The Difference Between a Democracy and a Republic
If you ask Americans to name their country’s form of government, most of them will say they live in a democracy. However, the real answer is more complicated (and unexpected) than that. Robert George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, explains.
FOLLOW PragerU!
Facebook: 👉https://www.facebook.com/prageru
Twitter: 👉https://twitter.com/prageru
Instagram: 👉https://instagram.com/prageru/
SUBSCRIBE 👉 https://www.prageru.com/join/
To view the FACTS & SOURCES and Transcript, visit: https://www.prageru.com/video/the-difference-between-a-democracy-and-a-republic
Join PragerU’s text list! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU.
SHOP!
Love PragerU? Visit our store today! https://shop.prageru.com/
Script:
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1789, legend has it that a woman called out to Benjamin Franklin to ask what kind of government the delegates had created. Franklin responded “…a republic, madam. If you can keep it.”
A republic?
Shouldn’t Franklin have said “a democracy”?
Isn’t that what we have in the United States?
Most people today would say “yes.”
After all, if our country isn’t a democracy, what is it? It’s not a dictatorship, the rule of one man. Or an oligarchy, rule by a small group. In America the people are in charge. That’s literally what democracy means in the original Greek—demos kratos—the people (demos) rule (kratos).
But let’s pause for a moment and consider more deeply what the word means in practice and why the delegates in Philadelphia rejected it.
That’s right—rejected it.
Our government was established by a national charter—the Constitution of the United States. We are governed by the institutions, and according to the rules and principles, created and adopted when our forebears ratified that document, making it “the Supreme Law of the land.”
Are those institutions properly speaking democratic?
The men who bequeathed our form of government to us—those we call our founding fathers—didn’t see it that way.
They understood the institutions established by the Constitution to be republic.
In fact, though the founders believed in “government of the people, by the people, for the people” as Abraham Lincoln put it in the Gettysburg Address, they did not believe in pure or unrestricted democracy. They feared that democracy, strictly speaking, contained within it the impulse to mob rule—the stifling of civil liberty, the trampling by majorities of the rights of minorities.
To put it more bluntly, pure democracy frightened them.
So, while they built into the Constitution significant democratic elements, they also built in non-democratic features to protect liberty and prevent tyranny. It wasn’t simply that they favored representative government over direct democracy, though they did; it’s that they rejected the idea that “the majority wins” was by definition the just outcome.
Indeed, in what is perhaps the most famous of the eighty-five Federalist Papers—Federalist 10—James Madison, precisely in distinguishing a democracy, which he did not favor, from a republic, which he did, noted that a crucial advantage of republicanism is “to refine…the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interests of the country…”
And, so, we have representative government, and more than that, we have a bicameral (that is, two-tiered) legislature—a Congress with a highly democratic House of Representatives and a not-very-democratic Senate.
Therefore, California, with its massive population, has fifty-two representatives in the House. Wyoming has one.
Yet Wyoming has two Senators—the same number as California and every other state.
A pure democrat would say, “that’s unfair!” Each Wyoming resident has far more power than every Californian.
But a republican would say, well, we aren’t and shouldn’t be a pure democracy. If we were large population states like California would overwhelm the needs and interests of small population states like Wyoming.
That’s why we’re called the United States of America. Each state has its own separate identity; holds its own separate elections. Just as we don’t want one person or small group of people to dominate our government, we don’t one state or a few states to dominate our government.
A republic is a way of diffusing power—and a brilliant one at that.
For the complete script as well as FACTS & SOURCES, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/the-difference-between-a-democracy-and-a-republic
source
I've heard Donald Trump refer to the United States of America on one occasion as a Constitutional Republic, and another time as a Democracy. Is it possible to be both on some levels?
We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, NOT a democracy. The dems want to call us a democracy. That's because they want power, unrestrained power.
Not too “different” than a constitutional monarchy…
What difference is there between a constitutional monarchy like in Canada?
Governor General, majority or coalition party(ies) in power, a senate appointed by the prime minister…how “different” is it versus an “electoral college” where the popular vote is for elector(s) for a party’s chosen candidate PRIOR TO the election?
So instead a persons voice is instead weakened or silenced bc they live in a certain area? If you can name 1 policy that could actually be passed in a only house system that would bolster 1 state and weaken another please tell me as all i can see is defending a system that is undemocratic and holds more power and is more able to lobbying then the house.
CGP grey did a great video on the electoral college he showed that the top 100 most filled city i think from NYC to spokane would only fill 20% of the U.S population so it wouldnt be a bad idea. But what we do see is candidates in our current system overwhelmingly campaign in states like ohio, they dont even campaign in many places especially smaller states but they mostly campaign in swing states.
Also republican and republicanism just means anti monarchy, its why roman senators and british citizens who campaigned against empire and monarchy are called republicans and rome was a republic.
Great Video ! Thank you ! This need to be put on all NEES Networks it seem they want us to be A Democracy !
Genius! This is why having brains and objectivity matters today!
"If you can keep it" is not a complete sentence. Surely we can learn elementary school English.
Everyone should note; neither the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution contain the words 'democracy, democrat, or democratic'. However, the U.S. Constitution, Article 4 Section 4 : The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a REPUBLICAN form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
I’m skeptical of this thinking, because I saw some good points in a anti electoral college video. I’m gonna see both sides and decide.
Great video! I hope you wouldn't mind if I translate this video into Ukrainian and Russian for use as a part of footage at my channel youtube.com/@anatolii.lazarenko – and for libertarian youtube.com/@derevovoli.org ? Wil there be enough reference to “ The translations into Ukrainian and Russian were made from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbsfpeMELGE (thanks to PragerU)” in the description of the future video, or would you prefer something else?
