Monthly Archives: August 2013

Peter Levine takes on the question “Do we live in a republic or a democracy?”

Posted on by
Reply

I am excited to see the latest post on scholar Peter Levine’s blog, which tackles the bewildering question (I’ve found it bewildering, anyway!), Do we live in a republic or a democracy?

My pat answer to that question has been both — the U.S. is a democratic republic or a representative democracy; that in a large country you need some combination of elected representatives and direct citizen voice.  I’ve also said that this is partly a question of semantics and of changing definitions over time.  I’m happy to see I wasn’t far off. :)

But Levine has taken the time to answer this question thoroughly, with quotes and details from throughout America’s history. As many of our field consider themselves to be part of a movement towards a more deliberative, engaged democracy (NCDD members have written many books with titles like Democracy in Motion, Slow Democracy, the Tao of Democracy, and the Next Form of Democracy), we’d better be able to channel Peter an perhaps quote Ronald Reagan (see below) when we’re on the receiving end of this question!

Peter begins with a quote from Ronald Reagan:

“You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.”

- President Ronald Reagan, Normandy, June 6, 1984

Here are some pertinent excerpts from this valuable post:

From World War I until recently, leaders of both major political parties routinely claimed that the United States was a democracy. Politicians often called us “the greatest democracy on earth” and asserted that the purpose of both world wars, Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War had been to defend democracy. The main debate was whether we had attained a democracy or were still struggling to be one, with the strongest skeptics on the left. A perennial argument pitted left critics–who asserted that our domestic and foreign policies were anti-democratic–against conservative defenders of our credentials as a real democracy.

This consensus about goals has broken down because the hard right now says that we were not founded as a democracy and should not be one….

How did this semantic ambiguity arise? The word “democracy” is of Greek origin. It literally means “rule of (or by) the people.” One could hold that the sovereign power in the US is the people–and hence we have a democracy in the etymological sense. Like all old words, however, “democracy” has accumulated resonances beyond its etymological origins. It may invoke the Greek city-states (whether seen as ideals or as disasters) or mass modern societies.

“Republic” comes from the Latin. My Latin dictionary says that “publicus” means “belonging to the people.” Thus “res publica” means the “thing belonging to the people,” whereas “democracy” is the “people’s rule.” If there is a significant difference in the etymological sense of these words, it is the difference between something that the people have (a republic) versus a power they wield (democracy)…

Ultimately, the United States can be called republican and democratic. The two words have interestingly different origins and resonances but are not sharply distinguishable. Nor do we have either a pure republic/democracy. Some limitations on the republic/democratic element are wise, but our current system is flawed by most standards. Although our democratic/republican aspirations are only partly realized, they remain beacons.

Check out the full post at http://peterlevine.ws/?p=12096.

do we live in a republic or a democracy?

Posted on by
Reply

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. — President Ronald Reagan, Normandy, June 6, 1984

From World War I until recently, leaders of both major political parties routinely claimed that the United States was a democracy. Politicians often called us “the greatest democracy on earth” and asserted that the purpose of both world wars, Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War had been to defend democracy. The main debate was whether we had attained a democracy or were still struggling to be one, with the strongest skeptics on the left. A perennial argument pitted left critics–who asserted that our domestic and foreign policies were anti-democratic–against conservative defenders of our credentials as a real democracy.

This consensus about goals has broken down because the hard right now says that we were not founded as a democracy and should not be one.

For example, when Rush Limbaugh reprinted Reagan’s 1984 Normandy speech on his website, he ended the long excerpt just before the invocation of “democracy” that I quoted above. (The words “BREAK TRANSCRIPT” mark where that passage would start.) If the sainted President Reagan said that our men died at Normandy for democracy, Limbaugh would have to agree. But a current right-wing talking point holds that we are a republic and not a democracy. So Reagan’s speech is truncated.

I have been involved in writing a new voluntary framework for state social studies standards. A conservative blogger named Shane Vander Hart reviewed a draft, writing, “I noticed that on pg. 29 it is mentioned we live in a constitutional democracy when in fact we live in a constitutional republic. It is troubling that those writing this document couldn’t get something as basic as that right.”

It is debatable whether the United States is a democracy, but you aren’t making a factual error if you use the word that was preferred by virtually all 20th century presidents.

First of all, even if the US was not founded as a democracy, the 15th, 17th, 19th, and 24th amendments to the Constitution, the state constitutions, two centuries of legislation, and Lincoln’s interpretation of the Civil War as a struggle for government “by the people” have made us a representative government on the basis of one person/one vote, which is a reasonable definition of a democracy.

Second, it is not clear that the founders intended a republic in contrast to a democracy, if we look past the words (whose meanings vary depending on the writer and the time) and think instead about the underlying ideas.

Madison wrote of a “pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person.” He was thinking of Athens and other Greek city states. He did not recommend this model: “Such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention.”

