# data[].attributes.headline
Definitions of State & Types of Government

# data[].attributes.subject
Definitions of State & Types of Government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What Is State?

The word state has been derived from a Latin word "Status" which literally means condition - situation or circumstances. Many political thinker have defined state in a different way. So, there is not a single undisputed definition of state. State can be defined as a large organization of people which has a defined geographical area and the objective of state is to fulfill the needs of inhabitant or citizens. Moreover, the structure of modern state differ from traditional or ancient state though, the basic or essential elements of state remain the same. Whether, the state is modern or ancient it comprises of people, defined territory and regulatory authority or government. When people live in a territory which has defined boundaries and has a government that regulate the behavior of individuals (assign people different status and duties) through enforcing formal established norms.

Definitions of State

Let us look at some definitions of state provided by different distinguished political thinkers.

"Aristotle" was a great ancient Greek philosopher who viewed state as an organized group formed of different families and villages - whereby the objective of state is to facilitate the different needs of people in order set up a good and free lives for inhabitants. According to Burgees, state is an organization formed by assembly of people. Moreover, Holland defined state as a collection of men within special or defined area whereby, majority opinion is esteemed more than morality. Another prominent political scientist Lasky defined state as a regional social organization that has ruler, established norms and complete control over its region and regional organizations.

Essential Elements of State

The above definitions provided by ancient and modern political thinkers, specify four essential elements of state including, Population (people), Territory, Government and sovereignty.

Population

Population is the first and most essential element for the existence of any state. Whether the state is ancient or modern it physical existence depend on the groups of people. Population can be categorized into two type citizen and non-citizens. Citizens are refer to the group of people who are locals and have been granted political and social rights within a state. Whereas, non-citizens refer to the group of people who are not locals and come from foreign states for various reasons such as, education, job etc... these foreigners have been granted social rights but not political rights by the state.

The citizens of ancient Greece were known as servants. These Servants were the only group of people with in ancient Greek state. Servants were the ancient Greece citizens but they have not been grated social and political rights. Therefore, they were not allowed to take part in state politics. In modern state however, all citizens have equal rights except foreigners. Citizens can participate in politics whereas foreigners are not allowed to do so.

Moreover, modern research suggest that state progress depend on quality of population rather than quantity of population. The rate of population does not have effect on the progress of state however, rate of skilled or unskilled population effect the progress of state. If a state has large population with high rate of unskilled population is less likely to make progress. Whereas, if the state has large population with high rate of skilled labor is most likely to make progress.

Territory

Territory is another major element for the existence of state. Population with undefined or unspecified area cannot be called a state. Similar to population, territory is also an important element for the existence of state for instance, until twentieth century no one was ready to recognize the physical existence of Jews because they did not had defined geographical area but now their geographical area is specified or defined therefore they are recognized as a nation with physical existence.

The specified boundaries of state could contain a vast or small area. Rousseau a prominent political thinker was of the view that state should have small specified area because it is easy to control and administer small state. The government of small state can easily manage to preserve the well-being and freedom of people. Whereas, Alfarabi another political thinker was also in the favor of small state, there are many historic example which explains negative consequence of state territory expansion such as, the fall of Roman and Persian Empire.

Government

Government is a vital element of state and the existence of government and state depend on one another. Government cannot exist without state and state cannot exist without government, the survival of both depend on one another. Government role is to run the affairs of state such as formulate laws, enforce laws and fulfill the needs of citizens. Whereas, population obligation is to conform to the laws formulated and enforced by the government. There are three branches of government including, legislature, judiciary and executive. These three major organs of government carry out the regulatory activities within a state. The role of legislature is to formulate formal written law of state. Whereas, the duty of executive branch is to enforce the state laws. The third organ of government is Judiciary, which is obligated to interpret the state laws.

Forms or Types of Government

There are seven distinguished forms or types of government such as, Democracy (presidential and parliamentary) republic, communism, autocracy, oligarchy, theocracy and fascism.

Democracy refers to the type of government which is formed or elected by majority of people through voting.

