Breaking News, World News and Taiwan News.

Updated Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:24 pm TWN, The China Post news staff

Sponsors
▪	Get the best deals for Guangzhou Hotels or choose from more than 10,000 hotels in 499 Chinese cities.
▪	Find great real time deals on China Flights. Book flights to China or China domestic flights 24/7.
▪	Buy china wholesale products from reliable chinese wholesalers on DHgate.com!
▪	Save 75% for all hotels in Shanghai, Beijing and whole China. Lowest rates for Flights in China.

The Republic of China: A Republic, not a Democracy (Part I)

“We may still believe with security that the great body of the American people must for ages yet be substantially republican.” — Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States, author of the Bill of Rights

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.” — James Madison, 4th President of the United States, Father of the Constitution

“The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.” — John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States

“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” — John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1801-1835

Are you flabbergasted? You shouldn't be. America's Founding Fathers were visionary political philosophers confronted with the most daunting task imaginable. Their task was not merely to found a new nation, but to invent a new system of government. They diligently researched history to learn what to do. History told them what to do. But even more importantly, it told them what not to do. It told them not to adopt democracy, the worst form of government ever tried. What is the distinction between a republic and a democracy? What made America's Founding Fathers detest democracy with such intensity? Put simply, a republic is a political system predicated on the rule of law. A democracy, on the other hand, is a political system predicated on the rule of the mob. A republic is a political system founded upon objective standards, as embodied in a written constitution, according to the letter of the law. Disputes within a republic are settled by consulting the nation's basic law, its constitution. The law, as enumerated in its constitution, is the final authority.

A democracy, on the other hand, is a political system founded upon subjective standards, on the shifting sands of “mainstream public opinion,” better known as mob sentiment. Disputes within a democracy are settled by first inciting, then “consulting” the mob, through endless elections, plebiscites, and referenda. The whim of the mob is the final authority.

Given the Founding Fathers' loathing for democracy, we should not be surprised that the Constitution of the United States does not contain a single solitary reference to the word “democracy,” but instead stipulates that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.”

A New Year has just begun. It is time for a new beginning. It is time to clear the cobwebs out of our minds. It is time for defenders of the Republic of China to cease reflexively “championing democracy,” and begin championing what America's Founding Fathers referred to as “republican government.” It is time to restore the constitutional republic of modern China's own Founding Father, Sun Yat-sen. The good doctor gave us a republic. It is up to us to see if we can keep it.

(to be continued)

1|2

Related Stories

▪	The Republic of China: A Republic, not a Democracy (Part III)
▪	The Republic of China: A Republic, not a Democracy (Part II)

Comments

January 15, 2009 mtsai16@

Both political systems have deficiencies of their own. I think that an amalgamation of the two systems would be ideal.

January 18, 2009 proudscot@

Looks like a justification for the return of the KMT police state is on its way!

January 19, 2009 twchang2005@

mtsai16@ wrote:
Both political systems have deficiencies of their own. I think that an amalgamation of the two systems would be ideal.

I agree with you. I guess that's one reason why the U.S. has a Republican party and a Democrat Party, lol.

January 19, 2009 taihanasie@

What a terrible editorial. The China Post has not only corrupted the definitions of republic and democracy but also failed to see the relation between the two in modern government and the fact that they are not mutually exclusive.

January 20, 2009 mtsai16@

proudscot@ wrote:
Looks like a justification for the return of the KMT police state is on its way!

A society whose laws do not change to accommodate all the beliefs of its citizens risks social stagnation and will simply encourage underground activities. A society that functions according to the opinion of the majority may seem democratic but often ignores universal logical, thus preventing progress as well.

Democracy [originating from the Greek] means government by the people. Ironically, republic [originating from the Latin] contains the word "public" (or people) and means a government whose supreme power belongs to citizens entitled to vote and whose officials answer to them (according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

In my opinion, no standards are objective since all humans are biased.

January 21, 2009 editor@

taihanasie@ wrote:
What a terrible editorial. The China Post has not only corrupted the definitions of republic and democracy but also failed to see the relation between the two in modern government and the fact that they are not mutually exclusive.

America's Founding Fathers did indeed consider republics and democracies mutually exclusive. That should be abundantly clear from their unequivocal statements on the subject.

Anyone drawing unequivocal distinctions between republics and democracies should lodge a complaint with Franklin, Paine, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Marshall. They are the ones who first drew such sharp distinctions.

Were they right? Yes they were. Any given political system must unavoidably have a highest value. Whatever that highest value might be, it will be the one that trumps all others. It will be what defines the system. By definition one cannot have more than one highest value. Otherwise, how would one resolve conflicts?

Think about it. More than one "highest value" is a contradiction in terms, and can only lead to deadlock. One value must trump all others. There is no simply getting around it. Under a republic, that highest value, that trump card, is the constitution.

Under a democracy that highest value, that trump card, is "public opinion." Needless to say, that democratic value is what causes democracies to destroy themselves. We've just endured nearly two decades of self-destruction on Taiwan. The last eight years has been the worst, precisely because it was the most "democratic."

January 24, 2009 oliver@

That's the true face of Chiang Kai-shek’s KMT: Authoritarian and anti-democratic. As far as I can remember, "founding father" Sun was talking a lot about democracy. After all, it is one of ROC’s Sanmin Zhuyi. This is a horrible editorial, which attempts to discredit the Taiwanese’s fight for democracy and liberties, and at the same time tries to smear American democracy.

February 2, 2009 mtsai16@

oliver@ wrote:
That's the true face of Chiang Kai-shek’s KMT: Authoritarian and anti-democratic. As far as I can remember, "founding father" Sun was talking a lot about democracy. After all, it is one of ROC’s Sanmin Zhuyi. This is a horrible editorial, which attempts to discredit the Taiwanese’s fight for democracy and liberties, and at the same time tries to smear American democracy.

This was a crafty and provocative editorial, to say the least.

February 18, 2009 sebo1@

It's really a good composition for its precise viewpoints. We can seldom see such compositions in the mainland because the PRC will veil any comments against the policies of Party...