Study 4th: Making the Fourth of July a Real Democratic Experience

I never understood why one does not see intense community activism on or around July 4th every year. Conceptually, the day lends itself to democratic activism. ON July 4, 1776, the Congress of 13 American British Colonies of the British Crown declared their independence from that Empire. However, thinking about July 4th as an anniversary of a mere legislative enactment misses the point. During the 20th century, many colonial governments separated from their European Colonizers. However, thinking about July 4th as merely the first of many peoples to separate from the requirement to obey a distant power also distorts the experience that July 4th can and should represent. In an earlier essay published to this blog on November 2, 2008 entitled “Getting at the Origin of Civic Health.” I attempted to describe the social contract envisioned by the Declaration of Independence. Prior to the Declaration, however, Thomas Paine published a pamphlet entitled Common Sense. In it, he presents to the public an argument in favor of separation from Great Britain. Historians believe that this pamphlet had a huge impact encouraging Americans to favor independence from over reconciliation with Britain. It is crucially important to recognize the similarities in the arguments presented in the pamphlet and those presented in the Declaration. Similarities between the arguments used to encourage citizens of the Colonies to support separation from the British Crown with those used to formally advocate on the world stage is highly probative of the true motives of the movement itself. The Declaration describes the purpose of government as securing the citizens’ “unalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” Common Sense, in its introduction, describes “security [as] being the true design and end of government.” For Paine, government is “…rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government viz, be freedom and security.” Paine is concerned with the nature and role of government. He envisions the formation of a democratic republic. He advocates strongly against the notion that a monarchy, even a constitutional monarchy, could be relied on to provide for the rights to humankind. For Paine, the primary problem with monarchy is that it places decision-making in a person shut from the world—at least during the time holding office, thus unable to truly experience the needs of the people. The Declaration of Independence does not attack monarchy in principle, but attacks the British monarch. The Declaration discusses “consent of the governed” as being an essential element of proper governance, but that the proper structure is a democratic republic is not self evident from the Declaration document. In “Getting at the Origin of Civic Health,” I argue that the Declaration had a participatory democracy in mind when Jefferson wrote that it is the inherent right of the people to alter or abolish their government, and this can only happen in a participatory democracy. I point out 20 rights that can be secured only through a participatory democratic regime. That said, it must be admitted that although it is difficult to imagine in reality, one could conceptualize a non-democratic society meeting the standards identified in the Declaration of Independence. Looking at the Declaration in the context of Thomas Paine’s writing, however, we should have no more doubt that the founders envisioned a participatory democracy when conceiving of their independence from Britain. First, Thomas Paine goes through efforts to show how Scripture itself opposes monarchial government in principle, identifying monarchy as one of the sins of the Biblical Jews. Then, Thomas Paine describes the evils of hereditary succession. Paine then proceeds to glorify the republican form of government, including the aspects of English government that is republican in nature, the concept of a representative legislature chosen from among the people. Paine goes so far as to suggest that legislation should not be allowed to pass without 3/5 of the members of the legislature. Paine’s argument additionally describes a nation with diverse religious perspectives. In short, his text is not only an argument in favor of separation from the British Crown, but an argument in favor of establishing a democratic republic in its place. The Fourth of July is therefore a memory of democratic activism. Thomas Paine and the Declaration describe the inherent right of all peoples to establish free governments that provide for freedom and security. However, the Fourth of July is also a memory of the experience of seeking government structural change not merely by power, but by advocacy. Although the audience of the Declaration of Independence were powerful people in other nations, the audience of Common Sense was the common man in America. Common Sense was not merely an invitation to take up arms against Britain, which could have been done with the elements of Common Sense and the Declaration that involves identifying wrongdoings of the British Crown, but an invitation to participate in the soon-to-be democratic republic. Common Sense did not merely ask its readers to trust their predefined leaders, but invited its readers to envision and advocate for a participatory democracy where they would be represented. Thus, true celebrations of the Fourth of July should involve discussions of democratic institutions, and the advocacy of their protections and growth.