Republic is the type of government whereby, people choose their representative who further make decisions on behalf of people and form a government.

Communism is the form of government whereby all people have equal social status. In communist state people cannot own private property. All the resources belong to the state which are invested to protect the interest of people. The head of state is choose from a single political party based on specific criteria.

Autocracy refers to the type of government in which state is ruled by one person and he makes all the decisions for people.

Oligarchy refers to the form of government in which state is ruled by a group of people with high social status, these group of elites make all the decisions for people.

Theocracy is the form of government whereby, people are ruled by esteemed religious figures of state. Moreover, theocratic state is regulated through religious norms (laws of God) which are interpreted by religious leaders or figures. These religious leaders make decisions for the people in accordance to religious norms.

Fascism is the form of government whereby ruler is only elected from a single political party and the objective of this political party is to protect the interest of people belong to specific cast, creed, ethnicity and color.

Sovereignty

Sovereignty refers to the authority of state over its citizens, resources and organizations. State enforce laws and negative sanctions on people therefore it has supremacy over people. Laws are code of conduct for citizens through which state control the behavior of citizens. People are supposed to conform to the state laws otherwise they would face negative sanctions such as, corporal punishments or incarceration. Moreover, established state organization also have to conform to the state laws and conduct their business in accordance with laws otherwise these organization too could be subjected to negative sanctions. The resources within the specified area belong to the state foreign forces could not claim or extract these resources. State is free from any type of external pressure and free to make its own polices.

Written by; Khushdil Khan Kasi

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
State and Essential Elements of State - Sociology Learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What Is State? The word state has been derived from a Latin word "Status" which literally means condition - situation or circumstances. Many political thinker have defined state in a different way. So, there is not a single undisputed definition of state. State can be defined as a large organization of people which has a [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A theocracy is a government which features a religious person, being, or idea as the highest ruler within its structures. The population might elect a President, but the President would be viewed as required to report to a god. This type of structure tends to support the majority position within the country and allow for less overall societal conflict within that majority because everyone believes something similar.

A theocracy can also create discord because it is directly tied to religious beliefs. If someone disagrees with what the government is doing, their own religious ideas or freedoms can be placed at-risk.

Here are more pros and cons of a theocracy to consider.

What Are the Pros of a Theocracy?

1. It operates efficiently.
A theocracy keeps people united under one large umbrella. Because faith is directly tied into government operations, there are fewer delays in the implementation of operational policies. There is rarely an opportunity for debate when new policies are implemented or current policies are changed. The government decrees what needs to be accomplished. Religious institutions then implement this decree from the pulpit, classroom, or other location of influence.

2. Law enforcement efforts are streamlined.
In the United States, there are four basic levels of government: local, county, state, and national. Each has its own form of law enforcement. A community has police officers. Counties operate with a Sheriff's or Marshall's office. State law enforcement also exists. A national-level law enforcement entity would be like the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States. In the US, there are dozens of national-level government agencies that employ full-time officers who can make an arrest. Within a theocracy, this would become a centralized structure instead of having each be independent of one another.

3. It is a form of government which has higher levels of societal compliance.
Arguably, the greatest fear that humans have is of the unknown. There is nothing scarier, therefore, than what will happen to someone after they die. The hope that a religion offers for what happens after death can help to take that fear away, which is how compliance throughout a society is generated within this type of government. If a person's salvation is threatened because they won't comply with the government, a faithful person may choose to comply to limit their risks of eternal damnation.

4. A theocracy could do amazing things for people in need.
If a theocracy were to follow the edicts of their holy books to the letter, it could change the world in several incredible ways. Hunger could be eliminated because neighbors would share with neighbors. Everyone could have access to proper health care. No one would be living in poverty unless they consciously chose to do so. There would be more helping hands available to those in need.

5. There is no longer a need to find a compromise.
Because the majority is already on the same page for governmental policies and procedures, there is less time spent trying to find a compromise between ideas. Even if there is a "conflict" between two groups, the supreme overseeing the government would have the final say. People would come together, pray or worship, and come away with a common goal.

What Are the Cons of a Theocracy?

