In the Federalist 10, James Madison attempts to answer the question: how will the new Constitution protect the liberty of citizens against the tyranny of the majority? The framers of the Constitution were emphatically against a pure democracy, because in this case, in a pure democracy, the majority will always win out against the minority, and consequently, there is no protection for the minority’s views. Madison warns about the dangers of factions by saying, “among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of factions”. Fractions are such a threat to liberty that Madison uses the word “violence” to describe their actions. He defines faction as “… a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”. In other words, a faction is a group of citizens whose desire is to dominate the government so that they may impose their own interests on the whole society.
James Madison proposes two solutions to the danger of factions: “the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects”. His first proposal to stop factions from forming was a terrible idea because it would necessarily destroy liberty. To destroy liberty in the service of controlling factions is worse than having factions in the first place. The other way to remove the causes of factions is to make sure that every citizen has the same opinion on everything, but we know this is not possible. “As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed”. His second proposal to control the effects of factions is only possible through a republican government, as opposed to a pure democracy. The effectiveness of the republic in controlling factions depends on the size and diversity of the nation. As the nation grows in population, a greater variety of ideologies and interests begin to take shape, making it less likely for a majority to have a common interest that would drive them to discover their power and work together to impose their interests on the rest. The influence of that is plain: “the influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular states but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other states”. Certainly, Madison’s first approach would undermine the purpose of the new republic. On the other hand, his second approach provides a sound solution to the danger factions represent. As more people are added to the nation, more and more factions will necessarily form, and that has two effects. First, the power of the factions will be diluted by the large population; and second, because they are all in competition with one another, they will be forced to compromise their interests to pass legislation that considers the common good of society and not merely the interests of one group. Does solving the problem of factions with countless voices and opinions bring up new problems? Can the lack of compromise or inability to identify a middle ground among the numerous opinions and ideas halt the progress of our nation?
This blog post is part of the CIMA Law Group blog. If you are located in Arizona and are seeking legal services, CIMA Law Group specializes in Immigration Law, Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, and Government Relations.
CIMA Law Group Blog 