The Root Principles of Democracy

By Melvin I. Urofsky

"...that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not vanish
from this earth."
-- President Abraham Lincoln
Gettysburg Address, 1863

Speaking at the dedication of a national cemetery at Gettysburg in the midst of a great

civil war fought to preserve the United States as a country, President Lincoln gave us in
his ringing conclusion perhaps the best-known definition of democracy in American
history. By "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," he meant, the
essentials of democratic government he so well described are applicable to all nations
that aspire to a democratic society.
Democracy is hard, perhaps the most complex and difficult of all forms of government. It
is filled with tensions and contradictions, and requires that its members labor diligently
to make it work. Democracy is not designed for efficiency, but for accountability; a
democratic government may not be able to act as quickly as a dictatorship, but once
committed to a course of action it can draw upon deep wellsprings of popular support.
Democracy, certainly in its American form, is never a finished product, but is always
evolving. The outer forms of government in the United States have altered little in two
centuries, but once we look past the surface we discover great changes. Yet, most
Americans believe -- and rightly so -- that the basic principles underlying their
government derive directly from notions first enunciated by the framers of the
Constitution in 1787.
In these papers, we have tried to explicate what some of those principles are, indicating
a little of their historical development and explaining why they are important to the
workings of government in the United States in particular as well as democracy in
general. Because any democracy is an evolving system, the papers also indicate some
shortcomings of the U.S. governmental system, and how the nation has tried to address
those problems. No one claims that the American model, as successful as it has been for
the United States, is the model that all democracies should follow. Each nation must
fashion a government out of its own culture and history. But these essays do identify
fundamental principles that, in one form or another, must be present in all democracies.
The exact manner in which laws are made, for example, can vary widely, but no matter
what the forms, they must obey the root principle that the citizenry has to be involved in
the process and feel ownership of those laws.
What are these root principles? We have identified 11 that we believe are key to
understanding how democracy has evolved and how it operates in the United States.
Constitutionalism- Law-making must take place within certain parameters; there must
be approved methods for laws to be made and to be changed, and certain areas -namely the rights of individuals -- must be off limits to the whims of majority rule. A
constitution is a law, but at the same time it is much more than that. It is the organic
document of a government, laying out the powers of the different branches as well as
the limits on governmental authority. A key feature of constitutionalism is that this basic
framework cannot easily be changed because of the wishes of a transient majority. It

requires the consent of the governed expressed in a clear and unambiguous manner. In
the United States, the Constitution has been amended only 27 times since 1787. The
framers made the amendment process difficult but not impossible. Most of the
amendments have extended democracy by enlarging individual rights and wiping away
differences based on race or gender. None of these amendments were lightly
undertaken, and when adopted, all had the support of a great majority of the people.
Democratic Elections- No matter how well designed a government is, it cannot be
considered democratic unless the officials who head that government are freely elected
by the citizens in a manner perceived to be open and fair to all. The mechanism of an
election may vary, but the essentials are the same for all democratic societies: access of
all qualified citizens to the ballot, protection of the individual against undue influence in
the casting of the ballot, and an open and honest counting of the votes. Because largescale balloting is always subject to errors and fraud, care must be taken to avoid these
as much as possible, so that if there is a problem or a close election -- as happened in
the 2000 presidential election in the United States -- the people will understand that
despite the difficulty, the results can still be accepted as binding upon them.
Federalism, State and Local Governments- The United States is unique in its federal
system of government, in which power and authority are shared and exercised by
national, state, and local governments. But if the model is not suited to other nations,
there are still lessons to be learned. The further government is from the people, the less
effective it is and the less it is trusted. By having local and state governments,
Americans can see some of their elected officials up close. They can tie policies and
programs directly to the men and women who enacted them and who implement them.
In addition, decentralization of authority makes it all that much harder to effect an
illegitimate takeover of the government. The principle that democracies ought to
decentralize power and responsibility may not matter much in a small and relatively
homogeneous country, but it can be an important safeguard in large and heterogeneous
nations.
Creation of Law- History records that formal laws have been made by mankind for five
millennia, but the methods different societies have used to make the rules under which
they will live have varied enormously, from edicts by god-kings to majority vote at village
meetings. In the United States, law is made at many levels, from local town councils, on
up through state legislatures, to the U.S. Congress. But at all these levels, there is a large
input from the citizenry, either directly or indirectly. Law-making bodies recognize that
they are responsible to their constituents, and if they do not legislate in the people's best
interests, they will face defeat at the next election. The key to democratic law-making is
not the mechanism or even the forum in which it takes place, but the sense of
accountability to the citizenry and the need to recognize the wishes of the people.
An Independent Judiciary- Alexander Hamilton remarked in The Federalist in 1788-89
that the courts, being without the powers of either sword or purse, would be "the least
dangerous branch" of the government. Yet courts can be very powerful in a democracy,
and in many ways are the operating arm through which constitutional constraints are
interpreted and enforced. In the United States, the courts may declare acts of Congress
and of state legislatures invalid because they conflict with the Constitution, and may
enjoin presidential actions on similar grounds. The greatest defender of individual rights
in the United States has been the court system; this is made possible because most
judges have life tenure and can focus on legal issues without the distraction of politics.

