It is neither rhetorical nor an exercise in semantics to ask, “What is democracy?” Recently, the word has come to occupy an outsized and frequent presence in our lexicon, most often in the context of something that is in danger of being lost due to the divisive political climate. To be in danger of losing something, by necessity, means it is something currently possessed. Are we as citizens of the United States who live in fear of democracy’s demise, secure in the knowledge that we currently possess it?

The word “democracy” comes from the Greek demokratia, which, in turn, is derived from the two root words demos (people) and kratos (rule). In the 5th century BCE, Greek cities such as Athens engaged in a form of self-rule. Within the context of self-rule, as in a democracy, there must be an agreed upon association of people forming the “citizenry.”[i] Implicit within this agreement to associate is the strong likelihood that within it will develop a ruling class (rulers) and an excluded class (minors), the latter comprised of young children who are incapable of both ruling and participating in the election of rulers, due to their immature age. Before going further, let me propose some additional basic terms along with definitions as an attempt to reach a mutual understanding, to be precise, but without being obsessive.

Citizens- the entire population of an association of people who have chosen to practice or are already under self-rule. Also, the association, the ruled, or the citizenry.

Minors – young citizens who are excluded by age from ruling or electing rulers.

Electorate – citizens who are not minors.

Rulers – a subset of the electorate chosen by the electorate to govern the association on their behalf.

In an attempt to prevent the rise of tyranny and a practical application of “no one is above the law,” we may conclude that the rulers are among the ruled, not apart from them. To be clear, there is no mutual exclusivity between the rulers and the ruled. An electorate that practices democracy as a form of self-rule, must decide what people, if any and in addition to minors, are defined as citizens. If it is not apparent already, this seemingly tautological conundrum will be explained later.

The above definition of democracy does not provide us with any clues about how such self-rule is effectuated nor if there are any limits in regard to the size of the association on its application. As mentioned above, we may correctly infer that it does not allow for every citizen to take part in ruling because common sense dictates that citizens of an immature age who are incapable of understanding and responsibly applying the concepts of governance would be excluded. It follows then that a democracy, in its most rudimentary, direct, and pure form, is a representative form of governance. Notwithstanding that only a subset of citizens take part in governance, I shall for the time being, still refer to self-governance as democracy.

At best, the ratio of rulers to ruled can only be as high as one, as defined by an association of people who all have a role in governing. With the introduction of minors, this ratio begins to decrease. The introduction of other citizens who are not included in the electorate further decreases the ratio. As the ruler to ruled ratio decreases further from parity, at what point does self-governance become something other than democracy?

It is clearly implied that in a democracy, the electorate agrees to be ruled by representatives chosen by and from among them. If in addition to those who voluntarily choose to be ruled by representatives, there is a group of citizens on whom an involuntary demand is placed to be ruled, what effect does this have on the democratic principle of self-rule? A family is the simplest method to illustrate this effect.

A late mid-18th century American family comprised of only two adults would include 2 (100%) rulers and 2 (100%) ruled—democratic parity. If this same family of two adults had one young child it would then include 2 (67%) rulers and 3 (100%) ruled. However, the child has no say about his inclusion in the class of the ruled; he is born into it. The resulting effect is that the ruling class gets compressed—concentrated—as the number of involuntarily ruled citizens expands. To further illustrate using the same hypothetical family, let’s assume they have five additional children all of whom are of minor age. There are still only 2 rulers but now 8 ruled, continuing the principle of self-rule that includes the rulers. The percentage of rulers becomes more concentrated at 25% (2 of 8) as the ruler to ruled ratio continues to decrease further from parity. If one of the parents were to expire, the number of rulers in the family would decrease to 1, changing the ruler to ruled ratio to 1 of 7 or 14.3%. Mathematically, a decrease in the numerator or increase in the denominator pushes self-rule further from the ideal, however impractical, of parity.

In the illustration above, my choice of a late 18th century family was not by accident. In a more apt example and application of this effect, when the founders framed the Constitution in 1787–1788, they clearly had no intention of including children, women, or African slaves in the electorate, but certainly as belonging to the ruled or citizenry. In states where the African slave population was nearly as great as the white (e.g. Virginia), the rulers and ruled were nearly equal. Does an association in which nearly half of its population who otherwise meet the definition of belonging to the electorate, except for their gender or race, and who are involuntarily categorized as belonging to the ruled, still meet the definition of a democracy? When a subset of the population in a supposedly democratic association is purposefully and arbitrarily excluded from enjoying the benefits of democracy, the tautology described above is resolved.

It was made clear in the Constitution itself that the founders were not interested in creating a democracy. In fact, to many of them democracy was anathema to their financial goals. “The evils we experience flow from of an excess of democracy,” exclaimed founder Elbridge Gerry while debating how best to force the states to collect and remit taxes. This raises the question: Why did the framers of the Constitution write in its preamble, “We the people” instead of “We, the property owning, white males,” when the latter was clearly their intent?

Despite the frequent lamentation and angst among many Americans today, are we really in jeopardy of losing our democracy?

[i] Britannica editors, “democracy,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy.