Another term, often used as synonymous with democracy, is popular government. Strictly speaking, however, this latter term should be employed not to designate any distinct form of political organization, but to describe any government the actual administration of which is to a considerable degree subject to the con trol of the people. A popular government is thus, in effect, a free government and as such is properly to be contrasted with a despotic gov ernment in which the will of the ruler or rulers and not that of the ruled controls. It is in this sense that we speak of the movement toward popular government as having made great strides in England and elsewhere during the last 75 years, though monarchical forms have still been retained.
Constitutional So closely connected with the advance of popular gov ernment, as to be almost identified with it, has been the development during the last century of constitutional government. Those general principles, written or unwritten, that determined the governmental organization of a state and fix the legal competence of its several organs and officials, taken collectively, are termed its constitution. In this sense every state has a constitution, and its government may be spoken of as constitutional. But in its stricter and more usual sense, a constitutional government is one in which the principles de termining its specific character, and the extent and mode of exercise of its powers, are defi nitely determined, and, in general, reduced to precise written statement, and embodied in an i instrument or instruments which are not sub ject to abrogation or amendment except ac cording to certain specified formalities. By this means • not only are definiteness of au thority, and responsibility of those in power secured, but guaranties provided that existing political liberties shall not be changed except under conditions which usually include a popu lar assent directly or indirectly given. The value of constitutional government is thus usually but not necessarily that in it the exer cise or the direct control of sovereignty is placed in the hands of the people. Its essen tial feature is that the manner in which the sovereign power is to be exercised by the state is definitely determined. A constitutional government may, therefore, both in form and effect, be but slightly popular in character. In fine, then, the difference between a constitu tional and a popular government is that in the former the attempt is made to render the citizens secure against arbitrary action on the part of their rulers; in the latter, means exist for discovering and enforcing the wishes of the governed. The progress of popular gov ernment and of constitutional government has almost always gone hand in hand, for the reason that it is but natural that, once estab lished in the effective control of their states, the citizen bodies should have sought to ren der their power secure by the adoption of in struments of government that might not be altered except under certain prescribed con ditions.
The truest tests of the excellence of all governments are the facilities they afford for the formation of an enlightened opinion of the people upon matters of political importance and the precise ascertainment of that "general will when formed, and the exactness with which the policies it dictates are carried out in practise. The development of popular con stitutional governments means that these re sults are being achieved to an increasing ex tent. As Prof. Lester F. Ward has said: "Government is becoming more and more the organ of social consciousness, and more and more the servant of the social will. Our Dec laration of Independence, which recites that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, has already been out grown. It is no longer the consent, but the positively known will of the governed, from winch government now derives its powers.° A characteristic feature of almost all con stitutional governments is the existence of a system of what has been called °checks and balances.° According to this system the sev eral functions of political rule are so distrib uted among different organs of government that no one of them is given sufficient power to assume an autocratic, despotic control of the state. Thus, in general, the making, the interpreting and the enforcing of laws are placed in different hands. The executive is thus unable to take legal action without the authorization of the legislature, and the acts of both the legislature and executive are sub ject to review in the courts. Furthermore, the legislative body is usually divided into two chambers, the approval of both, together with that of the chief executive, being required for a valid act of legislation; executive officials are often elected for but short terms of office, and in case of nonfeasance or malfeasance of office are subject to impeachment and sum mary removal from office, and subject to civil and criminal suit for any illegal conduct while in office. In the United States of America the most powerful check of all consists in the fact that the courts have the power of declar ing void all legislative acts inconsistent with the provisions of the written constitutions of the United States and of its constituent com monwealths. In those European states which possess written constitutions the courts have not this power, the legislatures being construed to be the judges as to the constitutionality of their own acts.