1. Minority groups are not often tolerated within a theocracy.
Theocracies demand conformity. One may be allowed to believe in a variation of the overall religious beliefs that form the backbone of the government, but not in something completely different. In a Christian theocracy, being a Baptist or a Catholic might be allowed, but being a Muslim may not be allowed.

2. It is a governmental structure which encourages discord.
In a theocracy, because a religious being or god is the head of the government, discord is invited within the population. These religious ideas are supernatural, even if a human is representing themselves as a god, so it becomes difficult to question the ideas that come from such a governmental structure. If you question the government, you question God - and that's a battle the faithful within a theocracy will not allow someone to win.

3. Businesses can operate only if they follow the same religious principles.
Hobby Lobby sued the Federal Government over the mandate to provide insurance that included birth control because it went against their organizational beliefs. In a theocracy, the ability to sue would be limited. If a business was not following the mandates of the government, then their activities would be against what the supreme being in charge would want and the government would simply shut the business down.

4. Unique individuals each have their own unique faith.
For this reason, conformity is either forced or impossible to achieve within a theocratic society. Everyone has their own reasons for believing what they do. Their faith, whether it is in God, science, or the lack of a supernatural being, comes from individualized perspectives, research, and philosophical pursuits. An attempt to bind different people together, even when they may believe in the same religious being, will eventually shatter because there isn't a "group" truth. There is only an "individual" truth.

5. A theocracy alters fundamental religious beliefs.
Going back to the Christian theocracy example, a New Testament command dictates that people should "love God" and "love their neighbor as themselves." The "sum of the law" is found in these. Is it loving to declare war on another nation? Does one serve God if they exclude one group from healthcare? Is testing for drug use something that is loving when people are hungry and need food, but have been unemployed for a lengthy period?

6. It is selfish.
People within a theocracy are looking out for their best interests first. They want to work on their own salvation before trying to help someone else achieve success. That is why this form of government often fails. The humans at the top of the government have the most power to ensure their own salvation, so they work on that before they help the rest of the people.

7. Facts are ignored if they don't agree with the holy book.
Imagine if the creationism vs evolutionism debate were held in a theocracy. Would the idea of evolution be able to exist if the process wasn't outlined in the holy book?

The pros and cons of a theocracy show us that it is an idea that might seem like it can bring people together, but what it tends to do is tear people apart. This is one of the reasons why the United States was founded on a principle of separating the church and the state from each other. Religious beliefs can work with government, but they struggle to be effective when working as government.

Blog Post Author Credentials
Louise Gaille is the author of this post. She received her B.A. in Economics from the University of Washington. In addition to being a seasoned writer, Louise has almost a decade of experience in Banking and Finance. If you have any suggestions on how to make this post better, then go here to contact our team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A theocracy is a government which features a religious person, being, or idea as the

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A kingdom is a piece of land that is ruled by a king or a queen. A kingdom is often called a monarchy, which means that one person, usually inheriting their position by birth or marriage, is the leader, or head of state.

Kingdoms are one of the earliest types of societies on Earth, dating back thousands of years. There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of different kingdoms throughout history. Kingdoms can be huge, such as the United Kingdom. During the 19th century, the United Kingdom, ruled from London, England, stretched over five continents. Kingdoms can also be small, such as the kingdom of Brunei, which is smaller than the U.S. state of Delaware.

Kingdoms are rarely ruled by an absolute monarch, a single king or queen who makes all decisions for the entire state. Kingdoms are usually broken into smaller territories, such as city-states or provinces, that are governed by officials who report to the monarch. Most modern kings and queens do not control the government. Elected leaders and constitutions establish laws for most kingdoms today.

The world's earliest kingdoms developed thousands of years ago when leaders began conquering and controlling cities and settlements. Rulers of early kingdoms provided protection to their residents, or subjects. In return, subjects paid taxes or services to the monarch. Kingdoms also had the power to create and enforce laws.

