The establishment of an aristocratic republic in America in the closing years of the 18th century marked an important advance in the development of democracy. While American society and politics at the beginning of our national history abounded in undemocratic features, the new state had been founded on revolution from established authority; and it was one of the first examples in history of an extensive federal republic and of a government organized on the basis of a written constitu tion formulated by a national constituent con vention. It, therefore, stimulated the growth of constitutionalism and republicanism else where, most notably in France, apd it laid the foundation for what became in the 19th century the most ambitious experiment which has yet been conducted in the democratic control of political institutions. In America, as in Eng land and France, the revolutionary movement was organized by the middle class made up of merchants and the professional classes.
In the period between 1500 and 1800 many notable advances were made toward the de velopment of democratic tendencies in political theory. The most significant and influential of these was the doctrine of a social contract as the explanation of the origin and justification of social institutions and political organization. This doctrine, as distinguished from the earlier theory of a governmental contract, was first enunciated by diEneas Sylvius in the middle of the 15th century, but it did not become an im portant dogma in political theory until it was expressed by the English churchman, Hooker, and the German jurist, Althusius, at the opening of the 17th century. It received a systematic exposition in a number of classical works, par ticularly those of Hobbes, Pufendorf, Spinoza, Sydney, Locke, Rousseau, Kant and Fichte. It was not necessarily a democratic doctrine and it was used by some of its adherents, most notably by Hobbes, to defend royal absolutism. In the hands of Locke and his plagiarist, Rous seau, however, it worked strongly for the de struction of the obscurantic and autocratic divine right theory and provided a theoretical justification for altering the existing political order when it had become subversive of the terms of the original contract. In other words, it provided a doctrinal foundation for political revolutions and it was used to inspire and justify the great revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries in England, France and America. This revolutionary version of the social contract theory powerfully stimulated the development of the doctrine of popular sovereignty. Another important contribution was the doctrine that "life, liberty and are the natural and inherent rights of all men. This theory, first stated by Fortescue at the close of the 15th century, was again enunciated by the Levellers in the middle of the 17th century and was given a permanent position in political theory through the influence of John Locke. It was widely at
variance with the contemporary social and eco nomic oppression and arbitrary government and it was highly influential in combatting these conditions, especially when these "rights') be came a part of the program of the radical party in the various countries. In addition to their early formulation of the doctrine of natural rights, the Levellers made another significant contribution to the general body of democratic political theory, namely, the doctrine that every citizen should be accorded the right of par ticipating in political activity through the exer cise of the suffrage. Another important doc trine making for democracy in politics was that which was most vigorously expounded by Locke, namely, the legal supremacy of the legis lative or popular branch of the government. The importance of this doctrine appears when one reflects that without the predominant power of the elective or popular branch of the govern ment which makes it possible for the repre sentatives of the people to control the policies of the state, the fact that the people have the right of universal suffrage and the election of representatives does not ensure a democratic control of public policy. The impotence of the German Reichstag and the autocratic nature of the German imperial government, in spite of universal suffrage, is the most striking modern demonstration of the fact that without a power ful legislature all the other incidents of democ racy may be vain and empty forms. Finally, the Utopian socialistic schemes of such writers as More, Bacon, Campanella and the pre revolutionary socialists in France made provi sion for the introduction of some degree of social democracy. It is most significant, how ever, that during this entire period there was no systematic analysis of the meaning and im plications of democracy, nor, with the doubtful exception of Mably in France, Tom Paine in England and Jefferson in America, was there any important defense of democracy as the ideal form of government. Most of the radicals regarded a constitutional monarchy or, at the most, an aristocratic republic as the ideal form of government. Montesquieu and Rousseau, for example, both held that a democracy would only be tolerable in a very small state and could never be successful in an extensive country. In short, all of the theories of the period which have been briefly summarized above were rather fragmentary contributions which might later be utilized in a systematic analysis and defense of democracy than anything which could be regarded as comprehensive and thorough-going discussions of the nature and validity of democracy itself.