The Fatal Flaw in Democracy

Why you need a constitution with safeguards

Democratic forms of government tend to have a problem with factions. A faction is a group of citizens motivated by a passion or interest that is destructive to the rights of other citizens or to the common good of the community as a whole. Human nature has a tendency to use its own power in ways that are contrary to its own good. Even when there are many who rule, in a democratic fashion, they frequently govern in a despotic way, not in a way that is consistent with the rights of other citizens. All too often, people in pure democracies behave like a mob. Synonyms for faction are tyranny of the majority, elective despotism, and acting like a mob.

Fortunately for us, the U.S. Constitution was specifically designed to reduce the harmful effects of factions. In order to do this, the Founding Fathers of the United States studied past democracies to learn why they failed and how they could be improved. The Founders looked at the ancient democracies of Greece and Rome as well as the U.S. government in existence after the Revolutionary War but prior to the signing of the U.S. Constitution.

Ancient Greece

The city-states of ancient Greece had direct democracies. These consisted of a small number of citizens who assembled to vote or administer the government in person. These pure, or direct, democracies did not go very well. They were very unstable and constantly plagued with tyranny of the majority and mob rule.

According to Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist 9: “It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they ere continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were dept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extreme of tyranny and anarchy.”¹

Colonial America

Colonial America also tried a form of government much closer to pure democracy. Prior to the signing of the U.S. Constitution, the country was governed under an alliance between the states called the Articles of Confederation. The states had almost all of the power and employed a form of democracy close to pure in which the majority ruled. Majority decisions made by the state legislatures closely followed the changing majority opinions of the public. The executive branch was very weak. The laws that resulted were unstable, frequently changing, impractical and unjust.²

In addition, the majority kept passing laws that violated the rights of their fellow citizens. According to Dr. Ronald J. Pestritto, professor of politics at Hillsdale College: “Governments that allow the majority to vote itself some of the wealth of the minority, this is not a government that secures the equal natural rights of its citizens…You’ve got a lot of violation of the rights of the minority by the majority who possess power in these kinds of governments.”³ That is the nature of direct democracies.

Pure majority rule can be as despotic as the rule of a single individual, observed Thomas Jefferson about the situation under the Articles of Confederation. “One hundred seventy-three despots [the number of delegates in the Virginia legislature] would surely be as oppressive as one,” said Jefferson. “Little will it avail us that they are chosen by ourselves. An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.”⁴

Need for a Constitution

The Articles of Confederation did not provide sufficient protection from the threat of faction, insurrection, internal instability or internal fighting. The Founding Fathers of the United States decided that direct democracy, or pure majority rule, was not the answer. A constitutional republic was needed instead.

In designing the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers made a number of improvements to correct the problems of direct democracy. The improvements included the separation of powers, checks and balances, an independent judiciary and elected representatives. The form of government they chose, very intentionally, was not a direct democracy. It was a republic. A republic is a form of government in which the citizens elect representatives to make governing decisions for them. The idea was to have elected representatives filter the people’s passions and allow rationality and reason to rule instead of emotions.⁵

The resulting republican form of government that we have today in the U.S. allows us to self-govern while reducing the destructiveness of majority tyranny found in direct democracies.

As Pestritto explains: “Consent is essential for just government. But it’s not sufficient because people are perfectly capable of consenting to unjust laws. A plurality of people are just as capable of making an unjust law as a single person…Sometimes people can consent to things that undermine natural rights as opposed to help secure natural rights.”⁶

When compared one against the other, direct democracies are as tyrannical as despotism. This year we are celebrating the 250th birthday of a nation that has solved these problems with a republican form of government. The United States of America prospers because it is a constitutional republic.

1. The U.S. Constitution: A Reader. Hillsdale College Press.

2. Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution. Hillsdale College Online Courses. hillsdale.edu

3. See footnote 2.

4. See footnote 2.

5. See footnote 2.

6. See footnote 2.