The first kingdoms were established about 3000 B.C.E. in Kengir, also known as Sumer, and Kemet, also known as ancient Egypt. Sumer was a kingdom that existed between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers in what-is-now Iraq. The Sumerians had their own written language and undertook complicated construction projects, such as irrigation canals and large temples called ziggurats. There is also evidence that the Sumerian kingdom traded and fought with neighboring peoples.

A few thousand years later, the kingdom of Teotihuacan developed in North America. The kingdom was centered in the city of Teotihuacan in modern Mexico City, Mexico. Teotihuacan probably had more than 100,000 inhabitants, making it among the largest ancient kingdoms in the world at that time.

Many, but not all, ancient kingdoms were empires. Empires are geographically large political units made of many different cultural or ethnic groups. Empires were often headed by monarchs, making them kingdoms. Kemet was a kingdom ruled by a monarch called a pharaoh, for instance. The Kemetan empire reached its height in the so-called "New Kingdom" period, under the leadership of the pharaoh Amenhotep III (1390-1352 BCE). Kemet in the New Kingdom stretched from modern-day Egypt, along the Mediterranean coast to modern-day Turkey in the north, and modern-day Eritrea in the south.

Many empires did not have monarchs, however, so empire and kingdom are not always the same thing.

The Middle Ages was a period in history that lasted roughly from about 500 to 1500. It is also referred to as the medieval period. During the Middle Ages, countless kingdoms formed and collapsed throughout Europe, Asia, and Africa.

In Europe, many small kingdoms were formed and fought over by tribes following the collapse of the Roman Empire in 476. Tribes such as the Ostrogoths, from modern Romania, and the Franks, from modern Germany, were among those that formed small, unstable kingdoms in the early Middle Ages.

Perhaps the most famous European kingdom of the Middle Ages was that of Britain's legendary King Arthur. Arthur may not have existed at all. Accounts of his kingdom were written hundreds of years after it supposedly existed. If there was a King Arthur, he probably lived during the fifth century, after the Romans left Britain and before the emergence of actual, historical British kings in the eighth century. King Arthur would have been one of dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of kings in Britain at the time. Even if King Arthur did not exist, his legend suggests kingdoms played a role in the Middle Ages.

At around the same time tribes and small kingdoms were warring over parts of Europe, the African kingdoms of Ghana and Mali were among the strongest of the Middle Ages. The Ghana Empire, also known as the Wagadou Empire, formed about 790. It found success as a major trading center. The Ghana Empire, located in the modern countries of Mauritania and Mali, was a kingdom on the southwest edge of the Sahara Desert. Caravans with hundreds of camels would travel across the Sahara like ships crossing a sandy sea.

The kingdom emerged as a trading center for gold and salt. (Salt, a valuable preservative for food, was nearly as valuable as gold.) The trade of ideas also flourished in the kingdom, as the religion of Islam spread westward from the Arabian Peninsula to the western coast of Africa. The Ghana Empire was weakened and eventually collapsed because of rapid growth, drought, and weakened trade.

About 1200, the Mali Empire rose out of what was once Ghana. Mali became a strong kingdom under the leadership of King Sundiata. Sundiata's kingdom stretched from the Atlantic coast of the modern countries of Senegal and Mauritania to the inland area of southeast Mali. Like Ghana, the Mali Empire depended on trade routes through the Sahara. Unlike Ghana, this kingdom actually had its own gold mines within its borders. One of the kingdom's major cities was the trade hub of Timbuktu, in the modern nation of Mali. Timbuktu was the major trade city on the edge of the Sahara for hundreds of years, trading gold, ivory, salt, and enslaved people.

After many centuries of war and turmoil, stronger and more sophisticated kingdoms began to develop throughout the world. In Europe, the kingdoms of Portugal, France, and England expanded across vast territories after the discovery of the Americas in the late 15th century.

Kingdoms established stronger diplomatic ties with neighboring governments to reduce conflict. They relied on treaties and, often, marriages to create strong alliances. Many monarchs of Europe during this period were related to each other. The British Queen Victoria had many grandchildren who were married to people across Europe, a fact that may have contributed to mostly peaceful times during her reign.