Note that Madison says “such democracies,” referring to the “pure” type, which is small and direct. That doesn’t rule out the possibility of other types of democracy. He calls his own preferred form of government a republic, which is (a) representative and (b) very large. He considers both features as definitive and essential to success. If a republic’s representatives were directly chosen by the people on the basis of one person/one vote (as ours are today), that would fit most definitions of a “democracy,” although it would no longer be the pure and original type. It would still meet Aristotle’s criterion that “the partnership (koinonia) of democracy is based on numerical equality” (NE 1241b). Thus we could say that Madison co-founded a republic that became a democracy with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

Jefferson is more favorable than Madison to popular rule. He does not use the word “democracy,” but “the core of [his] thought is a project for democracy.”* Like Madison, he prefers the word “republic,” but he uses it to name the very system that Madison would call a democracy:

Indeed, it must be acknowledged, that the term republic is of very vague application in every language. Witness the self-styled republics of Holland, Switzerland, Genoa, Venice, Poland. Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea, I would say, purely and simply, it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally, according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican, in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of the direct action of the citizens. — Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816

His idea of a republic is not a constitutional system, because the majority not only governs but establishes the rules and can alter them at will. Jefferson goes on to say that a real republic must be small, and he cites the New England township as a model. But, he adds, one can mix the “ingredient of the direct action of the citizens” with other ingredients to produce hybrid systems at larger scales. They may incorporate elected or appointed offices as well as popular votes. “The further the departure from direct and constant control by the citizens, the less has the government of the ingredient of republicanism.”

Madison and Jefferson jointly founded the Democratic-Republican Party in 1791. It was often simply called the Republican Party, although the terminology was unofficial and varied. It rested on democratic/republican societies, which variously chose the words “Democratic,” “Republican,” “True Republican,” “Constitutional,” “United Freeman,” “Patriotic,” “Political,” “Franklin,” and “Madisonian” in their names. They were the opponents of the Federalists. Once the French Revolution turned bloody, “the very name ‘Democracy’ was used as part of the Federalist attack on [these] societies. ‘Democracy’ was carefully distinguished from ‘republicanism,’ and the former was equated with French Jacobinism. A poem entitled ‘Democracy,’ published in 1794, linked democracy with lawless confusion.”** Yet the Federalists were badly beaten in the election of 1800, and the party that Madison and Jefferson founded dominated American politics for a generation.

The word “democracy” still had partisan overtones in Lincoln’s day. Although deeply democratic himself, he often often used the word pejoratively to mean rule by his opponents, the capital-D Democrats. His Republican successor Teddy Roosevelt, however, called our system a “democratic republic” in his inaugural address of 1905. That was about the time when a bipartisan consensus formed that our aspirations ought to be democratic.

Today, we have a mixed form of government with a strong element of popular or majority rule.  Jefferson would call that element “republican”; many people today would call it “democratic.” No one, then or now, would assert that we have a pure democracy. In the social studies framework, we called our system a “constitutional democracy” to indicate that the powers of the people are checked. The government is not in “direct and constant control by the citizens.” [Likewise, the powers of the federal government are limited.]

How did this semantic ambiguity arise? The word “democracy” is of Greek origin. It literally means “rule of (or by) the people.” One could hold that the sovereign power in the US is the people–and hence we have a democracy in the etymological sense. Like all old words, however, “democracy” has accumulated resonances beyond its etymological origins. It may invoke the Greek city-states (whether seen as ideals or as disasters) or mass modern societies.

“Republic” comes from the Latin. My Latin dictionary says that “publicus” means “belonging to the people.” Thus “res publica” means the “thing belonging to the people,” whereas “democracy” is the “people’s rule.” If there is a significant difference in the etymological sense of these words, it is the difference between something that the people have (a republic) versus a power they wield (democracy). A better translation than “the public thing” is “commonwealth.” The words “republic” and “commonwealth” invoke the Roman regime before Caesar Augustus, the Cromwellian state, the early American colonies, and the ante-bellum US system. The meaning of “republic,” however, is malleable, because it depends on which features of the Roman republic and its descendents one considers definitive.

Ultimately, the United States can be called republican and democratic. The two words have interestingly different origins and resonances but are not sharply distinguishable. Nor do we have either a pure republic/democracy. Some limitations on the republic/democratic element are wise, but our current system is flawed by most standards. Although our democratic/republican aspirations are only partly realized, they remain beacons.

*Michael Hardt,  “Jefferson and Democracy, ” American Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 1 (Mar., 2007). **Sheldon Foner, The Democratic-Republican Societies, 1790-1800: A Documentary Sourcebook of Constitutions, declarations, Addresses, Resolutions, and Toasts (Greenwood, 1976). p. 25

The post do we live in a republic or a democracy? appeared first on Peter Levine.

The Real Challenge of Climate Change

Posted on by
Reply

This was published (in Chinese) as an op-ed in the People’s Daily (Beijing) on 25 July 2013, they gave it the title of ‘The Challenge of Climate Change in the Anthropocene’. The authors are John S. Dryzek and David Schlosberg.

The fact that climate change presents a great challenge to the world is widely recognized, but the real depth of the challenge is not. The most profound aspects of the challenge do not lie in the science of climate change, or the technical aspects of policies that might be chosen to confront it (such as a tax on carbon dioxide, or a ‘cap and trade’ scheme to limit greenhouse gas emissions). Rather, they lie in the way the world’s main economic, social, and governance systems operate and how they interact with ecological systems.