While not all constitutional courts are the same, there must be a body that has the
authority to determine what the Constitution says, and when different branches of
government have exceeded their powers.
Powers of the Presidency- All modern societies must have a chief executive able to
carry out the responsibilities of government, from the simple administration of a program
to directing the armed forces to defending the nation in wartime. But a fine line must be
drawn between giving the executive sufficient powers to do the job and, at the same
time, limiting that authority to prevent a dictatorship. In the United States, the
Constitution has drawn clear lines around the powers of the president, and while the
office is one of the strongest in the world, its strength derives from consent of the
governed and the ability of the occupant of the White House to work well with the other
branches of government. Here again, the actual organization of the chief executive's
office is not the issue, but rather the constraints imposed upon that office by such
principles as "separation of powers." In a democracy, a president must rule through his
or her political skills, establishing a framework of cooperation with the legislature and
above all with the people. At the same time, the citizenry must feel secure that
constitutional constraints ensure that the president or prime minister is always the
servant, and not the master, of the people.
Role of a Free Media- Closely tied to the public's right to know are a free media -newspapers, radio and television networks -- that can investigate the workings of
government and report on them without fear of prosecution. English common law made
any criticism of the king (and by extension the entire government) a crime known as
seditious libel. The United States eventually did away with this crime, and in its place
created a theory of the press that has served democracy well. In a complex state, the
individual citizen may not be able to leave work to go watch trials, sit in on legislative
debates, or investigate how a government program works. But the press is the surrogate
of the citizen, reporting back through print and broadcast media what it has found so
that the citizenry can act on that knowledge. In a democracy, the people rely on the
press to ferret out corruption, to expose the maladministration of justice or the inefficient
and ineffective workings of a government body. No country can be free without a free
press, and one sign of any dictatorship is the silencing of the media.
Role of Interest Groups- In the 18th century, and in fact well into the 19th, lawmaking represented primarily a dialogue between the voters and their elected
representatives in Congress or in state and local governments. Because the population
was smaller, governmental programs more limited, and communications simpler, there
was no need for citizens to resort to mediating organizations for assistance in making
their views known. But, in the 20th century, society grew more complex, and the role of
government expanded. Now there are many issues that voters need to speak about, and
in order to make their voices heard on specific matters, citizens create lobby groups,
groups advocating public and private interests, and non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) devoted to single issues. There has been much internal criticism of this aspect of
American democracy, and some people claim that those interests with access to large
sums of money can make their voices better heard than those with fewer resources.
There is a certain truth to that criticism, but the fact of the matter is that there are
hundreds of these groups who help to educate the public and lawmakers about particular
matters, and in doing so they help many individual citizens of ordinary means get their
views known to their lawmakers in a complex age. With the age of the Internet upon us,

the number of voices will increase even more, and these NGOs will help to refine and
focus citizen interest in an effective manner.

