The Republic of China: A Republic, not a Democracy, Part III

The Republic of China: A Republic, not a Democracy, Part III
China Post Editorial
Bevin Chu
February 3, 2009

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Bill of Rights, wrote "The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."

James Fenimore Cooper, author of "The Last of the Mohicans," wrote "It is the besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which the masses of men exhibit their tyranny."

Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged," wrote "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities, and the smallest minority on earth is the individual."

Jefferson, Cooper, and Rand understood an essential truth, one that modern "champions of democracy" have clearly forgotten. Numerical superiority is not political legitimacy. Numerical superiority is merely might, not right. Might does not make right. It never has, and never will.

What then, does make right? From where does political legitimacy originate? The answer is it originates in nature. It originates in the sovereign individual's natural right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That right is not subject to veto by a "democratic majority," i.e., a bigger gang.

Let's examine three forms of government: monarchies, democracies, and republics. Ask any contemporary champion of democracy which of these three forms of government differs the most from the others, and he will answer "Why, monarchies, of course." He will be wrong. The correct answer is, republics. Republics differ from monarchies in kind. Democracies differ from monarchies only in degree.

Democracies do not liberate mankind from tyranny. Democracies merely substitute one form of tyranny for another. Democracies merely substitute the tyranny of an elective dictator, who ascends to power with the backing of a powerful gang known as a democratic majority, for the tyranny of a hereditary dictator, who ascends to power with the backing of a powerful gang known as a standing army.

Democracies merely substitute the tyranny of the many for the tyranny of the one. As Thomas Jefferson warned, democracies oppress the individual, abuse their strength, and acting on the law of the jungle, undermine the foundations of civilized society. As James Fenimore Cooper warned, democracies enable the masses of men to exhibit their tyranny by substituting public opinion for law. As Ayn Rand warned, democracies subject individual rights to the public vote, vote away the rights of the minority, and oppress minorities, the smallest of which is the individual.

Among these three forms of government, monarchy, democracy, and republics, only republics differ in kind, and not merely in degree. Only republics differ qualitatively, and not merely quantitatively. Only republics attempt to preclude tyranny altogether, by codifying the rights of the individual in a nation's basic law, its constitution.

Champions of democracy may argue that such clear-cut distinctions between a democracy and a republic are "simplistic," that a nation can be both a democracy and a republic. They are mistaken. A nation cannot be both a democracy and a republic. It must be one or the other. Every political system must have a "final authority." By definition one can never have more than one final authority.

In a republic that final authority is the nation's basic law, its written constitution. In a democracy it is nothing so restrictive. In a democracy that final authority is something considerably more malleable and useful to budding tyrants, the "will of the people," i.e., the whim of the mob. 

Champions of democracy may argue that democracies also have written constitutions. But constitutions in democracies are mere window dressing. They are constantly being rewritten to bring them in accord with "mainstream public opinion." In democracies written constitutions are never the final authority. If they were, they would not be democracies, they would be republics.

Ever since Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian plunged Taiwan into chaos, a parade of pundits have wondered out loud "How could this happen? Wasn't Taiwan on the road to democracy?" The answer is that Taiwan, or rather the "Taiwan region of the Republic of China" has been plunged into chaos precisely because it was on the road to democracy. It has been plunged into chaos because these two Pan Green "champions of democracy" have done everything in their power to subvert a republic, the Republic of China, and turn it into a democracy, a Nation of Taiwan.

Taiwan has been plunged into chaos, because as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court John Marshall observed, the difference between a republic and a democracy is the difference between order and chaos. Taiwan has been plunged into chaos, because as John Adams observed, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. Taiwan has been plunged into chaos, because as James Madison observed, democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, as short in their lives as violent in their death.