Is the United States a Republic or a Democracy?
I’ve noticed there is a rather lively debate on X over whether the United States is a Republic or a Democracy. If you use “democracy” to describe our form of government, you’ll get “schooled” by many that we are a Republic. If you use “republic” to describe our form of government, you will get “schooled” by others that we are a democracy.
So, which are we, a Republic or a Democracy?
Well, the short answer is: yes, we are. The U.S. is both a republic and a democracy.
Before rushing to the comments section to school me, I ask that you read my reasoning. Then if you want to hate on me (hopefully in a nice way) then rush to the comments section!
Those who reject the idea that the U.S. is a democracy do so on the basis that it’s a Republic. Many go further and argue the Founders rejected democracy because a democracy allows tyranny of the minority by the majority. Both are right and both are wrong. The former because all Republics are representative democracies by definition. The latter because merely having a Republic does not prevent tyranny of the minority by the majority.
What is a Republic?
At the time Franklin famously said, “a Republic if you can keep it” the term “Republic” meant – a form of government other than a monarchy in which the leader is periodically selected.[1] Today the commonly accepted definition is pretty much the same – a form of government other than a monarchy where sovereignty rests with the people who elect representatives to govern.[2] However, who is included in the definition of “the people” can vary significantly.[3]
“Republic” broadly defines what a nation is by excluding what it is not – a monarchy; and including what it is – a democracy where its citizens elect its leaders to represent them, which is the definition of a “representational democracy.” Therefore, by definition, all Republics are some sort of representational democracy, but not all representational democracies are Republics. Most constitutional monarchies are representational democracies but none of them are not republics because their head of state, and in some cases their head of government is a king or queen.[4]
Arguments that the U.S. is not a democracy.
Most people point to many (all?) of our Founding Fathers’ distrust in “democracy” as the basis for arguing the U.S. is a republic and not a democracy. However, this argument conflates “direct democracy,” which the Founders referred to as “pure democracy” and “representative democracy.” When talking about their disdain, or even disgust of “democracy” the founders were referring to direct democracy. In Federalist 14 (November 30, 1787) Madison points out one of two reasons why the Founders rejected direct democracy – it was simply impossible to assemble people who were spread out over a large area to vote on every issue, and in the same sentence describes a republic as a representative democracy:
“It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.”
The second reason the Founders distrusted a direct democracy is they distrusted the common person to vote wisely. That is why they limited not only those who could vote, but also how they could vote. Initially only free males who were citizens could vote – which pretty much limited the vote to white males – blacks, native Americans, and women were all excluded. They also limited who was elected by direct vote of the people to members of the House of Representatives, which has the shortest term of all elected officials – 2 years. The President was, and is elected indirectly by voting for electors who then cast their vote for the President. As for Senators, well Americans didn’t even get a chance to vote for them until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913. Until then, the legislatures of each state appointed their state’s two senators. This form of government is the definition of a representative democracy, which Hamilton recognized in his notes for a speech he gave at the New York Ratifying Convention for the Constitution on July 12, 1788, which stated the Constitution established “a representative democracy.”
Yes, our Founders rejected direct democracy, but embraced representative democracy with the power of government limited by the Constitution. You only have to look to Article I (establishes legislative branch) and Article II (establishes the executive branch) to see the Founders explicitly adopted a representative democracy.
The other predominant reason people give for the U.S. being a republic and not a democracy is that a democracy leads to tyranny of the minority by the majority. Again, this is a criticism most often associated with a “direct” or “pure” democracy such as was attempted by some Greek city states. It is true that a direct democracy can lead to tyranny of the minority by the majority, but so can a republic, which by definition must have a representative form of government. It is not a republic per se, that prevents tyranny of the minority by the majority, but the limits placed on government by the people.
In the U.S. those limits are contained in the Constitution. For example, the Constitution was adopted in 1788 without a Bill of Rights, but on the condition that those rights would be added by amendments.[5] Now let’s, for the sake of argument, imagine that the Bill of Rights was not added in 1791. In that case the U.S. would still be a republic but tyranny of the minority by the majority could be, and given our history, would be the norm.
