Book Chapter Review: Madisonian Democracy: The Fight Against Tyrants

Procedurally democracy is always attached to the system voting. Holders of power are those who are elected by a majority vote, on the other hand, minorities often appear as a side effect of the democratization process. He always produces winner and looser. Even so, many people consider democracy as the most humane system of contestation because of its ability to compromise with antagonistic matters and its ability to avoid the possibility of physical fights that can lead to bloodshed like the succession of leadership during the royal era. Judging from the history of its presence, democracy exists as a form of resistance against tyranny which often results in arbitrariness of power.

So, how can democracy really become an elixir of tyranny and a form of compromise between majority and minority forces? Robert A. Dahl reviews how James Madison (the fourth President of the United States) laid the foundations of democracy which highly upholds individual rights and became the foundation for the system of government in Uncle Sam's country which later became known as the "Madisonian" theory of democracy. . Dahl was very proficient in explaining how the compromise theory worked, which on several sides was also not without weaknesses.

Madison's ideas regarding democracy are contained in The Federalist Papers which contains a collection of 85 essays with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in support of the ratification of the United States Constitution. Madison's conceptions were also shared by the political leaders of his time. It is very rare for a political leader to have a coherent, logical and clear theoretical explanation like what Madison conveyed in The Federalist Papers.

Through several assumptions Dahl tried to describe what Madison expressed regarding democracy, tyranny, natural rights and factions. There are at least 10 (ten) points of Madison's basic argument regarding his efforts to oppose tyranny. Hypothesis 1 states that if not controlled by external controls, each individual or group will tyrannize others. This assumption requires a mechanism rewards and punishmentsfor each individual to avoid deprivation of one's natural rights. Dahl tries to reconstruct Madison's deep meaning of tyranny The Federalist Papers expressed as the accumulation of all executive, legislative and judicial powers in the same hand, whether one, several or many. To make it clear, Dahl preferred to use the accumulation of power that gives rise to the deprivation of natural rights as tyranny.

From this emerges hypothesis 2 which implies that the accumulation of executive, legislative and judicial powers in the same hands tends to abandon external control which in turn implies the emergence of tyranny. Unfortunately, there are no clear meanings and limitations regarding natural rights themselves, while limiting these rights without consent is also the beginning of a tyranny. To further clarify this, Madison includes two additional assumptions, namely hypothesis 3 which states that if not controlled by external controls, a small number of individuals will tyrannize most individuals. Conversely, in hypothesis 4, Madison argues, if not controlled by external controls, the majority of individuals will tyrannize the minority of individuals. Alexander Hamilton once said that “give all power to the many, and they will oppress the few, and give all power to the few, and they will oppress the many”.

Madison seems less concerned with the tyranny of the minority than with the tyranny of the majority. As the person who eventually served as President, Madison was even more worried about the tyranny of the majority coming from the legislature. Although in truth, the point of the problem is not the size of the group but the deprivation of other individual natural rights. When Madison issued his arguments against tyranny, the term democracy was not as popular as it is today. At that time, the term republic was more familiar as a condition that is now better known as direct or representative democracy. Dahl in his writings defines the republic as a government that derives its power from the people either directly or indirectly with a limited term of office. Dahl revealed that Madison had hoped for the United States to become a non-tyrannical republic. Slightly contradictory, Hamilton stated that constitutional monarchy is more likely to avoid the tyranny of power.

What are the prerequisites needed to achieve the goal of a non-tyrannical republic? Madison in hypothesis 5 requires two things, namely first, the accumulation of all executive, legislative and judicial powers in the same hands, either one, several or many, whether hereditary, self-appointed, even by election, must be avoided. Second, factions must be controlled in such a way that they cannot act to the detriment of the rights of other citizens.

The discourse on Madisonian democracy also discusses how the electoral process should be carried out as an effort by the people to control their leaders. In hypothesis 6, it is argued that elections that are carried out too often will not provide sufficient external control to prevent tyranny. The argument comes more to the interests of stability. Therefore, in the historical development of government in the United States, the mechanism checks and balances efforts are also made to avoid tyrannical acts.

