The Federalist Papers : No. 10
"There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests."
In The Federalist Papers : No. 10, James Madison illustrates why a republic is advantageous over a democracy in controlling unwanted factions. He acknowledges the dangers of factions who infringe on rights or promote themselves over others. He claims that we can either remove the causes of these or control their effects. By removing the cause, one also removes all liberty from individuals. This interestingly evokes the image George Orwell's novel 1984, in which Madison's second approach to removing causes of a faction are used, by "giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests." In this case, America's form of government works since it does not attempt to eliminate the cause of factions.
"Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other."
In this quote, the idea of a large republic is explained by Madison. By having a large republic, the number of interests and parties is enlarged, so that it is more difficult for one faction to take control and impose a "tyrrany of the majority". While this explains the American system of government as a large republic, it contradicts it in the sense that we live in a practically 2-party system, which is the exact opposite of what Madison was envisioning would happen in a large republic.
_________________________________________________________
The Federalist Papers : No. 51
"A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions"
In The Federalist Papers : No. 51, the author (Hamilton or Madison) acknowledges the above quote, which states that the government should be dependent on the people to control itself, yet more precautions must be taken. This shows the functionality of the American form of government since the authority rests on the people, and hence the government operates in their favor. Despite this, to prevent a future sort of coup d'etat, more precautions are taken in the United States, with the division of the branches of government, as explained:
"In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."
In the finale of the paper, the author elucidates the function of a separation in government. This idea of "double security" serves to protect the citizens of the United States from elected or unelected injustice of the government, since even an elected government might act against the interests of the citizen should it begin to abuse its power.
I liked how your explanations were easy to read and showed a comprehensive understanding of your chosen quotes. It was also helpful to have that connection to another piece of literature, written much later than Madison's time because it helped explain it in a different manner and showed how Madison's essay is still relevant.
ReplyDeleteFor #10, how do you think the practically 2-party system we have today has affected the idea of there being an implicit check against oppression through a majority rules mindset? Is there still a check, or are minorities more powerless than they were before the development of significant parties?
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the separation of powers we have, how will we be able to tell when there's enough separation of powers? What if our government becomes too bureaucratic and bogged down with checks so that no branch can do anything and in an attempt to have double security we are left defenseless?