FREE ESSAY ON WERE THE FEDERALISTS DEMOCRATIC?

WERE THE FEDERALISTS DEMOCRATIC?

The idea of democracy is both vague and is often over-simplified to mean "majority rules".
In theory, such a notion sounds both just and efficient. However, in practice, the
concept of "majority rules" is much more complex and often difficult to implement.
Modern-day versions of democracy, such as the one utilized in the United States, simply
guarantees a person's right to voice his or her opinion in all matters involving the
public. American democracy merely provides a forum for the expression of such viewpoints;
it does not guarantee the ability of any individual to bring about change. The
Federalists, who were greatly responsible for the ratification of the beloved
Constitution of the United States, recognized the impracticality of Jefferson's town-hall
democracy and simple "majority rules" and settled on a type of government which could
merely guarantee an individual's right to representation. In some regards, the
Federalists were pragmatic democrats-supporters of democracy who recognized the
shortcomings of the voting public while at the same time suggested certain instruments to
protect John Q. Public. The Federalists were opposite of idealists; they were realists.
And it is this realism that is directly responsible for the success of democracy within
the United States.
Democracy, the ideal, is held dear by most Americans. "What Americans would not
do…for the vindication of a fundamental first principle: the right of the people to
determine their own future," comments Albert R. Papa in his article "The Allure of Civics
Book Democracy". While nearly all Americans recognize the benefits of a democratic
nation, the Federalists maintain that often times, minority and majority "factions" of
society act contrary to the good of the whole. Madison, a staunch Federalist, defines a
faction in The Federalist Papers No. 10 as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a
majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of
passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and
aggregate interests of the community." While Madison maintains that factions, by
definition, are detrimental to the good of the whole, he does recognize their right to
exist. What could be more democratic than allowing all groups to assemble, even those
which violate public good? Never does Madison suggest restricting the rights of such
groups; "Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an aliment without which it
instantly expires. But it could be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to
political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation
of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive
agency" writes Madison. The pragmatic nature of Madison realizes the corrosive function
of "factions" and he explains within his writings why such entities will not pose
problems for America- a larger Republic. He argues that in Republics composed of larger
populations, "factions" fail to play significant roles because of their decreased ability
to exert influence on others. "The smaller the society…the fewer the distinct
parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party;
and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the
compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their
plans of oppression," suggests Madison. Although Madison and most Federalists recognize
that factions simply exist because of human nature and therefore cannot be eradicated,
they believe the system set-up within the United States will prevent "factions" from
dominating the political process.
The fact that Madison includes the line "whether amounting to a majority or minority of
the whole" in his definition of factions is quite significant. Can the majority ever be
wrong? Since most Americans believe that democracy should serve the interests of the
majority (majority rules), how can a majority "faction" ever represent views inconsistent
with the good of the whole? Critics of the Federalists Papers argue that Madison's
definition of factions is extremely anti-democratic in nature. Even though a faction's
viewpoints may be destructive to the institution of American government, the government's
main role is to represent the will of the people regardless of subsequent effects.
However, certainly one can understand Madison's concerns regarding "factions" as he does
not desire to see the government which the Constitution created, a government which is
based upon many of his ideas, suffer irreparable harm. 
Since the Federalists were not idealists and recognized the openness of representatives
in government to corruption, the Federalists were strong supporters of a system of
"checks and balances" to aid in minimizing this risk. "If men were angels, no government
would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controuls
on government would be necessary," writes Madison over the necessity of monitoring and
regulating government agents. A system of "checks and balances" prevents any one group in
government from usurping power from another. The primary purpose of this elaborate system
is to safeguard the American public from the ill-intended actions of power-hungry
representatives. "The people can never willfully betray their own interests: But they may
possible be betrayed by the representatives of the people; and the danger will be
evidently greater where the whole legislative trust is lodged in the hands of one body of
men, than where the concurrence of separate and dissimilar bodies is required in every
public act," is a logical statement Madison makes within the Federalist Papers.
Representatives are elected first to serve the interests of their constituents, but
secondly to safeguard the well being of the nation as a whole. Most often when a
representative or representative body attempts to obtain an unequal share of power, they
are acting in direct violation of the general public good. By involving several distinct
governing bodies in the decision-making process, evil ambitions are easier to squelch. 
Critics of the Federalist Papers draw upon the veto power of the President of the United
States, the supposed representative of the entire nation, to prove errors in the
Federalist system of "checks and balances". In order to override a presidential veto, a
two-thirds vote in congress is required. In essence, the president becomes more powerful
than all the nation's representatives as a two-thirds vote is extremely difficult to
obtain. If the goal of the "checks and balance" system is to prevent the concentration of
power in the hands of a few, the presidential veto hardly accomplishes this goal.
Although the president cannot create new law, his ability to prevent new law resembles
the power held by a dictator. How democratic can one man's vote be?
The Federalists believed in a form of government that is not consistent with the textbook
definition of "majority rules". They believed in a modified version of democracy- a
pragmatic type of democracy. They believed in a democracy which sometimes neglects the
majority vote in order to ensure the stability of American government. They believed in a
democracy which does not blindly put all trust within its elected officials. They
believed in a democracy which nurtures the free soul of the American public. Such a
democracy is alive and well in the United States. Is America democratic?