I generally agree with you. But I don’t think a republic will continue over such great distances without the reinforcement of states rights, or even district rights. And a Republic form of government is not working even for my city when laws are passed that nobody wants, like having the right to be publicly intoxicated on our city square. How much republic, how much democracy?
Thank you!
Wish that was taught in school!
It's funny that this commentary is being used to support republicanism…these arguments are used by monarchists against BOTH pure democracy (aka anarchism) and republicanism. The idea that arbitration regarding national interest and the rule of law is invested in an authority separate from and distinct to those concerned with democratic governance (aka politics).
Honestly we could fix alot of our problems if we fixed the corporations that control and manipulate the market
A pure democracy is like three wolves and one lamb deciding what to eat for dinner.
You are professor idiot of brainwashing and this video shown us why USA is a shitty place with injustice. Thank you for providing the fact that electoral system sucks elephant shit (literally, because this is the only thing keeping republicans in power at all).
Kind of sad that over half of Americans can't even understand this. Especially today's college kids..
I LOVE THIS VIDEO, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MAKING THIS MORE CLEAR AND TO ENCOURAGING AMERICANS TO REMAIN EDUCATED, DEDICATED AND IN PRAYER FOR WHAT MAKES OUR COUNTRY SO GREAT. GOD BLESS ALL OF YOU. GOD IS GOOD ALL THE TIME, MARK 12:28
the biggest difference between a republic and a democracy is that one is emanates from a Latin word and the other from the Greeks.
I've been on this earth, inclusive of years in academia, for some 72 years. This man is talking nonsense. A constitutional Republic is a representative democracy bound together by a constitution. What I cannot stand are these right wingers going around and claiming America is not a democracy. Why are they saying this? Well, I'll tell you when I started noticing that they made this distinction — it was not too long after they started losing the popular vote some decades ago. Now they had to make of this crap that America is not a democracy in order to feel good about losing the popular vote. Now, anytime you point ouit to any Republican that they haven't won the popular vote in over 30 years, what will be the response? Yes, 'Well, AMerica is not a democracy, anyway". See? The Encyclopedia, and the Government's own website states that America is a democracy. Every professor and teacher I've had going back to the 50s said America was a democracy (not a 'direct democracy' but a representative democracy, nevertheless.). 'Republic' is a more of a legal classification, where 'democracy' is a more descriptive, even poetic, description. When you look up 'western democracy' and 'liberal democracy' you'll get a list of western developed nations among which America is but one. 'Democracy' is any Republican from government where the people have a say in the matters of government via ELECTED representatives and leaders. In America, we vote, we vote for electors who choose the president, we vote for representatives who pass laws on our behalf, we vote for Senators, we vote for Governors, Lt Governors, and in many states, The State Attorneys General, and we vote for mayors and assorted municipal leaders, and, across America, we vote in hundreds, if note thousands of ELECTIONS. A democracy is a nation that holds ELECTIONS. Does this not describe America? You see, folks, the terms constitutional republic and 'representative democracy' are not mutually exclusive terms, but this stupid 'professor' seems to think so. I assure you, he is not a Democrat. No Democrat would EVER claim America is not a democracy. A democracy is a place were people vote, period. ANd I don't want to hear this right wing crap that America is not a democracy. I do know this, that if republicans were winning the popular vote, there would be no question on this point. Not all republics are democracies, there are Socialist republics, there are Islamic Republics. And the term 'Republic', all it means is a form of government where the leaders are appointed OR elected. the term 'Republic' means any form of government, elected or not, that is NOT a monarch. And another thing, the ONLy reason they THINK they can justify this claim is because of how Madison used the term in the Federalist Papers. Well, here's a little history for you: Even Madison's contemporaries were perturbed at his use of the term, they thought it was aberrant (to make the distinction between a Republic and a Democracy insofar as to claim a Republic is not a democracy. " It says so in the Encyclopedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy/Democracy-or-republic. "…the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail." —Alexander Hamilton, federalist #22. Wherever you have a system where the sense of the majority should prevail, you have a DEMOCRACY.. "Democracy" and 'Republic are used interchangeably and have been for centuries. Madison was referring to a 'direct democracy' is there a Western Developed nation that does not have a representative Government? The vast majority of them are.
Simplified: Democracy gives the illusion that you have some say or power (mob rules over the individuals freedoms)
03:15 has a significant flawed premise based on saying a democraxy would make places with less population get steanrolled yet You just had stated how Wyoming only gets 1 vote comlared to California's 50+
Our founding fathers knew what they were doing. Dont fuk it up people. 😂
Dan Smoot crystalized the argument that America is a democracy in the 1960's. People would be triggered by his lesson today.
Democrats should say "republic" religiously.
For me, you're argument fell apart in the last minute. Those arguing for institutional change are arguing for it on the basis of the minority to protect themselves against the majority. In the spirit of our Founding Fathers, who, as you stated in the video, intended to protect the minority from the majority. Those people arguing for justice reform and easier access to voting are arguing for more democracy, and more a voice from the minority. The idea of a democracy collapsing into mob rule is very old, and has been used to argue against democracy by Aristotle. Except, mob rule meant rule of the majority, and so arguing for more rights and easier access to the vote for the minority is, inherently, going against the idea of mob rule, and therefore, in the spirit of our Founding Fathers.
Hahahaha, 1:48 the trampling by majorities of the rights of minorities. Yea, I am sure that was a great concern to a bunch of slave owning rich white people when they wrote the constitution! 😀 😀 😀 Prager U is always able to make some good jokes. But at least they were right to say: "Pure democracy frightened them" but not quite for the reasons you think 😛
Why not have several city states instead of one giant federal State by the logic of the founding fathers?
A Republic is a good but flawed system, the richest nations in the world with the best quality of life are micro-nations like the ones from Europe