Newer Institutions of Democracy

The framers of the Constitution builded better than they perhaps realized.
They provided for a nice balance of power between the States and the Federal Government and between the various branches of government.
In the Senate they established a check upon the passion of the popular will.
By the device of representation and delegated power through the ballot box, they made it possible for the Republic to expand from thirteen original Colonies to a great Nation that spans the continent.
These provisions and safeguards have stood the test of time.
They have shown qualities of stability and flexibility sufficient to combine national continuity with progress.

Compare with this great work of the Founding Fathers some of the new inventions of democracy and note which are the better.
There is the direct primary, for example, established to correct some of the abuses of the old convention system.
The direct primary has not worked as well as was hoped.

Admittedly, it has resulted in unduly increasing the number of aspirants for public office and in lowering their quality.
It has greatly increased the expense involved in securing office.
It has not increased the number of voters who participate in elections.
It falls lamentably short of most of the institutions set up by the Founding Fathers.

Then there are, prominent among the new institutions of democracy, the recall and initiative.
Their effect has been to increase the number of public officials elected by popular vote.
The recall particularly has operated against efficient and courageous leadership upon the part of public officials.
The initiative and recall have tended to break down the important distinction between constitutional and statutory law.
They have not increased the number of the active electorate nor their interest in public affairs.

The newer institutions of democracy do not stand comparison with the older ones established by the Founding Fathers.
Have modern Americans, then, lost their inventive faculty as applied to government?
It would be going too far to say this, although it seems to be true that ingenuity and ability are directed more to commercial aims and to public purposes than they were in the days of Constitution-making.

Has it not also become evident that the introduction of supposedly democratic devices, such as the wider extension of the suffrage, frequent elections, numerous elective officers, and greater popular control, gives only the shell and husk of democracy and not its real substance?
They have placed too great a necessity for knowledge upon the average voter and have curtailed and penalized the independence and courage of representatives.

The most serious mistake made in formulating the modern institutions of democracy as compared to its older institutions seems to have been in trying to answer the demand for haste and directness in legislation.
The ends of government cannot always be best achieved by direct attack.
If laws and institutions are to stand, they cannot be produced in haste or in passion, as the Fathers of the Republic seem to have understood better than modern Americans.