In Thucydides'
History of the Peloponnesian War, he observes how a democratic state can also be a despotic power. He relates how the fine, upstanding citizens of democratic Athens voted multiple times to invade other countries simply because they could. This brings to light a distinction that many in our present day and age have forgotten, the distinction between a republic and a democracy. A republic, briefly stated, is a country that is governed by the will of the people. This is not necessarily the same as a democracy, which is country which is governed by majority vote. If the US Senate removes the ability of a minority party to filibuster judicial nominations, the United States will become more democratic, but only at the expense of becoming less republican.
In his essay ``Perpetual Peace'', Immanuel Kant makes the argument that pure democracy tends towards despotism. Speaking of the type of direct democracy that was embodied in ancient Athens he states:
Among the three forms of government, democracy, in the proper sense of the term, is necessarily a despotism, because it sets up an executive power in which all citizens make decisions about and, if need be, against one (who therefore does not agree); consequently, all, who are not quite all, decide, so that the general will contradicts both itself and freedom.1
Kant's point here is that when a regime makes
executive decisions that are not in accord with the
general will, the government acts despotically. The key to preventing a regime that is ruled by the many from becoming despotic, then, is to clearly separate the
legislative function of government from the
enforcement function of the government.
In fact, when the government is ordered in such a fashion, Kant argues that a republic has arisen. ``Republicanism,'' he claims, ```is that political principle whereby executive power (the government) is separated from legislative power.''2 Such a mode of government prevents a tyranny of the majority. A republic ensures that the law, and the enforcement of the law, is done in accordance with the will of the people. Without this separation, Kant points out, those who control the government ``have taken hold of the public will and treated it as their own private will.''3 No matter how democratic a government is, then, if the body that makes the rules also enforces the rules, despotism follows because the government will no longer be beholden to the general will, but will make its own will into law.
And this is precisely what will happen if the US Senate loses its filibuster. Presently, the Senate represents the entire United States. The Senate can only break a filibuster with a two-thirds majority vote. This means that if the majority party in the Senate attempts to approve a judicial nominee that is unpalatable to a sizable minority, the minority can prevent the appointment from being voted on through a filibuster. As a consequence, the US Senate tends to be the branch of congress that truly represents the general will of the US as a whole. If a majority acts despotically, the minority filibusters. Consequently, the majority party in the Senate must always keep the minority in mind.
So when the ``Republican'' party attempts to remove the filibuster, they are attempting to change the US from a republic to a tyranny of the majority. The attempt to make such a change can only be described as partisan politics in the most pejorative sense of the word. It is the attempt to prevent the US Senate from representing the United States as a whole. It is the attempt to give one political party the ability to rule despotically by only serving their own partisan interests. It is the attempt to destroy the very principles of republicanism that the ``Republican'' party is supposedly founded upon.
<hr>
- ... freedom.1
- Kant, ``Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch'' trans. Ted Humphrey in Perpetual Peace and Other Essays on Politics, History and Morals (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983), 353.
- ... power.''2
- Ibid.
- ... will.''3
- Ibid.