Did the U.S. Constitution define a democratic government?
In 1787, the leaders of the of the revolution gathered together at a convention in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution of the United States. It read, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America." ("us.history.org") The Constitution, written by fifty-five white men, signified America's birth as an independent country free from the British monarchy. The constitution is said to define this new form of government as a democracy, however it treads very close to another form of government known as a republic.
Merriam Webster defines a democracy as: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a
system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." ("Merriam-Webster dictionary") In a democracy the majority dictates the minority, meaning 51% beats 49%. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.
On the other hand, a republic is defined as: "a government in which supreme
power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by
elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing
according to law." ("Merriam-Webster dictionary") In a republic only entitled citizens are allowed to vote in addition elected citizens are given the right to govern them.
By looking at these two definitions it is clear that the Constitution does not define a democracy, rather a republic. The citizens that were entitled to vote were white males. In the times following the revolution women were considered inferior along with black slaves while the Indians were not even part of the new Country (even though it was their land to begin with). Also there were Senators, Governors, Congressmen... that helped pass the new laws and ruled/guided the people.
Is a democratic government possible in an economically polarized society?
It is my belief that a democracy is more than possible in an economically polarized society, however it I do believe that it is highly unlikely. Due to the fact that people by nature are greedy and want what they do not or can not have. The answer to this question depends entirely on the society and the people that live in it. If the citizens of the society were able to provide for themselves without the use of currency such as gold, bonds or a form of "federal reserve note" such as a dollar bill then yes democracy would work. This is because of the fact that currency would only be needed to purchase luxuries such as cars and video games, while necessities such as food and water would be provided by the individuals own hand. However, since the majority of people work for wages, which in turn is used to buy food from supermarkets, etc..., I believe that peoples greed for more wealth would cause chaos for a democratic government in a economically polarized society. Again I believe that it is possible, although it is very unlikely.
1. "Multiple sclerosis." Merriam-Webster dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2012. Web. 6 Mar 2012. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/>.
