Ap Gov. reading 1 test

Democratic Ideals

The foundation of the United States government rests upon several democratic ideals, each crucial in shaping its structure and function. These ideals provide the philosophical underpinnings guiding the nation's governance. Among these ideals are:

• Natural Rights: This is the belief that all individuals possess inherent rights—such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—that governments are not allowed to take away (i.e., they are “inalienable”) 

• Social Contract: An implicit agreement exists within society wherein individuals willingly relinquish certain freedoms to a governing body in exchange for the maintenance of social order and protection of their rights. 

• Popular Sovereignty: This is the idea that all governmental power (a.k.a. sovereignty) comes from the consent of the governed (the population—hence why it’s called popular sovereignty). This contrasts with medieval Europe, where monarchs often claimed that their right to rule came from God. In America, we believe that the right to rule comes from the people. 

• Limited Government: This principle dictates that the powers of the government are not absolute and are instead constrained by constitutional provisions and the rule of law.

How Limited Government is Ensured

The ideal of limited government mattered a lot to the framers of the Constitution, and they wanted to make sure we did not descend into tyranny (where a tyrant or dictator takes over the country). They therefore created a system designed to prevent any single person or group from getting too much power. Key components of this system include:

• Separation of Powers: The Constitution divides the power of government into three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. The idea here is that if one person makes the laws, they shouldn’t be the same people who enforce those laws, nor should they be the same people who interpret whether those laws follow the Constitution. Kind of like how, if you want to split a candy bar fairly, you let one person split and the other person pick which half they want. 

• Checks and Balances: Complementary to the separation of powers is the concept of checks and balances, whereby each branch of government is able to monitor and restrain the actions of the others. For example, if Congress passes an unjust law, the president has the right to veto that law. 

• Federalism: Not only do we divide power  between the three branches, but we also divide power between two different levels of government: state and national/federal. Federalism is this sharing of power between the federal and state governments.

• Republicanism: If we had a pure democracy, where every citizen voted on every single law and made every decision, we’d never get anything done. So Republicanism is the idea that we elect representatives to make laws and decisions on our behalf. 

What Kind of Democracy Should We Have?

The founders all agreed that they wanted a democracy, but they fought over what kind of democracy was best. Who should have the largest voice and influence over the political process? How should decisions be made? As political scientists look at democracies today, they classify them in terms of how closely they align to one of three different models:

• Participatory Democracy: This model places a premium on broad citizen involvement in political affairs and civil society. Emphasizing direct engagement and grassroots activism, participatory democracy seeks to empower individuals to actively shape political outcomes and public policy through direct participation in decision-making processes.

• Pluralist Democracy: In contrast, pluralist democracy prioritizes the role of organized interest groups in influencing political decision-making. Advocating for group-based activism by diverse non-governmental entities (like the NRA, NAACP, etc.), pluralist democracy contends that societal interests are best represented through the competition and negotiation among various interest groups seeking to impact policy outcomes.

• Elite Democracy: Under the framework of elite democracy, political participation and influence are predominantly restricted to a select group of individuals or institutions. This model says that effective governance is achieved through the leadership and decision-making of society’s elite, who are deemed best suited to navigate complex policy issues and uphold the interests of society as a whole.

We can see this argument play out in early America with two groups of people: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

The Federalists did not trust the general population, so they leaned away from participatory democracy. They thought that human nature was generally bad, and as a result the people would do bad things, like oppress minorities, take away peoples’ rights, and take away money from the rich. So they put many anti-participatory things into the Constitution. For example, the president is not chosen by popular vote in America; rather, the Electoral College chooses our president. They didn’t even want people to vote on who their senators would be. Up until the early 1900s, our senators were chosen by state legislatures, not the people directly. Federalists wanted more of a pluralist or elite democracy.

Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, wanted a more participatory democracy. They wanted a weaker federal government precisely because they feared the way that special interest groups and the elites of society would take away the rights of the people.