There is no doubt that the recent elections in North America add a surprising chapter to the country’s political history. A mulatto Democrat, highly marketable by their mix, was up against a “heroic” white Republican.

However, amid all the rhetoric about democracy and freedom, one thing remains firmly outside the fragile collective memory of the U.S.

I’m talking about the oft-ignored origins of the political system of the U.S. The “founding fathers” actually never conceived of democracy as the main or ultimate goal of their constitution. The independence sentiment was couched in freedom, but this was freedom from the British Crown and their policies. What their criterion allowed was actually distinguishing between democracy and republicanism, cleaving mainly to the latter.

The topic under discussion before and beyond the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was the intensity with which the people would intervene in the affairs of government. After obtaining her freedom from the British Empire, these men felt they should be protected from a greater problem, in its nature, to the previous one: the people. They would need to preserve this precious virtue — freedom — against the whims and “licentious wishes” of its people themselves.

Many signatories of the Declaration of Independence and other architects of the recent nation were vehement opponents of democracy. One of them was John Adams, who in his laborious contribution warned that democratic systems of government had historically always ended in tyranny and chaos.

The defect in the democratic system occurs when we confuse the procedure of democracy (effective to select our rulers), with the idea of democracy as a system of government. The Founders conceived the democratic system as merely a procedure to give themselves a Republic, which ensured their most precious value, freedom from the British and ability to seek their happiness.

Zephaniah Swift distinguishes real democracy as a government by the people, from a government of representatives who are not governed by the people merely elected by the people.

The founders chose to submit their government to the Rule of Law, rather than be corrupted with the permissiveness that is invited by government by people.

In conclusion, it is common when asking for a democracy we seek freedom. But separating the two concepts will help prevent the defects we currently see, and place the democratic process as real rule by the people.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.