These human systems were not designed, and did not evolve, to cope with issues like climate change. National governments in particular were designed or evolved to cope with three broad categories of issues: ensuring economic growth, maintaining security both internally and externally, and providing for social welfare. Of course governments do not always succeed in these three tasks, but they are generally organized to at least try to succeed, and we have some idea about reasons for success and failure.

Climate change is different. It drives home the idea that we are entering a new and unstable era in which human influences are primary drivers of the Earth system – this is what some scientists now call the ‘Anthropocene’. The Earth system may react in potentially catastrophic ways: changing patterns of rainfall, flood and drought, extreme weather events, sea level rise, the movement of climates between regions, and even the creation of new kinds of regional climates, with all kinds of consequences for human wellbeing. Human civilizations evolved in a very different ‘Holocene’ era of the past 10,000 years in which the Earth system was much more stable.

At the global level, twenty years of UN-sponsored negotiations have failed to produce an effective treaty to bring greenhouse gas emissions under control. Global governance mechanisms designed for economic and security issues have not worked when it comes to climate change.

At this global level no less than elsewhere, the dominant response to failure has been for everyone to continue doing more of the same as what they were already doing. So government negotiators still behave as though a comprehensive global treaty is possible. Civil society organizations and lobbyists still focus their efforts on influencing these negotiations.  Scientists continue to conduct more research. Economists continue to produce more estimates of the costs of climate change. Policy makers worry about the design details of emissions trading or offset schemes. Organized climate change deniers financed by powerful fossil fuel interests continue to strive to undermine the science and so block any action (though they are prominent only in the United States, Canada, and Australia).

How then can we begin to think about a more effective response? Responding effectively to climate change will require many linked things, at multiple levels, rather than one big thing (such as a global treaty). Of course societies need to move in the direction of an economy that does not depend on fossil fuels, but that is only part of the story. Such moves need to be made without waiting for an international agreement, and in ways that do not sacrifice development goals; renewable technologies such as solar and wind are already emerging to make this happen, and can be adopted almost anywhere in decentralized ways that suit the local environment.

But then what does development itself mean? We are used to thinking about development in terms of growth in national income. Yet such growth does not necessarily translate directly into growth in human wellbeing. Once basic needs have been satisfied and a decent level of income achieved, more material income does not produce more happiness. New economic thinking should be able to envisage economies that are not geared to unlimited material growth, but rather that serve ourselves and our descendants, while respecting the integrity of social-ecological systems on which human life depends. Material production can be organized such that the sourcing, flow, and disposal of materials do not undermine the functioning of ecological systems. Economies can flourish with more durable products and more sustainable production processes that take into account the crucial role played by the environment in which human beings live, as well as being guided by human values such as equity and justice.

As much as we plan for such a future, climate change is already upon us and is here to stay, so we need to develop thorough and effective adaptation strategies to cope with the impacts of climate change when they do arrive. Again, adaptation planning is not one big thing, and certainly does not require any global agreement. Climate change will hit different communities in different ways at different times – through heat stress, disease, drought and food insecurity, sea rise and storm surges, flooding or fires. Vulnerabilities can be lessened by effective preparation and awareness, especially if communities have the social capacity to prepare and act collectively, and can cultivate constructive relationships with ecological systems. Communities should not see themselves as somehow separate from, or at war with, nature.

Finally, developing a new economy and turning toward effective adaptation to climate change will also require new forms of governance. We noted at the outset that existing forms of government were not designed to cope with a challenge of the sort that climate change presents. So what might effective climate governance look like?

Around the world we see many innovations and experiments, such as local ‘transition towns’, cooperative arrangements to install or transfer clean technologies, or networks to oversee emissions trading schemes. We still lack obvious positive examples of forms of climate governance that are good enough on a scale big enough. Yet we know that some governance arrangements do better than others. We know plenty about the reasons for failure, and in theory quite a bit about arrangements that ought to work better.

What climate governance at all levels really needs is a capacity to deliberate about its own reform. In this light, effective governance is not just a matter of securing cooperation among all those with the capacity to act—it also requires opportunity for contestation in governance systems, to promote social learning about what does and does not work. Nobel prizewinner Elinor Ostrom spoke of a ‘polycentric’ approach to climate governance, involving many different kinds of initiatives at all scales, from the local to the global, but we also need ways to join these forms to common purposes through effective and open communication.

Climate change is now a permanent feature of the human condition, our constant companion as we move into a more unstable environmental era. It is too late to stop it completely, but we can bring it under control, and adapt our social, economic, and governance systems to cope with its effects. Climate change is a mirror in which humanity can see its best and worst sides. If the worst currently seems to dominate, it does not have to stay that way.  This is our challenge.

Professors John Dryzek (Australian National University) and David Schlosberg (University of Sydney) are co-authors, with Professor Richard Norgaard (University of California, Berkeley), of Climate-Challenged Society,  to be published in October 2013 by Oxford University Press.