Madison also emphasized the importance of controlling factions in society so that they do not conflict with the rights of other citizens. Factions were born out of differences of opinion, however, he realized that factions were impossible to eliminate, except by destroying individual freedom. Hypothesis 7 suggests that if factions cannot be eliminated, the only step is to control for the effects of their existence. Hypothesis 8 explains that if a faction consists of less than a majority, then this can be controlled by applying the republican principle in voting in the legislature, namely the majority can overturn the minority votes. On the contrary, hypothesis 9 explains that the development of the majority faction can be limited if there are many, broad and diverse voters. This implies that if a majority faction arises, its members must be rendered incapable of acting together effectively. Finally, as closing hypothesis 10 explains that to prove that in the condition of many voters with various interests, it is difficult for the majority faction to appear and if there is one, it is very difficult for them to act in unison.

Trying to clarify in detail every assumption related to democracy built by Madison, Dahl reviews how Madison describes external control as being able to restrain tyranny by sharing power through reciprocity and mutual control of one another. The division of powers will provide assurance that the ambitions of individuals in one department will counteract those in others through mechanisms rewards and punishments. Officials who commit violations will lose status, respect, prestige and friendship. Such punishments were enough to prevent tyranny. In a larger scope, as the threat of tyranny befalls the legislature, the means of restriction through impeachment and the use of armed forces are possible.
Slightly contrary to what was mentioned earlier that democracy is used to compromise violence but in fact it is difficult to completely eliminate violence from political operations. Mutual control between leaders must be created and that is the basic Madisonian argument. Dahl considers that in some respects the Madisonian argument is inadequate.

First, that mutual control among leaders is not sufficient evidence to prevent tyranny. Second, the importance of constitutional external control seems exaggerated. Dahl also considers that the premise used in viewing propositions about political behavior or the conditions for non-tyrannical democracy is wrong. Third, Dahl doubted that intragovernmental checks between government officials would actually prevent tyranny. Madison seems to downplay its importance checks and balances inherent in a pluralistic society.

Dahl's next question about the idea of Madisonian democracy turned to how tyranny and natural rights were defined. Mainly because there are no clear meanings and limitations related to natural rights. If this is interpreted as an individual's right to do everything, the state's move to restrain some individuals from doing what they want is a form of tyranny.

Difficulties in interpreting the concept of Madisonian democracy also arise in interpreting the concept of factions. This can be interpreted as any group that is determined to invade the natural rights of others. Since such an act is tyrannical, it follows that factions must be controlled in a non-tyrannical republic. A republic that avoids tyranny must avoid factions. Efforts to define other things must also be done with great care because the definition of natural rights and other limitations in Madison's thinking that is not clear through the majority faction in the government, is tantamount to violating Madison's views regarding the majority faction.
On the other hand, Dahl invites us to imagine that deprivation of liberty must be minimized. This can be done by giving each group the opportunity to veto other groups if freedom is threatened. Genetically, Madisonian ideology has served as a rationalization for every minority to demand a political system in order to provide an opportunity to veto a policy.

In retrospect, the logical and empirical deficiencies of Madison's own thinking seem to have arisen in large part from his inability to reconcile his two disparate goals. On the one hand, Madison substantially accepted the idea that all citizens within the republic should be accorded equal rights, including the right to determine the general direction of government policy. On the other hand, Madison wanted to establish a political system that would guarantee the liberties of certain minorities. Therefore the majority must be constrained constitutionally. Madisonian democracy is a compromise between these two conflicting goals.

Dahl in his writings is quite comprehensive, carefully dissecting how Madison attempts to eliminate tyranny. Although in some ways Madison did not provide guidelines in detail in presenting a non-tyrannical republic, however, through a deep understanding of Madison's hypothesis, Dahl provides images that can help understand what still seems blurry from the basic assumptions issued by Madison. What is clear, Madison was very worried that the majority would prevent the minority from exercising their natural rights. For Dahl, interpreting all views in the Madisonian perspective needs to be done by making political equality a goal that must be maximized, namely postulating that the goals of every citizen in a republic must be given the same value in determining government policy.

Bibliography

Dahl, John A. 2006. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.