The American polity became a democracy more in spite of than because of the Constitution. Discuss

In this time of republican communities, the problem of distributing power was a great one. There was much suspicion of executive power, given the behaviour of George III, thus there was a reluctance to delegate too much political responsibility to one person alone. What resulted was a concentration of power to the legislature, with frequent elections, leading to political instability. Alongside the problems within the states also ran the difficulties that the unification of 1777 created; a year after the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation were ratified. The Confederation consisted of a union of separate and independent states, which came together to face the need to legitimise resistance and unite against Great Britain, and for the purposes of regulating trade and resources. However, the confederation was ultimately unsuccessful. In the international sphere it faced resistance from both Great Britain and Spain, who had claimed the North West and South West respectively. Domestically it had no power over taxes, or to regulate commerce, and decisions were impossible to come to as everything needed unanimous consent.

To preserve the experiment in republican government, some became convinced that a federal constitution was necessary. However, democracy as a form of government was only thought to work when small groups of people came together. But the alternative was a worrying thought; states motivated by self interest, fighting amongst themselves for land, resources and advantages of trade. There was the thought that if America did not unite, it would fall apart: “America, if not connected at all… would by the operation of such opposite and jarring alliances be gradually entangled in all of the pernicious labyrinths of European politics and wars.” 

 The state experiments had shown that republican principles did not guarantee the practical preservations of individual rights. There was the worry that a government with excess popular involvement would become subject to temporary popular passions and not preserve minority rights effectively. There was also the continuing fear of excess governmental power; the Founders “believed that power had some corrosive impact on individual morality: that tyranny of some form was the likely outcome if personal ambition conspired with political opportunity” They therefore attempted to constrain and confine the powers of the government, in order to maintain stability and prevent abuses of power. The separation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government allow checks and balances to be carried out. It also prevents majorities from abusing power by frustrating its use. ‘Factionalism’, the tyranny of the majority, had plagued state governments, and the founders were convinced the same mistakes would not be made. As the causes of factionalism; essentially unequal distribution of wealth, are impossible to remove, the results must instead be combated. The founders therefore created a system of competition, a pluralist system in which one majority could never dominate permanently. The federal system also offered another ‘check’; one level of government could act as a check on the other, ensuring that the diverse interests of such a large country can all be take into account.

Although there was much argument over the extent of popular participation, it was eventually agreed that “no government could long subsist without the confidence of the people” Smaller states would not accept proposals that would give too much power to larger states, such as directly elected president and senators. Therefore only the House of Representatives would be directly elected, although even this was opposed by Massachusetts and Connecticut.

All these carefully orchestrated plans certainly intimate a carefully considered, representative and revolutionary system. Separation of powers and federalism both ensure a level of fluidity, preventing stagnation and corruption amongst governments. A society with such a level of popular participation was as yet unheard of, but this was offset with the role of state legislators in the election of senators, and electors in the selection of the president, thus ensuring that larger states did not gain undue power over smaller ones. Nevertheless, from the late 19th Century a degree of discontent began to emerge, with Charles A Beard first contending that the Constitution itself was an economic document, put in place to preserve the rights of the wealthy by frustrating popular majorities. Although his work was largely discredited in the 1950s, many have followed from his original writings, believing that the constitution itself was created with the intention of constructing an undemocratic, elitist society.

At the time of its writing, Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution was a denial of the principles of 1776, an aristocratic document creating an undemocratic society that benefited the few at the expense of the many. Firstly, the Constitution was created by aristocratic elements. Michael Parenti argues that this resulted in perfunctory debates without a great deal of substance; the “haves vs haves”. He uses the example of Article I sect. 8 that was adopted within a few days. Although the idea of a strong central government was strongly opposed by Anti-Federalists, as it was thought that a dominant federal government would take power from the state governments, once small states were given equal representation in the Senate, consensus over strong national government amongst the signatories emerged accordingly. The debates were over state interests rather than popular interests. He argues that the constitution was aimed to keep the ‘spirit’ and ‘form’ of popular government, with minimal substance; the appearance of republicanism without the levelling effects, to win mass acquiescence but not tamper with the existing class structure. Indeed, it was never submitted to popular ratification. It can easily be argued (and was by Anti-Federalists at the time) that this is the exact opposite of the democratic ideals it hoped to embody.

The failure of the Constitution to address the issue of slavery is seen by many as a great betrayal of the promise that all men are equal. Any mention of slavery within the Constitution is with the intention of appeasing the slave-owning states. Article 1, section 2 sets out how seats in the House of Representatives should be apportioned; “by adding to the whole number of free Persons … three fifths of all other Persons” Although slaves were not allowed to vote, states with a large proportion of slaves gained extra seats in the House. Similarly, if a slave was to escape to a free state, they would have to be returned to their master. There were no provisions against slavery whatsoever. However, the Southern States would never have signed the Constitution had it meant the end of slavery. Although the new government was not allowed to prohibit the importation of slaves until 1808, from this point Congress was free to pass laws or amend the Constitution in order to end slavery. The issue was essentially ignored, in the hope that the union of states would be strong enough to deal with the problem when it became necessary to. One of the fundamental presuppositions of democracy is equality, and by ignoring the human rights of the thousands of slaves in the southern states, the Founders essentially undermined this assumption. It is interesting to note, however, that the rights of women were to some extent recognised; although women were not allowed to vote, hold office or participate in any way in the political process until 1920, their rights were in some way protected within the constitution. At any point in the Constitution or Bill of Rights where rights are referred to, it is always done so in terms of ‘citizens’ or ‘persons’ with no mention of gender. In this sense, the document was far more progressive and democratic than most other nations at this time.

One last point, that is still very valid today, is the complications presented in the processes that must be followed in order to amend the Constitution. Bellamy and Castiglione contend that in order for the people to rule fittingly, they must be able to redefine the rules as is appropriate. Changes in social and political spheres should be recognised by a document as influential as the US Constitution, yet it is very difficult for ‘the people’ to actually propose amendments. The most common way in which the Constitution may be amended, and one of the most important features in today’s American political system is judicial review, yet judicial review only became part of the system in 1803, following Marbury vs Madison. The Founders debated including the process in the Constitution, yet it was voted down.

In conclusion, it is impossible to state directly whether or not the Founders intended to create a truly democratic republic. It would be naïve to assume that each of the Founders acted entirely in the public interest, with no thought to their own motives, yet investigation into the Framers conducted in the 1980s suggested that they acted more in the interests of their states than for their own personal benefit.  Although the Constitution is in some ways very inflexible, its survival for over 200 years with such dramatic changes in social, political and economic spheres suggests with minimal amendments suggests that it certainly has democratic elements. Although alterations have taken place to ensure democratic ideals are preserved, the nature of America after the writing of the Constitution resembles today’s democracies far more than any other nation at the time. Indeed, it provided an example that has been imitated across the globe. Aspects of the Constitution that could be seen as undemocratic have been altered, for example, Senators are now directly elected. The Constitution provided a building block upon which a successful democracy could operate, and with the addition of the Bill of Rights, provided a framework for a democratic society based on equality, liberty and popular participation.

---

Bibliography

James Wilson and John Dilulio American Government: The Essentials (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001)

Gordon Wood, ‘Democracy and the Constitution’ in Robert A. Goldwin and William A. Schambra (eds), How democratic is the Constitution? (Washington D.C 1980)

Ann Stuart Diamond, ‘Decent, even though democratic’ in Robert A. Goldwin and William A. Schambra (eds), How democratic is the Constitution? (Washington D.C 1980)

Michael Parenti, ‘The Constitution as an Elitist Document’, in in Robert A. Goldwin and William A. Schambra (eds), How democratic is the Constitution? (Washington D.C 1980)

Wilson Carey McWilliams, ‘Democracy and the citizen: Community, dignity and the crisis of contemporary politics in America’ in Robert A. Goldwin and William A. Schambra (eds), How democratic is the Constitution? (Washington D.C 1980)

Jon Roper, ‘A Democratic Polity?’ in Richard Maidment (ed), Democracy: The United States in the Twentieth Century (Scotland, Hodder and Stoughton 1994)

Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong, (US, Oxford University Press, 2006)

Richard Bellamy and Dario Castiglione, ‘Constitutionalism and Democracy – Political Theory and the American Constitution’, British Journal of Political Science, vol 27 1997

Matthew Mason, ‘Slavery and the Founding’, History Compass vol 4 (5) 2006

Norman Schofield, ‘Evolution of the Constitution’, British Journal of Political Science, vol 32 (1) 2002

Scaruffi, Piero. “Democratic regimes and when they became democratic”

[], 03 Dec. 07

The Economist Online [

The Federalist Papers on [] 03 Dec 07

Charles Beard's "Framing the Constitution," in Peter Woll, ed., American Government: Readings and Cases, 11th ed. (New York: Harper Collins, 1993) taken from  

United States Constitution, from  

---