Kingdoms of this period increased trade with distant kingdoms and built strong fleets for overseas exploration. The Portuguese Empire, for instance, established ties with the Kingdom of Siam, in the modern country of Thailand. Portugal's fleet was able to travel around the continent of Africa and along the coast of Asia to reach Siam. Portugal, which dominated trade routes in the Indian Ocean, traded for valuable spices.

The Kingdom of Siam was exposed to European technology and politics. While some Asian kingdoms, such as Japan, rejected the influence of European powers, Siam used European ideas to modernize the country. Siam reached its peak under King Mongkut, who ruled from 1851-1868. King Mongkut helped establish the first newspaper in the kingdom. King Mongkut also introduced the idea of free trade. Subjects in the kingdom could manufacture their own trade goods, such as rice or tea, for trade with foreign businesses.

A few kingdoms are still ruled absolutely by a monarch. King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, King Mswati III of Eswatini, and King Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei are absolute monarchs. All of these kingdoms have legislatures and sets of laws. The monarch remains the final authority.

However, most of the kingdoms that exist today are constitutional monarchies. The king or queen acts as a ceremonial head of state, with public responsibilities such as promoting tourism and interest in the nation's history and culture but no real political authority. Under a constitutional monarchy, the nation is governed by a constitution, or set of laws, executed by a president or prime minister elected by the country's citizens. In England, for example, Queen Elizabeth II is the official head of state-but the nation is governed by a prime minister and parliament.

The Kingdom of Thailand, formerly the Kingdom of Siam, is an example of a modern kingdom. The kingdom ended its absolute monarchy in 1932, and today it is a democracy with elected leaders and courts of law. However, the king of Thailand, Maha Vajiralongkorn, has reigned since 2016 after the death of his father Bhumibol Adulyadej, who was the longest-serving king in Thai history. King Adulyadej had tremendous public support and had been known to intervene in politics. His son seems to be less popular and his role somewhat uncertain.

Other modern kingdoms ruled by a constitutional monarchy include Sweden, Belgium, Japan, and Morocco.

Fast Fact

Kingdom of Mali
We know about the history of the African kingdom of Mali from a number of different sources. Arab traders and scholars who passed through the kingdom left written accounts that have survived the centuries. African storytellers, called griots, passed down the kingdom's history from generation to generation through stories. Archaeologists also have found artifacts like tools, housing remains, and even trash heaps called middens in Malian cities such as Timbuktu. These artifacts teach us how people lived.

Fast Fact

United Kingdom
The United Kingdom, with its capital in London, England, includes the kingdoms of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The flags of all four kingdoms are represented in the flag of the United Kingdom, nicknamed the "Union Jack."

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about licensing content on this page, please contact ngimagecollection@natgeo.com for more information and to obtain a license. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. She or he will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to him or her, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

Media

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service.

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A kingdom is a piece of land that is ruled by a king or a queen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
From democracy to oligarchy: Understanding different forms of governance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Democracy is a system of government which is chosen by the entire population or other eligible members of the state through elected representatives.

A dictatorship is a form of government where a single individual or group of people wield power without any limitations to constitutional authority.

This article will further highlight the differences between democracy and dictatorship within the context of the

Aspirants can find more Difference Between Articles , by visiting the linked page

The difference between Democracy and Dictatorship is given in the table below:
Differences between Democracy and Dictatorship

The head of the country in a democratic government is the one who gets the most support in the form of votes in a general election.

One individual is the sole authority of the country with no institution to keep its power in check

Political control in a country is provided through free and fair elections, with two or more political parties being involved.

In a dictatorship no elections take place or they are heavily regulated by restricting the number of political parties and limiting gatherings and associations

The media in a democratic form of government is known as the fourth pillar of democracy as they watch the government's every move and criticise it should any misstep be taken.

The media is the mouthpiece of a dictatorial government. Regardless of what a dictator does, the media will only show what needs to be shown to the masses so that a cult of personality is always maintained.

In a democracy, the fundamental rights of the citizen are protected by the constitution. Citizens have the right to join political parties and other organizations.

