[1] For the "four years' war" and the chronological questions involved,
see C. W. Müller, _Frag. Hist. Graec._ ii. 445.
DEMOCRACY (Gr. [Greek: dêmokratia], from [Greek: dêmos], the people,
i.e. the commons, and [Greek: kratos], rule), in political science, that
form of government in which the people rules itself, either directly, as
in the small city-states of Greece, or through representatives.
According to Aristotle, democracy is the perverted form of the third
form of government, which he called [Greek: politeia], "polity" or
"constitutional government," the rule of the majority of the free and
equal citizens, as opposed to monarchy and aristocracy, the rule
respectively of an individual and of a minority consisting of the best
citizens (see GOVERNMENT and ARISTOCRACY). Aristotle's restriction of
"democracy" to _bad_ popular government, i.e. mob-rule, or, as it has
sometimes been called, "ochlocracy" ([Greek: ochlos], mob), was due to
the fact that the Athenian democracy had in his day degenerated far
below the ideals of the 5th century, when it reached its zenith under
Pericles. Since Aristotle's day the word has resumed its natural
meaning, but democracy in modern times is a very different thing from
what it was in its best days in Greece and Rome. The Greek states were
what are known as "city-states," the characteristic of which was that
all the citizens could assemble together in the city at regular
intervals for legislative and other purposes. This sovereign assembly of
the people was known at Athens as the Ecclesia (q.v.), at Sparta as the
Apella (q.v.), at Rome variously as the Comitia Centuriata or the
Concilium Plebis (see COMITIA). Of representative government in the
modern sense there is practically no trace in Athenian history, though
certain of the magistrates (see STRATEGUS) had a quasi-representative
character. Direct democracy is impossible except in small states. In the
second place the qualification for citizenship was rigorous; thus
Pericles restricted citizenship to those who were the sons of an
Athenian father, himself a citizen, and an Athenian mother ([Greek: ex
amphoin astoin]). This system excluded not only all the slaves, who were
more numerous than the free population, but also resident aliens,
subject allies, and those Athenians whose descent did not satisfy this
criterion ([Greek: tô genei mê katharoi]). The Athenian democracy, which
was typical in ancient Greece, was a highly exclusive form of
government.
With the growth of empire and nation states this narrow parochial type
of democracy became impossible. The population became too large and the
distance too great for regular assemblies of qualified citizens. The
rigid distinction of citizens and non-citizens was progressively more
difficult to maintain, and new criteria of citizenship came into force.
The first difficulty has been met by various forms of representative
government. The second problem has been solved in various ways in
different countries; moderate democracies have adopted a low property
qualification, while extreme democracy is based on the extension of
citizenship to all adult persons with or without distinction of sex. The
essence of modern representative government is that the people does not
govern itself, but periodically elects those who shall govern on its
behalf (see GOVERNMENT; REPRESENTATION).
DEMOCRATIC PARTY, originally DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY, the oldest of
existing political parties in the United States. Its origin lay in the
principles of local self-government and repugnance to social and
political aristocracy established as cardinal tenets of American
colonial democracy, which by the War of Independence, which was
essentially a democratic movement, became the basis of the political
institutions of the nation. The evils of lax government, both central
and state, under the Confederation caused, however, a marked
anti-democratic reaction, and this united with the temperamental
conservatism of the framers of the constitution of 1787 in the shaping
of that conservative instrument. The influences and interests for and
against its adoption took form in the groupings of Federalists and
Anti-Federalists, and these, after the creation of the new government,
became respectively, in underlying principles, and, to a large extent,
in personnel, the Federalist party (q.v.) and the Democratic-Republican
party.[1] The latter, organized by Thomas Jefferson in opposition to the
Federalists dominated by Alexander Hamilton, was a real party by 1792.
