[I thought I’d repost this item of mine from several years ago, since I keep seeing the issue come up.]
[1.]Many people claim that the United States of America is not a democracy but a republic. This is a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them”—we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives”—we are that, too.
In the sense that laws are made by majority vote, the United States of America isn’t a direct democracy. Although some lawmaking happens this way at the local and state levels, it is only a small fraction of total lawmaking. However, we can be called a representative democracy. This is one form of democracy.
[2.]Both the direct democracy or popular government meanings of “democracy”, were present in the Republic’s founding. Some framing period commentators made distinctions between “democracy” and “republic. See, for instance the Federalist (No. 10) and other Federalist papers. Even in those times, the term “representative democracy” was used to describe a different type of democracy. John Adams, Noah Webster, Thomas Jefferson, and St. George Tucker all used this term in 1794. Tucker’s Blackstone also uses the term “democracy”, even though it is missing the qualifier of “representative,” to refer to a representative democracy.
James Wilson was one the major drafters of Constitution, as well as one the first Supreme Court justices. In 1787, Wilson said the three forms government were the “monarchical”, “aristocratic” and “democratic.” He also stated that the sovereignty power of a democracy is “inherent in people, and is exercised by either themselves or by representatives. Chief Justice John Marshall—who helped lead the fight in the 1788 Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution—likewise defended the Constitution in that convention by describing it as implementing “democracy” (as opposed to “despotism”), and without the need to even add the qualifier “representative.”
Sir William Blackstone was a popular and well-read framer. He also used the term “democracy”, to refer to republics. “Baron Montesquieu states it, that luxury in monarchies (as in France) is essential; but, ruinous in democracies (as in Holland). With regard therefore to England, whose government is compounded of both species, it may still be a dubious question, how far private luxury is a public evil ….” Holland was, of course, a republic. England had both monarchy as well as government by elected representatives. Blackstone therefore referred to this form of democracy.[y].”
Today, it is the same. America is not a monarchy nor a dictatorship, and it’s a democracy. (Some people claim it is too oligarchic, in which case they’d say America isn’t democratic enough—but again they’d be distinguishing democracy from oligarchy.) America isn’t a democracy direct, but it is representative democracy. This is one form of democracy.
[3.] And the Framers didn’t just refer to representative government as democratic—they referred to direct democracy as a republic.
This can be achieved by asking: Which nation do you first think the Framers might have called a “Republic?” Is there a historical Republic that is more famous than the one we use to call “Republic”, or the one that actually gave birth to the phrase “Republic” in history?
The Roman Republic is, however, what The Federalist, and others, discussed as a republic. Yet, in the Roman Republic There was no representative legislature.
While the Senate wasn’t elected nor representative, they did possess significant advisory and interpretive authority. Additionally, the elected praetors had the ability to interpret the law in very important ways. The laws were not made directly by citizens, or just the plebeians. They were passed by the comitiacenturiata and comitiatributa as well as the concilium plbis. If someone claims that the Senate is Rome’s representative elected legislature, they can counter that it wasn’t elected, representative or a legislature.
Roman lawmaking was therefore direct, but with a voting system favoring the wealthy and not representative. A magistrate (such as a consul of the plebs or tribune) had to propose laws. It wasn’t exactly American legislation. But the laws didn’t have to first be passed by some elected legislative body first (again, remember that there were no elective legislative bodies); in principle, they just had to be proposed by one elected magistrate—such as one of the 10 tribunes of the plebs—and enacted by popular vote in the assembly. This is something that can be described as a mix of the American referendum and modern American initiative. It was not representative, but direct popular lawmaking.
And the Framers routinely called Rome a republic—indeed, they labeled Athens a republic, even though Golden Age Athens famously involved direct democracy. Federalist No. 6 states that Sparta, Athens and Rome were all republics. Hamilton, Federalist No. 34 specifically addressed the Roman legislative assembly, but called Rome a republic. Federalist No. Madison generally attributes the number 63 to Madison. He described Rome as an example “long-lived Republic” (Profs. This topic has been covered in greater detail by Akhil Amar (and Rob Natelson).
[4.] Today, “republican” does tend to refer more to representative systems, but “democratic” often refers to following the will of the people, whether through direct democracy or representative democracy—the precise meaning differs depending on the context. If you are asking whether something should be done via direct vote or through representative processes you may ask whether the government should be more democratic, or less republican. You could ask whether China is better off giving more power Chinese voters. This would go beyond whether the democracy should remain direct or representative.
It is true that, aside from being a representative democracy the United States also has the status of a constitutional democracy in which the judiciary restrains in part the democratic will. The United States of America is therefore a constitutional republic. The United States could be called a federal constitutional representative democracy.
However, where one word is used with all its oversimplifications this necessitates, both “democracy and “republic” work. Indeed, since direct democracy—again, a government in which all or most laws are made by direct popular vote—would be impractical given the number and complexity of laws that pretty much any state or national government is expected to enact, it’s unsurprising that the qualifier “representative” would often be omitted. Representative democracy, in practical terms, is the only form of democracy available at either the national or state level. (State or national referenda may be sometimes used for part of the lawmaking process, but they only cover a small portion.
Many arguments could be made about the structure of our government system. These include whether or not it should be more democratic or different; whether or not it should contain more aspects of direct democracy (such as constitutional constraints or filibuster), and which levels (federal or state) should have more power. It seems to me that claiming that we are a republic, not a democratic (or a democracies and not republics) is inconsistent with current usage as well with the way the leaders of both the Framing Era or the early Republic dealt with the terms.