In a dictatorship, little importance is given to fundamental rights, with the populace being generally subjected to constant policing, monitoring and brutality.

The earliest forms of democracy appeared in Ancient Greece. It is generally accepted that the Athenians established what is held as the first democracy in 508-507 BC. The democracy was rudimentary in the sense that only free-males of Athens could cast their votes but not women and slaves

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix and Gaius Julius Ceaser of Ancient Rome can be considered as the first dictators.

Democracy and Dictatorship are terms which are featured in the Polity segment of the UPSC Exams. Aspirants can find study materials related to this segment with the links given below:
Difference Between Democracy and Dictatorship - Download PDF Here

What are the 2 types of democracy?

Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, citizens, without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions.

Who is an example of a dictator?

Examples of dictators include Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Napoleon and Kim Jong-un, reveal what happens when one person is given unchecked power.

Related Links
Frequently Asked Questions about Democracy and Dictatorship

Candidates can find the general pattern of the UPSC Exams by visiting the page. For more articles and exam-related preparation materials, refer to the links given in the table below: UPSC Syllabus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Difference between Democracy and Dictatorship With Their Detailed Comparisons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Differences between Democracy and Dictatorship are detailed in a tabular format. Democracy vs Dictatorship. Read on to know how Democracy and Dictatorship are different from one another. To Crack UPSC 2023, follow BYJU'S

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What do we call the system of government in the U.S.? Are we a democracy or a republic?

The conundrum is, well, as the common expression goes, "as old as the republic itself."

But it's not just a question for scholars and semanticists any more.

Since the election of 2020, supporters of former President Donald Trump have become notably more willing to assert their belief that voting in America is suspect. That Trump won an election he lost. That "millions of ballots" were uncounted or miscounted. That voting by mail was fraught with abuse.

Despite the lack of evidence, and the judgments of election officials from both parties and judges appointed by presidents from both parties, election denialism has become not only a thing, but a movement. And when critics call this an attack on democracy, some election deniers respond by saying the U.S. is not a democracy, it is a republic.

Robert Draper of The New York Timespublished a piece on Republicans who say this in August. He cited a GOP candidate for the Arizona state legislature, Selina Bliss, saying: "We are not a democracy. Nowhere in the Constitution does it use the word 'democracy.' I think of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That's not us."

But a democratic republic is us. Exactly.

Throughout our history we have functioned as both. Put another way, we have utilized characteristics of both. The people decide, but they do so through elected representatives working in pre-established, rule-bound and intentionally balky institutions such as Congress and the courts.

The government seated in Washington, D.C., represents a democratic republic, which governs a federated union of states, each of which in turn has its own democratic-republican government for its jurisdiction.

The relationship between the democratic and republican elements of this equation has been a dynamic and essential part of our history. But it has not always been easy, and in our time the friction between them has become yet another flashpoint in our partisan wars.

Going to war over weaponized words

We regularly hear people on the left speak of conservatives destroying democracy, and just as regularly we hear conservatives say Democrats have no respect for the Constitution. To add to the confusion, the two camps often swap their lines of attack and defense. Republicans call Democrats enemies of democracy, Democrats rail against what they see as Republican disrespect for the Constitution.

And that also makes sense, in a way, as both sides want to be the champions of both democracy and the Constitution, and to advertise themselves as such to the voters.

Yes, as a polity, we think we are and can be both. We aspire to be both. But in practice that can prove difficult. And in our time, when so much of the public discourse happens on Twitter and cable TV news, the terms have become increasingly weaponized.

"Equality and democracy are under assault," said President Biden on the steps of Independence Hall last week. "We do ourselves no favor to pretend otherwise."

Biden at Independence Hall used the word democracy 31 times, including three times in one sentence. He used the word republic just twice.

Republicans, by contrast, have seemed of late to be stressing the role of the republic and its restraint on democracy. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, an outspoken Republican but hardly an outlier, got considerable attention for saying bluntly on Twitter in October 2020: "We are not a democracy."

Lee then posted online an explanation of what he meant. It said, in part: "Our system is best described as a constitutional republic [where] power is not found in mere majorities, but in carefully balanced power."

