fall under a single ruler or the people in that state could be subject to an unfair government. Madison saw the advantage that a republic would have over a democratic representation and that it would be the best protection against tyranny or any possibility of a

    Read More

  • Ethnic Studies

    1162 Words  | 3 Pages

    Race has no biological meaning. There is only one human race; there are no subspecies, no single defining characteristic, traits, or even gene, separates one “race” from another. Instead of being a biological concept, race is a social construct, and a relatively modern one at that. It was created to give light-skinned Europeans an advantage by making the white race superior and all others inferior. Throughout its history, the concept of race has served this purpose well.

    Read More

  • Race As A Social Construct

    1076 Words  | 3 Pages

    The concept of race is an ancient construction through which a single society models all of mankind around the ideal man. This idealism evolved from prejudice and ignorance of another culture and the inability to view another human as equal. The establishment of race and racism can be seen from as early as the Middle Ages through the present. The social construction of racism and the feeling of superiority to people of other ethnicities, have been distinguishably present in European societies as well as America throughout the last several centuries.

    Read More

  • Race And Ethnicity Essay

    934 Words  | 2 Pages

    Race is a term that references on differences such as, facial characteristics, skin color, and other related characteristics. Race is not in reference to genetic make up. A feature of race as a social construct is that it down plays the extent to which sectors of population may form a discrete ethnic group. Based on specific characteristics race makes up a person and differs within groups. In other words race is a large group of people distinguished from others on the basic of a common heritage or physical trait.

    Read More

More about Republicanism and Direct Democracy

Open Document