What Would Madison Say

.
James Madison has long argued that the causes of faction cannot be removed from a system of governance that values liberty. He believed that removing the causes of faction can only be achieved by either destroying liberty or normalizing passions, opinions, and interests among the governed. However, he points out that the former is simply incompatible with the values of the republic, thus, impractical, and the latter would be unwise, if not grotesquely naive. Madison’s chief preoccupation had to do with the dangers that a majority-led faction pose to the preservation of public good and private rights. In Federalist 10, he explains that there are two means of securing public good and private rights: (1) preventing the existence of the same passion and interest in a majority at the same time, or (2) dispersing and fragmenting the passions or interests of the majority so that they are unable to coalesce into an effective force of oppression.

In Federalist 51, Madison argues that the structure of the federal government in the republican union of the United States should be firmly based on two uncompromising principles: (1) Separation of powers; and (2) Checks and balances. He calls for separate government entities with independent powers that are effectively balanced within a system-wide structure and explains that institutional fragmentation is essential to ensuring government accountability. He argues that only by pitting different entities against each other and arming them with constitutional remedies that ensure their independence from each other, that the power surrendered by the people be properly used. In fact, he writes that since men are not angels, “ambition must counteract ambition” in order for the government to control itself while controlling the governed.

In simple terms, James Madison offers institutionalized fragmentation as an antidote to the tyranny of the majority and the dangers of faction. To questions like "what should be the official religion of the republic" or "what should be the dominant political philosophy of the nation", he answers that a sustainable republic calls for as many interest groups, religious affiliations, political currents, and social orientations as possible for he believes that only amidst such diversity, that the interests of all society can be justly protected. As to the inefficiencies and complexity that the republican remedy to popular government holds, Madison counters by stating that the intended outcome is the prevention of an oppressive will that may “execute and mask its violence under the forms of the constitution.”

The proposal to amend the federal constitution in order to ban gay marriage, today, warrants a re-reading of the logic embodied in the U.S. constitution; a brilliant document written by some of the most brilliant politicians in history. A reconsideration of the Farmers’ intent is in order because this has ‘tyranny of the majority’ and ‘dangers of faction’ written all over it. Madison writes that the republic must “guard the society against the oppression of its rulers”, as well as “guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part.” So it is thanks to the intellectual brilliance of the founding fathers that such an amendment at the national level would be extremely difficult to succeed. It is thanks to: the built-in complexity of the legislative system especially when it comes to securing the passage of constitutional amendments; the principle of a nationally-distributed majority; the sovereign rights of states; and the separation of powers; that the wishes of a simple majority can not reverse the clock on minority rights in this great republic.

See Also:

• Does Party Chairmanship Matter in the U.S.?

.