Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Does American Democracy Have to Be Saved from the People or By the People?

Does American Democracy Have to Be Saved from the People or By the People?

The American Flag tangled in a knot.

Getty Images / Rob Dobi

It is hard enough to promote or save democracy when the public is relatively united in its desire to do so. The experience of the “color revolutions” in former Soviet Republics offers powerful evidence for that proposition. It may seem almost impossible to do so when much of the public is disillusioned with the democratic system in which they live or when they are, at best, indifferent.

Sadly, it looks like this is the situation now facing the United States.


We are in a moment when, at first glance, it seems that democracy must be saved from the people, not by them. We have seen such moments before.

Only this time, in our era, it is not clear that there is anyone but the people who can save democracy. This might seem an impossible dream, given the many stories that suggest they are not ready to take on that task.

On Saturday, for example, the New York Times published the results of an Ipsos poll that found widespread dissatisfaction with the performance of our political system. Its topline finding: 88% of Americans believe it is “broken”; 59% think it has been broken “for decades.”

In a politically polarized era, the views of members of the two political parties were quite similar. 89% of Democrats and 91% of Republicans think the system is broken.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Other findings about the public’s view of our governmental system were almost as gloomy. 60% agree with the statement that “The government is almost always wasteful and inefficient.” 72% say that “The government is mostly working to benefit itself and the elites.”

Only 30% believe that “The economic system in this country is generally fair to most Americans.”

And, at the start of President Trump’s term, the Times reports that 51% of people are either pessimistic, worried, or both, as they contemplate the next four years.

Other polls have found similar dissatisfaction and pessimism. For example, a June 2024 survey by the Pew Research Center reports a steep decline in satisfaction with American democracy since 2021. In that study, 68% of the respondents said they were dissatisfied with the way democracy is currently working.

None of this suggests that the American public will be easily mobilized in the cause of saving democracy in this country. That would not have surprised the people who founded our Constitutional Republic. In fact, they thought that democracy needed to be saved from the people, with its preservation entrusted to a cadre of their betters.

Writing about the democracies of the ancient world, James Madison said they were “spectacles of turbulence and contention…incompatible with personal security or the rights of property….” Representative democracy, in contrast, would “refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.”

“Under such a regulation,” Madison continued, “it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves….”

Representatives, Madison believed, would be more rational and more respectful of norms and institutions than the people themselves. They would preserve popular government by refining democracy itself.

Fast forward to the middle of the twentieth century when a generation of political scientists echoed in their time what Madison said in his. Like him, they tried to convince the American public that the only way to save democracy for the people was to save it from them.

Yale’s Robert Dahl, perhaps the leading political scientist of his time, praised the kind of political division of labor envisioned by Madison. The role of the public was to elect representatives and leave them to do the work of governing in the public’s interest.

When he wrote, Dahl thought there was a democratic creed in this country, one shared by citizens and their representatives. But in terms of the intensity of their commitment to that creed, Dahl, like Madison, trusted political leaders more than the people themselves.

And few were more articulate about what he called “the moral distinctiveness of representative government” than the distinguished political theorist George Kateb. Unlike Dahl, Kateb offers what he calls a “non-Madison defense” of representative institutions.

Representative democracy, in Kateb’s view, “is committed to respecting the boundaries of the individual, and the related separation of society and state; yet it establishes a mutual moral permeability between public and nonpublic. In contrast, direct democracy effaces boundaries and separations while subjecting everything to the public political imperative. This imperative repels the exploration of possibilities in nonpublic life that the spirit of representative democracy fosters.”

Representative democracy, Kateb explains, saves the people from the “continuous and all absorbing…life of citizenship” that democracy demands.

What unites Madison, Dahl, and Kateb is their shared belief that democracy needs to be saved from the people by political leaders.

But in 2024, can anyone who has watched what happens in Washington, D.C. believe that our representatives will save us? To watch them, as Jeffrey Rosen puts it, is to live “James Madison’s nightmare.” It is to witness “ideological warfare between parties that directly channels the passions of their most extreme constituents and donors—precisely the type of factionalism the Founders abhorred.”

And today, as we enter an era in which as former President Biden observed, “an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights, and freedom and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead,” who will stand up for democratic government in any form?