Public's Right to Know- Before this century, if people wanted to know how their
government was running, generally all they had to do was go down to the town hall or
the agora and listen to the debates and discussions. But today we deal with large,
complex bureaucracies, statutes and regulations that often run hundreds of pages, and a
legislative process that, even while accountable to the people, may still be too murky for
most to understand what is happening. In a democracy, government should, as much as
possible, be transparent -- that is, its deliberations and decisions should be open to
public scrutiny. Clearly, not all government actions should be public, but the citizenry
have a right to know how their tax dollars are spent, whether the administration of
justice is efficient and effective, and whether their elected representatives are acting
responsibly. How this information is made available will vary from government to
government, but no democratic government can operate in total secrecy.
Protecting Minority Rights- If by "democracy" we mean rule by the majority, then one
of the great problems in a democracy is how minorities are treated. By "minorities" we
do not mean people who voted against the winning party, but rather those who are
indelibly different from the majority by reasons of race, religion, or ethnicity. In the
United States, the great problem has been that of race; it took a bloody civil war to free
black slaves, and then another century before people of color could count on free
exercise of their constitutional rights. The problem of racial equality is one that the
United States is still wrestling with today. But this is part of the evolutionary nature of
democracy, the drive to become more inclusive and to grant to those who are different
from the majority not only protection against persecution but the opportunity to
participate as full and equal citizens. Examples of nations treating their minorities in a
bloody and horrible manner are numerous, and the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews is
only the most vivid illustration. But no society can aspire to call itself democratic if it
systematically excludes specific groups from the full protection of the laws.
Civilian Control of the Military- In ancient times, the primary responsibility of a leader
was to lead society's military forces either to defend the nation or to conquer others. All
too often, the popularity of a successful general led him to seek control of the
government through force; he who controlled the military could easily sweep all others
aside. In modern times we have seen, far too many times to count, a colonel or general
using the power of the army in a coup to overthrow the civilian government. In a
democracy, the military must not only be under the actual control of civilian authorities,
but it must have a culture that emphasizes the role of soldiers as the servants and not
the rulers of society. This is easier to accomplish when there is a citizen army, whose
officers come from all sectors of society and after a term of service, return to civilian life.
But the principle remains the same: The military must always be subordinate; its job is to
protect democracy and not rule.
3 Overarching Themes- From these essays we can derive certain overarching themes.
First, and most important, is that in a democracy the ultimate source of all authority is
the people. The Constitution of the United States announces this boldly in its first words:
"We, the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution." All
powers in government must come from the people, and must be accepted by them as

legitimate. This validation takes place through a variety of means, including the
processes of making law as well as free and fair elections.

A second general principle is that there must be a division of powers so that no one part
of the government can become so strong as to subvert the will of the people. Although
the president is always seen as the most powerful office in American government, the
Constitution limits those powers and requires the chief executive to work in harmony
with the other branches as well as with the constituency of voters. Although civilian
control of the military would seem to place great power in the president's hands, the
culture underlying the military in a democratic society works against the misuse of that
force. Courts also exist to serve as limitations not only on the executive but on the
legislative branch as well. In a democracy, government must be in a balance, and all the
different parts must appreciate the wisdom and necessity of that balance.
Third, the rights of individuals and of minorities must be respected, and the majority may
not use its power to deprive any person of basic liberties. In a democracy this may often
be difficult, especially if there is a diverse population holding diverse views on critical
subjects. But once a government deprives one group of rights, then the rights of all the
people are in jeopardy.
These themes run throughout the Democracy Papers, and each topic supports all of
these overarching principles. The will of the people is ensured through free and fair
elections, through the making of law, through a free press examining the workings of
government, and through a right to know what the government is doing. It expresses
itself through interest groups, even if a bit unevenly. In the United States, the division of
powers is mandated by the Constitution, an organic document held in near reverence by
the American people. It is also seen in limitations imposed upon the government, by
civilian control of the military, and by a federal system. And rights of minorities are
ensured through many means, the most important of which is an independent judiciary.
But can these principles be translated into other cultures? There is no simple answer,
because the success of any governmental system depends on so many intertwined
features. During the colonial period in American history, the imperial government in
London could not exert close control of its distant American colonies, and so power and
authority devolved onto the local legislatures. This in turn led to a federal system
encapsulated in a Constitution that reflects the peculiar historical situation of the people
of the United States. The perceived excesses of the British king led to limits on executive
authority, while the experience of a citizen militia laid the basis for civilian control of the
military.
Individual rights proved harder, but as democracy has evolved in the United States, the
rights of the people have expanded from those of white, property-owning men to include
men and women of all races, colors, and creeds. Diversity, originally seen as a problem
for government, became one of the great strengths of democracy. With so many different
peoples, religions and cultures in large democratic nations, any effort to impose one
uniform manner of life would have proven disastrous. Instead of fighting diversity, the
American people made it a cornerstone of their democratic faith.

Other nations as they experiment with democracy -- and it is always an experiment -- will
need to examine how the attributes described in these papers can best be created and
sustained in their own culture. There is no one way; to paraphrase the poet Walt
Whitman, democracy is a multitude, often contradicting itself. But if we keep our eye on
the basic, immutable principles -- that ultimate authority resides in the people, that
governmental powers must be limited, and that individual rights must be protected-then
there can be many ways in which to achieve those goals.

Root Principles of Democracy Application

After Reading the selection below complete the following on a separate
sheet of paper. Label accordingly.
1. List the eleven (11) root principles of democracy, as discussed above, in
order from LEAST important to MOST important. Provide your rationale in
one solid paragraph.
2. Using the eleven (11) root principles of democracy, as discussed above,
give EACH a contemporary grade or score. How are each faring today?
Explain your grade in a brief sentence.
3. Using the three (3) overarching themes from above, provide three (3)
specific examples in contemporary political life for each.