Without the Bill of Rights any group who controls the Senate and the House of Representatives by merely 1 member and controls the Presidency could do anything they wanted. Don’t like what’s being said about them, restrict free speech. Don’t like what the press writes about them, outlaw the press. Think crime is too high, do way with due process. Don’t like guns, ban them. Want to know what that pesky opposition party is up to? Conduct searches of their members’ houses without reasonable cause – just send the police to search their private homes and businesses. Without limitations on the power of government there is no difference in abuse that could be implemented by a republic and a direct democracy.
A perfect example of a Republic that routinely imposes tyranny on its citizen is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Yes, by definition Iran is a true republic. The Assembly of Experts is an 88-member body elected by the people every 8 years, who is charged with appointing, overseeing, and if the occasion arises removing the Rahbar, or Supreme Leader.[6] Of course, to be eligible to be elected to this body the person must have certain qualifications – be a master in Islamic jurisprudence, pass several tests, and be approved by the 12 member Guardians Council. But this significant limitation does not change the fact that sovereignty rests with the people – they elect this body. In fact, the U.S. has qualifications that people must meet before they can hold elected office. A person must be at least 35, a natural born citizen, and a resident of the U.S. for at least 14 years. We also have qualifications for Senators and Members of the House of Representatives. Granted, they are not as many nor as odious as those Iran has adopted, but they are qualifications, nonetheless.
Separate but subservient to Iran’s Supreme Leader is the civil government that consists of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. The executive (President), and legislatures are all elected by the people. Of course, everyone who wants to stand for election must meet the qualifications established by the Guardians Council. But again, the U.S also has qualifications that must be met before holding office.
So yes, under the definition of “Republic,” the Islamic Republic of Iran is in fact a Republic. However, even though it’s a Republic, it’s an extremely repressive nation. As can be seen that being a “Republic” does not ensure a government reflects the will of the majority of the people, to the contrary it can be every bit as repressive as the worst totalitarian regimes in history. What does prevent tyrannical government are two things:
- A document that limits the power of government, in our case the Constitution; and
- The belief of the people in that document and their demand that the government adhere to those limitations of power.
Summary.
The U.S. is a Republic with a representative democracy as it’s form of government. In fact, by definition, you cannot have a republic without a representative democracy.
So, calling the U.S. a “democracy” is correct but not completely accurate because it doesn’t exclude direct democracy as a form of government. Denying the U.S. is a democracy, and claiming it is a republic instead is also inaccurate because by definition a republic must have a representative democracy as its form of government. Additionally, if you want to get nit-picky, calling the U.S. a “democratic republic” is redundant because all republics, again by definition, must have a representative democracy – which is a form of democracy. So, what the hell is the U.S.? I would think a Constitutional Republic would be accurate. The term “Republic” includes the fact that we are a representative democracy and “Constitutional” shows the powers of the government are limited.
Whether you agree or disagree I invite you to leave a comment. Alas, there is no need to remind me that I’m ugly…I already know that!
[1] Benjamin Franklin’s response to Elizabeth Willing Powel’s question: “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” (September 17, 1787),
[2] Depending on the source, the words used to define “Republic” vary slightly, however, the definition remains the same – a government other than a monarchy where sovereignty rests with the people who elect representatives to govern.
[3] The first republic was most likely in Carthage, where the wealthy class elected kings to rule throughout their lives. Even though “the people” was initially limited to the wealthy and the person elected served for life. Carthage is still considered a Republic because sovereignty rested with “the people” as exclusive and small as that class was, and even though the leader once elected ruled for life, the head of government was not hereditary.
[4] Constitutional Monarchies where a government has a monarch whose authority and power is limited by a constitution. The monarch may be both the head of government with actual authority or merely the head of state with no or little authority and purely ceremonial leader. To make matters more confusing, not all constitutions governing a Constitutional Monarchy are written. For example, the United Kingdom is a Constitutional Monarchy but its “constitution” is not a single document. Instead, it relies on a number of statutes conventions, and judicial decisions. Examples of other constitutional monarchies are Belgium, Cambodia, Jordan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Thailand.
[5] The Constitution was adopted on the condition that a Bill of Rights would be added. The Bill of Rights was then largely written by George Mason and ratified by the states in 1791.
[6] Rahbar is Persian that literally translated means “Leader.” However, in the context of the Islamic Republic of Iran, “Supreme Leader” is an accurate translation.