It seems clearer now than ever that if American democracy is to be saved, it will have to be the people themselves who do it. The first step requires that all of us put aside, or suspend, our disappointments and the democratic disillusionment so vividly registered in the Ipsos poll.

Once we do so, we can begin the civic action needed to reform our institutions. Joining groups working to improve democracy, speaking out when leaders take anti-democratic actions, and committing ourselves to the long-term work needed to preserve democracy will be more important than ever.

As we do this work, we can take as our guiding star what Winston Churchill said in November 1947: “Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…”

Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.

Read More

What Would Patrick Henry Say Today?

An engraving from a painting of Patrick Henry delivering an address before the Virginia Assembly. From the New York Public Library.

Getty Images, Smith Collection/Gado

What Would Patrick Henry Say Today?

In Federalist 10, explaining some of the protections of the new Constitution in 1787, James Madison observed that, “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm….” The Founders defined tyranny as the legislative, executive, and judicial powers all being combined in the hands of a single individual or small group of people. So, they divided these three powers into separate and independent branches of the government that checked and balanced each other, preventing this accumulation of power. If, however, the people elected an authoritarian president and a legislature of toadies, who allowed this president to install a compliant judiciary, this protection could be lost. Hence, when asked shortly after the Constitutional Convention concluded in 1787 what the delegates had created, Benjamin Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Echoing Madison, the Supreme Court in 1866, in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), wrote, “Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln” as they overturned Lambden Milligan’s conviction before a military commission under martial law in Indiana during the Civil War. Milligan was charged with aiding a secret society that gave material support to the rebellion, conspiring to free Confederate prisoners, and conspiring to raid northern arsenals to come to the aid of the South. The Court’s five-member majority ruled that martial law could not be imposed in states where the civilian courts were open and functioning. Four members of the Court disagreed because state courts could be open and functioning but be in the hands of rebels. Martial law may again be tested, but more fundamental questions are how to prevent the rise of a tyrant in the first place and what remedies are available should the voters elect one.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meet the Faces of Democracy: Derek Bowens

Derek Bowen.

Issue One

Meet the Faces of Democracy: Derek Bowens

Derek Bowens has been a nonpartisan election administrator in North Carolina for over a decade. Since 2012, he served in various capacities, including as the director of elections in New Hanover County, North Carolina. In 2017, he became the director of elections in Durham County. Durham County is home to Duke University and North Carolina Central University, a jurisdiction of nearly a quarter of a million registered voters, the fifth largest in the state.

Bowens has been nationally recognized for his work by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and the National Association of Counties. In 2020, Durham County won a Clearinghouse Award from the EAC for its innovative app that allowed voters to locate polling places near them, view voting information, and see current polling place wait times.

Keep ReadingShow less
Do Trump’s Goals Justify His Words and Actions?

President Donald Trump.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Do Trump’s Goals Justify His Words and Actions?

As co-publishers of The Fulcrum, it is time to clarify our mission in the context of what we are witnessing from the current Trump Administration.

The barrage of executive orders in the last few weeks has resulted in outrage by his political opponents. In many cases, the responses are justified. Still, oftentimes, the responses often ignore the fact that there might be some truth in what the Trump administration is saying and legitimate reasons for some actions they are taking.

Keep ReadingShow less
Petitioning Congress, Restoring a Basic Constitutional Right

A person signing papers.

Pexels, Cytonn Photography

Petitioning Congress, Restoring a Basic Constitutional Right

Now and then, like an old but long-forgotten friend, something we once valued greatly involuntarily comes to mind, reminding us how much we have changed. So, it is with our right to petition the members of Congress.

Lest we forget…American colonists went to war to preserve their ability to complain to their government. In 1775, members of the Second Continental Congress sent George III a petition, asking that they be allowed to negotiate with him in order to avoid conflict. As British subjects, they could expect this appeal would reach the king as petitioning had been granted by the English monarchy for nearly a century. But, George flatly refused to accept the colonists’ plea, dismissively branding them as traitors. Largely out of frustration with this response, the assembled legislators voted to declare the colonies’ independence and settle this issue on the battlefield. Thus, not surprisingly, when the Bill of Rights was drafted after the Revolution, petitioning the government was enshrined in the First Amendment as a fundamental right that could never be “abridged.”

Keep ReadingShow less