I had to explain this to my 12 year old daughter recently. She was being told in school that we are a “representative democracy.” Here’s how I explained the difference:
In a democracy, the democratic will of the people is sovereign. The people can form a majority to pass any law they want.
In our Republic, the Constitution is sovereign. It doesn’t matter if the majority of people want to pass a law that specifically puts a curfew on black people. That law would be unconstitutional and would be struck down. The democratic will of the people cannot override the Constitution. Interestingly, even the method by which the Constitution may be amended is governed by... The Constitution.
We are a Republic in which the Consitution trumps the democratic will of the people.
I had a friend make the same mistake.
I had him recite the first few lines of the “Pledge of Allegiance.”
When he got to the line “And to the Republic, for which it stands...” He (gracefully) conceded the point.
In England, Parliament can pass any they want right? No oversight?
Well said.
This can be tricky when making a point to your daughter but it is incorrect or perhaps incomplete. Under America's Constitution the people are sovereign.
What always made this confusing to me is that the people don't make the laws but they are sovereign because they elect those who do make laws.
I wish I had someone from Hillsdale College to offer a better explanation.
We do have a reprehensive democracy but that is not what makes us a Republic. America's form of government is officially a constitutional federal republic.
Calling America a "constitutional federal Republic with democratically elected representatives" satisfies some liberals.
We are a Republic, which means the majority of the people cannot create or change the law but they can elect a majority that can change and create the law.