"A Republic, if you can Keep it"

Someone asked Benjamin Franklin, one of the framers of the American constitution, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” His famous answer was:

“A republic, if you can keep it.”

 

Pranay Kotasthane says Franklin’s response is not understood even today across democracies. Sure, we hear a lot of people talk of democracy being at risk. This is confusing and misleading because the response usually goes something like this, “Elections are happening as scheduled. Power transfer happens peacefully based on the outcome (other than Trump’s supporters running riot when he lost in 2020). In which democracies have any of these things stopped happening? So how exactly is democracy at risk?”

 

Those who are concerned are not articulating their concern correctly. When they say things like “majority rule is not right”, they don’t seem to realize democracy has always been about the rule of the majority! After all, democracy is a system by which the people who govern are selected by the majority, so they will inevitably reflect the views of the majority. This is not a bug, this is the definition of democracy.

 

What then is the real concern? Kotasthane says the real fear is that the republic is under threat. But no, one cannot say the republic is under threat just because the right-wing comes to power (If that were true, and only the left should be allowed to come to power, then we don’t have a democracy!). Rather, the real concern is that the constitution is not/will not be followed.

 

A republic is defined by a set of rules called the constitution. These rules cannot be ignored or overturned by just having a simple majority. In other words, laws cannot be framed by a majority government that violate the constitution. The constitution can be changed, but only via a two-thirds majority (a simple majority isn’t enough). This is what Franklin meant via his response – if the constitution is ignored, you are no longer a republic.

 

Now try and identify instances of the constitution being ignored or subverted. Trump just tried to change the citizenship-by-birth rule; but he couldn’t because it was in the US constitution. Modi may want One Nation, One Election but that needs constitutional changes, so it hasn’t seen light of day.

 

The next time you hear someone say democracy or the republic is at risk, take a deep breath and go back to definitions like Kotasthane did and you will be pleasantly surprised. We have been able to “keep the republic”.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Europe #3 - Innsbruck

The last city we visited in Europe was Innsbruck in the Austrian Alps. After the cold and windy experience (at times) of Paris and Netherlands, Innsbruck was a wonderful change – it didn’t feel that cold, it was not windy all of which made it easy to walk around. Something absolutely necessary given how scenic the place is.   Since the hotel check-in time was much later in the day, we left the baggage and went to the Swarovski HQ-cum-museum about an hour by bus from Innsbruck. The crystal exhibits were brilliant – colorful, bright, shiny. Jewellery aside, it was a display of what one can do with crystals. While my wife and daughter loved the jewellery, I liked the superhero themed exhibits of Batman, Spiderman, the Hulk, and Star Wars. We didn’t buy anything there, though we did buy stuff in the Swarovski store in Innsbruck – jewellery, not the superhero stuff.   Innsbruck is a major tourist attraction during the skiing season but now in summer, we saw many groups of ...
Read more

Chess is too Boring

“Chess has problems at the grandmaster level...They're not getting a great game”, wrote Christian Donlan . Amen to that: Anand and his challenger, Magnus Carlsen drew their first game in just 16 moves. It gets worse: games between the top 20 end in draws 60% of the time. And Donlan adds that “games often end in resignation when an actual victory starts to loom on the distant horizon.” That often means that the average player (or fan) often has no clue why one guy won (since he can’t see that far ahead)! Then there’s all that memorization (of openings, of end games and everything in between). All that memorization is sort of against the spirit of the game, says Zachary Burns, “We want it to be a game of creativity and positional play.” Many have tried to change the rules of the game in the past for these exact reasons, including Bobby Fischer with his Chess960 variant. More recently, David Sirlin tried to make things interesting via his variant, Chess 2. So what are his c...
Read more

Why we Deceive Ourselves

In their book, The Elephant in the Brain , the authors describe this weird aspect of deception that we practice: deceiving ourselves! That is so weird: “If our minds contain maps of our worlds, what good comes from having an inaccurate version of these maps?” The Sigmund Freud school of thought treats self-deception as a defense mechanism, “a way for the ego to protect itself”. The mind seeks to protect itself from anxiety and other negative emotions. Many object to this reasoning: since accurate information is so critical to our survival, surely distorting information would be dangerous. Wouldn’t the goal of protecting our self-esteem have been better achieved by making the brain’s self-esteem mechanism stronger instead? The new school of thought explains self-deception as “primarily outward-facing, manipulative, and ultimately self-serving”. This is based on Thomas Schelling’s work on game theory: “In a variety of scenarios, limiting or sabotaging yourself is the winn...
Read more