The great service of attaching to the constitution a democratic bill of
rights belongs to the Anti-Federalists or Democratic-Republican party,
although this was then amorphous. The Democratic-Republican party gained
full control of the government, save the judiciary, in 1801, and
controlled it continuously thereafter until 1825. No political
"platforms" were then known, but the writings of Jefferson, who
dominated his party throughout this period, take the place of such. His
inaugural address of 1801 is a famous statement of democratic
principles, which to-day are taken for granted only because, through the
party organized by him to secure their success, they became universally
accepted as the ideal of American institutions. In all the colonies,
says John Adams, "a court and a country party had always contended";
Jefferson's followers believed sincerely that the Federalists were a new
court party, and monarchist. Hence they called themselves "Republicans"
as against monarchists,--standing also, incidentally, for states' rights
against the centralization that monarchy (or any approach to it)
implied; and "Democrats" as against aristocrats,--standing for the
"common rights of Englishmen," the "rights of man," the levelling of
social ranks and the widening of political privileges. In the early
years of its history--and during the period of the French Revolution and
afterwards--the Republicans sympathized with the French as against the
British, the Federalists with the British as against the French.
Devotion to abstract principles of democracy and liberty, and in
practical politics a strict construction of the constitution, in order
to prevent an aggrandizement of national power at the expense of the
states (which were nearer popular control) or the citizens, have been
permanent characteristics of the Democratic party as contrasted with its
principal opponents; but neither these nor any other distinctions have
been continuously or consistently true throughout its long course.[2]
After 1801 the commercial and manufacturing nationalistic[3] elements of
the Federalist party, being now dependent on Jefferson for protection,
gradually went over to the Republicans, especially after the War of
1812; moreover, administration of government naturally developed in
Republican ranks a group of broad-constructionists. These groups fused,
and became an independent party.[4] They called themselves _National_
Republicans, while the Jacksonian Republicans soon came to be known
simply as Democrats.[5] Immediately afterward followed the tremendous
victory of the Jacksonians in 1828,--a great advance in radical
democracy over the victory of 1800. In the interval the Federalist party
had disappeared, and practically the entire country, embracing
Jeffersonian democracy, had passed through the school of the Republican
party. It had established the power of the "people" in the sense of that
word in present-day American politics. Bills of rights in every state
constitution protected the citizen; some state judges were already
elective; very soon the people came to nominate their presidential
candidates in national conventions, and draft their party platforms
through their convention representatives.[6] After the National
Republican scission the Democratic party, weakened thereby in its
nationalistic tendencies, and deprived of the leadership of Jackson,
fell quickly under the control of its Southern adherents and became
virtually sectional in its objects. Its states' rights doctrine was
turned to the defence of slavery. In thus opposing anti-slavery
sentiment--inconsistently, alike as regarded the "rights of man" and
constitutional construction, with its original and permanent
principles--it lost morale and power. As a result of the contest over
Kansas it became fatally divided, and in 1860 put forward two
presidential tickets: one representing the doctrine of Jefferson Davis
that the constitution recognized slave-property, and therefore the
national government must protect slavery in the territories; the other
representing Douglas's doctrine that the inhabitants of a territory
might virtually exclude slavery by "unfriendly legislation." The
combined popular votes for the two tickets exceeded that cast by the
new, anti-slavery Republican party (the second of the name) for Lincoln;
but the election was lost. During the ensuing Civil War such members of
the party as did not become War Democrats antagonized the Lincoln
administration, and in 1864 made the great blunder of pronouncing the
war "a failure." Owing to Republican errors in reconstruction and the
scandals of President Grant's administration, the party gradually
regained its strength and morale, until, having largely subordinated
Southern questions to economic issues, it cast for Tilden for president
in 1876 a popular vote greater than that obtained by the Republican
candidate, Hayes, and gained control of the House of Representatives.
The Electoral Commission, however, made Hayes president, and the quiet
acceptance of this decision by the Democratic party did it considerable
credit.