Lee went on to catalog how difficult it was for majorities in Congress to pass legislation, get it signed by a president and watch it undergo judicial review. Lee's point was that he was OK with all that. It was the intent of the founders.

"In the absence of consensus," Lee wrote, "there isn't supposed to be federal law."

Writing in 2020 in The Atlantic, George Thomas, the Wohlford Professor of American Political Institutions at Claremont McKenna College, found "some truth to this insistence" on calling the U.S. a republic but added: "It is mostly disingenuous. The Constitution was meant to foster a complex form of majority rule, not enable minority rule."

This is not just a quibble over terms. It is a fundamental battle over what American government aspires to be. Are we a democracy where the voice of the people is, like it says in Latin on some of our official buildings ( Vox Populi, Vox Dei), the voice of God?

Or are we a republic? That is to say, a government of laws not of men, deriving its authority not by divine right of inheritance or strength of arms but by reason and by adherence to the mechanisms of the Constitution.

Calling things by their proper names

It's also not a coincidence that those names tend to suggest which end of the democratic-republican bargain they favor. Our current parties trace their roots to a common ancestor in a party begun by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the early decades of nationhood.

That party formed in opposition to the original party of George Washington and John Adams, known as the Federalists because they emphasized the central authority of the combined 13 states (the original 13 colonies that had rebelled against the crown of England).

Jefferson and others who rose in opposition were called, naturally enough, anti-Federalists. Jefferson liked the word republican and used it a lot, in part for the anti-monarchist emphasis.

Others thought the term had less meaning because so many different kinds of viewpoints claimed it. The party eventually took on the label of Democratic-Republicans. That moniker might have been too much of a mouthful to enunciate, and its coalition may have been too wide to sustain.

At the time, there were also voters and candidates who preferred calling themselves National Republicans, especially in New England. That element morphed into the Whigs, while the Democratic-Republicans dominated in the South and eventually became simply Democrats - the preference of President Andrew Jackson.

In the 1850s, exhausted by the North-South tensions that were leading to the Civil War, the Whigs gave way to a new party originating in the Great Lakes region. The new party's biggest issue was abolition, but they adopted (perhaps at the suggestion of journalist Horace Greeley) the previously orphaned half of the old Democratic-Republican Party name. They have since been known simply as Republicans.

But both terms have far deeper origins in the ancient world

The Athenian democracy in Greece around 500 BCE denoted the right of the people ( demos) to personify power ( kratos) and meant it to include an entire polity - or at least its males. Something like 5,000 citizens were enfranchised to participate, and when they chose to delegate some of the governing task to a smaller body they still had 500 members of that council ( boule).

Thomas says "the founding generation" in the U.S. never considered the Greek model workable beyond a limited area (idealized perhaps by the New England town hall). Thomas says that generation was "deeply skeptical of what it called 'pure democracy' and defended the American experiment as 'wholly republican."

That is, it was a government of the people not of royalty. It also incorporated some of the inspiration referenced in the Latin word republic, a hearkening back to the Romans who established the first Senate around 750 BCE.

Thomas says the American experiment has been about harmonizing democratic and republican models, two "popular forms of government," each of which "drew its legitimacy from the people and depended on rule by the people."

The essential difference was the role of representatives to substitute for the gathering of all the people at one point in time and space.

"To take this as a rejection of democracy misses how the idea of government by the people, including both a democracy and a republic, was understood when the Constitution was drafted and ratified," Thomas said. "It misses, too, how we understand the idea of democracy today."

One way to understand that idea was articulated by Jefferson himself way back in 1816, when he wrote: "We may say with truth and meaning, that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition." [emphasis added]

It is hard to imagine a better statement of the two concepts as they may be comingled and act in concert.

It falls to our generation to renew that understanding in the context of our own time, two full centuries later.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is America a democracy or a republic? Yes, it is

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Election denialism has become not only a thing but a movement. And if critics call this an attack on democracy, some election deniers respond by saying the U.S. is not a democracy, it is a republic.