Note: This is the first part of several essays that will explore the development of constitutional consensual government as it has developed in the West. This post is one of many and primarily focuses on definitions.

The idea of democracy is among the oldest and most inspiring ideals of the human spirit. In fact, it is impossible to get past the earliest writings of Western literature without encountering the idea of democracy and there is probably a no more controversial form of government. This ancient idea of government by the consent of citizens has been scorned, cheered, ridiculed, debated, argued for, and against by most of the greatest thinkers in history. Within the idea of democracy, we see many of the virtues and vices of Western civilization itself. For its very existence, democracy requires the free exchange of ideas, rule of law, public audit and accountability, discussion, debate, economic and individual freedom, dissent, and a constructive consensus among people for the purpose of building a government for the people. These ideals are inherent to the classical and Western ideas of democracy. On the other hand, democracy can easily devolve into mob rule, partisan politics, and a mere clash of wills – also elements found in Western liberal democracies. Democracy is an ideal and as such, it points to the greatness of what human beings should be able to accomplish. The greatest ancient proponents of democracy have been poets, playwrights, generals, and philosophers. Democracy, however, will always be an ideal. An examination of how this idea has developed and has come down through the ages will help shed understanding on the contemporary conception of democracy and modern republics. By examining this ancient ideal and exploring its evolution we will not only have a better conception of where we have been but the opportunities, possibilities, and challenges that face modern democracies.

When one investigates such a great idea as democracy it is helpful to start by clarifying and defining its meaning. When clarity is attained it becomes easier to understand its development in the course of Western intellectual history. In the case of democracy, however, a clear definition is difficult to attain but not impossible. The term “democracy” is often misunderstood and used without any deeper critical reflection. Many times, it automatically evokes conceptions such as the right to vote, majority rule, or a form of partisan representational government, without any kind of thought to what these terms are or should mean. None of these ideas alone, however, will be sufficient to express the ancient and classical ideal of democracy. Democracy can not simply refer to the right to vote, because many countries offer the right to vote without allowing any real power to its citizens. Also, majority rule alone is not itself democratic if it does not allow a voice for the minority or function under the rule of law. A simple “rule of the majority” can easily turn into a tyranny.

Furthermore, a strictly representative government is equally undemocratic if the political parties are served rather than citizens. Representatives that are devoted to their parties rather than seeking the will of their constituents are positively undemocratic. True democracies are not based solely on the right to vote, majority rule, or representation. Historically, most democracies have been a mixture of these elements – or in classical terms most democracies are a mixture of oligarchy, aristocracy and popular sovereignty (what eighteenth and nineteenth century thinkers, following Aristotle, called “mixed government”). Nonetheless, the idea of government by the people, under the equality of law, for the common good is an idea that is returned to again and again throughout history, and is an ideal that should be attempted even when we find instances in history when it is imperfectly conceived or executed. The ancient Athenians would always return to a democratic form of government whenever they were ruled by an oligarchy or tyranny.

One can get a better idea of democracy when it is contrasted with the idea of republic or republican form of government. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines a republic “as a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.”¹ Similarly, Merriam-Webster’s defines democracy as “Government by the people; esp: rule of the majority, or a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.”² There are several ideas that an investigation of these definitions will highlight. Both definitions take popular sovereignty as the starting point and seem to indicate that consent of the governed is a necessary requisite for each form of rule. Democracy seems to emphasize the rule of the many or majority as the supreme power regardless if it is a direct democracy or representation (indirect). The rule of law is never mentioned in the definition of democracy while law and representation seem essential to a republican form of government. It seems then, that democracy emphasizes the rule of the majority while a republic emphasizes representative government according to the rule of law. Also, since a republic is still based on the consent of a body of citizens, it should be considered a type or form of democracy although it should be distinguished from a pure or direct democracy. Perhaps this is why democracy is usually the term used to describe the American system although in actuality it is a republic.

Through the ages many authors and political philosophers have offered different definitions of democracy. Philosopher Ed Miller defines democracy as “government in which the power is vested in the body of citizens, either directly or through elected representatives.”³ Paul Woodruff simply states “democracy is government by the people for the people.”⁴ More philosophically, Mortimer Adler explains that the necessary elements of any democracy ought to allow individuals “to be governed by their consent, with a voice in their own government, and with their natural rights secured.”⁵ For these posts, a broad definition of democracy will be used to include all legitimate governments that seek to rule by the consensus of its citizens for the common good. This includes parliamentary forms of government, constitutional monarchies, as well as republics or the three part American system of President, Congress, and Judiciary. Ideally, a democracy exists when political power is based on a consensus of citizens for the purpose of the common good (if the common good is ignored a democracy would become a tyranny). For this reason, the term consensual government will be used to designate those legitimate governments that rest the ultimate political power in the many for the common good.

1 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 11^th ed. S.V. Republic.

2 Ibid. S.V. Democracy.

3 Miller, Ed. Questions That Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy. 4^th ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1996), 573.

4 Woodruff, Paul. First Democracy: The Challenge of An Ancient Idea. (New York: Oxford University Press), 2005, 15.

5 Adler, Mortimer. Adler’s Philosophical Dictionary. (New York: Scribner, 1995), 79.