Since 1877 the Southern states have been almost solidly Democratic; but,
except on the negro question, such unanimity among Southern whites has
been, naturally, factitious; and by no means an unmixed good for the
party. Apart from the "Solid South," the period after 1875 is
characterized by two other party difficulties. The first was the attempt
from 1878 to 1896 to "straddle" the silver issue;[7] the second, an
attempt after 1896 to harmonize general elements of conservatism and
radicalism within the party. In 1896 the South and West gained control
of the organization, and the national campaigns of 1896 and 1900 were
fought and lost mainly on the issue of "free silver," which, however,
was abandoned before 1904. After 1898 "imperialism," to which the
Democrats were hostile, became another issue. Finally, after 1896, there
became very apparent in the party a tendency to attract the radical
elements of society in the general re-alignment of parties taking place
on industrial-social issues; the Democratic party apparently attracting,
in this readjustment, the "radicals" and the "masses" as in the time of
Jefferson and Jackson. In this process, in the years 1896-1900, it took
over many of the principles and absorbed, in large part, the members of
the radical third-party of the "Populists," only to be confronted
thereupon by the growing strength of Socialism, challenging it to a
farther radical widening of its programme. From 1860 to 1908 it elected
but a single president (Grover Cleveland, 1885-1889 and 1893-1897).[8]
All American parties accepted long ago in theory "Jeffersonian
democracy"; but the Democratic party has been "the political champion of
those elements of the [American] democracy which are most democratic. It
stands nearest the people."[9] It may be noted that the Jeffersonian
Republicans did not attempt to democratize the constitution itself. The
choice of a president was soon popularized, however, in effect; and the
popular election of United States senators is to-day a definite
Democratic tenet.[10]
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--For an exposition of the party's principles see Thomas
Jefferson, _Writings_, ed. by P. L. Ford (10 vols., New York,
1892-1899); J. P. Foley (ed.), _The Jeffersonian Cyclopaedia_ (New
York, 1900); and especially the _Campaign Text-Books_ of more recent
times, usually issued by the national Democratic committee in
alternate years, and M. Carey, _The Democratic Speaker's Handbook_
(Cincinnati, 1868). For a hostile criticism of the party, see W. D.
Jones, _Mirror of Modern Democracy_; _History of the Democratic Party
from 1825 to 1861_ (New York, 1864); Jonathan Norcross, _History of
Democracy Considered as a Party-Name and a Political Organization_
(New York, 1883); J. H. Patton, _The Democratic Party: Its Political
History and Influence_ (New York, 1884). Favourable treatises are R.
H. Gillet, _Democracy in the United States_ (New York, 1868); and
George Fitch, _Political Facts: an Historical Text-Book of the
Democratic and Other Parties_ (Baltimore, 1884). See also, for
general political history, Thomas H. Benton, _Thirty Years' View_ (2
vols., New York, 1854-1856, and later editions); James G. Blaine,
_Twenty Years of Congress_ (2 vols., Norwich, Conn., 1884-1893); S.
S. Cox, _Three Decades of Federal Legislation_ (Providence, 1885); S.
P. Orth, _Five American Politicians: a Study in the Evolution of
American Politics_ (Cleveland, 1906), containing sketches of four
Democratic leaders--Burr, De Witt Clinton, Van Buren and Douglas; J.
Macy, _Party Organization and Machinery_ (New York, 1904); J. H.
Hopkins, _History of Political Parties in the United States_ (New
York, 1900); E. S. Stanwood, _History of the Presidency_ (last ed.,
Boston, 1904); J. P. Gordy, _History of Political Parties_, i. (New
York, 1900); H. J. Ford, _Rise and Growth of American Politics_ (New
York, 1898); Alexander Johnston, _History of American Politics_ (New
York, 1900, and later editions); C. E. Merriam, _A History of
American Political Theories_ (New York, 1903), containing chapters on
the Jeffersonian and the Jacksonian Democracy; and James A. Woodburn,
_Political Parties and Party Problems in the United States_ (New
York, 1903).