The Political Views of James Madison - Essay Example

ON MADISON “What is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”— James Madison, Federalist No. 511 Is Madison a Democrat or a Republican? This is the question that this paper will try to resolve. To answer this question, an in-depth examination of the paper presented by Robert A. Dahl titled, “Madison: Republican or Democrat,” will be made and will be presented as follows: 1) arguments and analysis provided by Dahl on Madison’s concept of democracy and a republic; and 2) the implications, strengths and weaknesses of Dahl’s analysis based on the present American Government, on the Constitution and on Madison. It is hoped that this will bring to light the relevance of Madison’s politics to an understanding of America today. James Madison (1751-1836) served as the 4th President of America and is considered as the “Father of the American Constitution.” Like his close friend Thomas Jefferson, James Madison came from a prosperous family of Virginia planters, received an excellent education, and quickly found himself drawn into the debates over independence. Madison emerged as a respected leader of the congress, known for his hard work and careful preparation.2 Dahl’s analysis of Madison’s political views centered on the latter’s propositions relative to the Democrat-Republic that he and his colleagues (Alexander Hamilton and other supporters of the Constitution) advocate. These propositions are as follows: (1) the greatest threat in the American republic comes from a minority, not the majority; (2) to protect their rights from minority factions, members of the majority faction must organize their own political party; (3) the danger that majorities might threaten property rights could be overcome by enabling a majority of citizens to own property, a feasible solution in America; and (4) in a republic, majorities must be allowed to prevail. Dahl asserts that Madison’s political views have somewhat developed from a non-democratic view to a more democratic one as his experience in politics broaden as demonstrated in his instigation of the Bill of Rights (10 amendments to the Constitution) in 1814. Nonetheless, Dahl contends that these propositions are still inconsistent with the political system that he upholds. He mentioned three inconsistencies, namely: (1) as an empirical proposition, his conjecture that increased size reduces the danger of factionalism is contradicted by subsequent experience; (2) in his conception of basic rights, Madison excluded more than half the adult population: women, African Americans, and American Indians; and (3) he actively supported the provision in the Constitution that gave to slave states an increase in representatives amounting to three-fifths of the slave population.3 According to Dahl, four questions served as Madison’s guide in establishing his ideas: 1) What is the new system of government to be called? 2) Does a common good exist and, if so, can we know what it is? 3) What are the major threats to achieving the common good? 4) Can these threats be overcome and, if so, how?4 Constitutions or political regimes then were classified based on the number of person/s to whom authority is given. It could be any of these: the rule of [the] one, of the few, or of the many. Each may be considered either ‘good or bad’ form, depending on whether the rulers sought to achieve the common good or merely their own interests. Political regimes ruled by one are considered a monarchy and its undesirable form, despotism. Rule by the few would be aristocracy or oligarchy. How should one call the rule by the many? Should the good form be called a democracy or a republic? What about the bad form? Dahl points out that these two terms were not yet clearly defined then and claims that “Madison’s famous distinction between the terms ‘democracy’ and ‘republic’ was somewhat arbitrary and ahistorical” quoting Madison’s saying: By “pure democracy,” Madison said, he meant “a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person. . . .” Democracy thus defined—pure democracy—stands in contrast to “a republic, by which I [Madison] mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place . . . [and] . . . the delegation of the government . . . [is granted] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest . . .”5 As we are all aware democracy refers to the rule of the majority (in effect, once the majority is changed [or its composition], then democracy changes. Republic, on the other hand, refser to the rule of the Law [or the Constitution], which necessitates changes to go through proper Constitutional procedures first. The American Constitution presents a set of general principles out of which implementing statutes and codes have emerged. As such, it embodies the essence of constitutionality—that government must be confined by the rule of law. In general, Dahl explains that Madison presents since the public good could be determined and described, a representative coming from the majority or the representative republic who presumably exhibits wisdom and virtue (as perceived by the people whom they embody) as they present the true interest of his country will inevitably address the concerns of the body having in mind the common good. In effect, everyone will benefit and not just personal interests will be addressed. Dahl commented, however, that at present the idea of a common good made be quite to determine primarily because of the increasing number of and diversity in the minorities. It is assumed that representatives will be coming from diverse groups. To resolve future conflicts, a solution generally supported by his colleagues was the separation of powers into the different branches of government that would serve as checks and balances. To this, another threat seemed to have emerged—that of the threat of factionalism: - “By a faction,” Dahl quotes Madison, “I understand 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.”6 Such concern is one of the reasons the Bill of Rights or the amendments to the Constitution were initiated. A Bill of Rights, Madison believed, might be helpful, but it was not enough pointing to the fact that efficiencies of bill of rights on occasions when it is most needed have occurred and have been committed by ‘overbearing majorities.’ The Bill of Rights is a formal constitutional declaration or legislative assertion by which a government both defines fundamental rights and liberties of its citizens and establishes their protection against arbitrary or capricious interference or infringement by the government. It specifies certain basic freedoms and procedural safeguards of which the individual may not be deprived by governmental power. Madison’s solution to the threat that may be triggered by factionalism includes a number of elements, namely: federalism, a constitution of limited enumerated power, the election of representatives and enlarging the size of the republic. To the last suggestion, Dahl comments that instead of inhibiting political parties, it might even encourage damage to property rights since those who does not have ownership but in position might desire ownership. Dahl caps off this view stating that expanding the sphere of the minority might just set the stage for irresoluble conflict. America today is far different from the America that witnessed the birth of the American Constitution. As pointed out by Dahl, the political views of James Madison have developed (I would rather used that word, instead of change) from a non-democratic to a more democratic one. The developments were triggered by exigencies at that time. Drawing the line on the majority and minority is even more difficult at this age and time since America had actually become the melting pot of talents and chief labor from all over the globe. It now even accepts those who have been considered a felon from other countries for this is America- the land of the ‘brave and free.’ Much more difficult is to expand the area of the republic. Even when the “blacks” who primarily compose the ‘slaves’ and who have been given rights to suffrage and as a result have been accorded respect due them still had been active in terrorism, drug trafficking, sexual assaults, et cetera. This is not to encourage their white counterparts but to impress the greater number of extent of damage they have created compared with the white offenders, which may be considered a form of rebellion against their white counterparts. Consider other factors that may have made the Constitution ineffective if not implemented promptly and justly: 1) powerful and continuing nationalism; 2) disdain for the recognition of human rights (mercy killing is now practiced); 3) identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause (resulting to countless wars and death); 4) supremacy of the military (renders the people helpless at times specially when the offender is related to or one of the military groups); 5) rampant sexism (results to teen marriage, sex trafficking and the use of prohibited drugs); 6) controlled mass media (may result to the distortion of fact); 7) obsession with national security (constituents may at times be in alarmed state); 8) religion and government are intertwined (the former may be used as a decoy by the former for its undesirable schemes [e.g. elections] and corruption); 9) corporate power is protected; labor power is suppressed (since the labor power, though considered the majority, is empowered by the elite companies may lead to demonstrations and unnecessary deaths); 10) disdain for the intellectuals and the arts ; and 11) obsession with crime and punishment (may render even the blameless adjudged otherwise. The Constitution sets the regulation that will benefit both the majority and the minority. It does not matter from which group one belongs as long as the representative democracy acknowledges its supremacy over its constituents--whether they are its people or its citizens. As people wants to be free (and they should be, unless of course they go against any of the provisions of the Law) it is inevitable that some form of law is established to govern them, to serve as a guide in understanding what is constitutionally correct and otherwise. CONCLUSION: Madison’s political views, as stipulated by Dahl, served as the basis for a representative democracy. The political system, practices, and ideas about popular government to which he contributed have inevitably affected how the people view America and its people today. Madison, being a Democrat-Republican, in that he upholds the right of the majority having in mind, the Laws governing them and their actions, has opened our awareness of how it is to be a people or a citizen of America or of any other country. References: The James Madison Center. (Rev. May 17, 2004) Federalist Papers. [On-line] Accessed on 13 April 2008 from Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia (2008). America President: An Online Reference Resource. Miller Center Public Affairs. Accessed 11 April 2008 from http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/madison Dahl, A. Robert. James Madison: Republican or Democrat? September 2005 (3) 3.p 439 Ibid p, 441. Ibid. Ibid, p442. Read More