T HE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION THURSDAY, AUGUST 29, 2019| 11
Spend enough time talking politics on
the internet — or in any other public
forum — and you’ll run into this stand-
ard reply to anyone who wants more
democracy in American government:
“We’re a republic, not a democracy.”
You saw it over the weekend, in an
exchange between Representatives
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York
and Dan Crenshaw of Texas. In a brief
series of tweets, Ocasio-Cortez made
the case against the Electoral College
and argued for a national popular vote
to choose the president.
“Every vote should be = in America,
no matter who you are or where you
come from,” she wrote. “The right
thing to do is establish a Popular Vote.
& GOP will do everything they can to
fight it.”
Crenshaw, who has sparred with
Ocasio-Cortez before, jumped in with a
response: “Abolishing the Electoral
College means that politicians will only
campaign in (and listen to) urban
areas. That is not a representative
democracy.” And then he said it: “We
live in a republic, which means 51% of
the population doesn’t get to boss
around the other 49%.”
Crenshaw is wrong on the impact of
ending the Electoral College. A presi-
dential candidate who focused only on
America’s cities and urban centers
would lose — there just aren’t enough
votes. Republicans live in cities just as
Democrats live in rural areas. Under a
popular vote, candidates would still
have to build national coalitions across
demographic and geographic lines.
The difference is that those coalitions
would involve every region of the
country instead of a handful of compet-
itive states in the Rust Belt and parts
of the South.
But the crux of Crenshaw’s argu-
ment is his second point. “We live in a
republic.” He doesn’t say “not a democ-
racy,” but it’s implied by the next
clause, where he rejects majority rule
— “51% of the population doesn’t get to
boss around the other 49%.”You can fill in the blanks of the argu-
ment from there. The Founding Fa-
thers built a government to stymie the
“tyranny of the majority.” They con-
trasted their “republic” with “democra-
cy,” which they condemned as danger-
ous and unstable. As John Adams
wrote in an 1814 letter to the Virginia
politician John Taylor: “Democracy
never lasts long. It soon wastes, ex-
hausts and murders itself. There never
was a Democracy Yet, that did not
commit suicide.”
But there’s a problem. For the
founders, “democracy” did not mean
majority rule in a system of represen-
tation. The men who led the revolution
and devised the Constitution were
immersed in classical literature and
political theory. Ancient Greece, in
particular, was a cautionary tale. When
James Madison critiqued “democracy”
in Federalist No. 10, he meant the
Athenian sort: “a society consisting of
a small number of citizens, who assem-
ble and administer the government in
person.” This he
contrasted with a
“republic” or “a
government in which
the scheme of repre-
sentation takes
place.” Likewise, in a
1788 speech to the
New York ratifica-
tion convention,
Alexander Hamilton
disavowed “the
ancient democracies
in which the people
themselves deliber-
ated.” They “never possessed one good
feature of government,” he said. “Their
very character was tyranny; their
figure deformity.”
In more modern terms, the founders
feared “direct democracy” and ac-
counted for its dangers with a system
of “representative democracy.” Yes,
this “republic” had counter-majoritar-
ian aspects, like equal representation
of states in the Senate, the presidential
veto and the Supreme Court. But it was
not designed for minority rule.
Virtually everything was geared
toward producing representative ma-
jorities that could govern on behalf of
the country — to diminish “faction” in
favor of consensus. And in the case of
the Electoral College, the point wasn’t
to stymie majorities but to provide a
way to find a competent and popular
chief executive in a large nation of
parochial states.It’s worth asking where this quip —
“we’re a republic, not a democracy” —
even came from. Nicole Hemmer, a
historian of American politics and the
author of “Messengers of the Right:
Conservative Media and the Transfor-
mation of American Politics,” traces it
to the 1930s and 40s. “When Franklin
Roosevelt made defending democracy
a core component of his argument for
preparing for, and then intervening in,
the war in Europe, opponents of U.S.
intervention began to push back by
arguing that the U.S. was not, in fact, a
democracy,” she wrote in an email.
One Roosevelt opponent, for exam-
ple — Boake Carter, a newspaper
columnist who supported the America
First Committee (which opposed
American entry into World War II) —
wrote a column in October 1940 called
“A Republic Not a Democracy,” in
which he strongly rebuked the presi-
dent for using the word “democracy”
to describe the country. “The United
States was never a democracy, isn’t a
democracy, and I hope it will never be
a democracy,” Carter wrote.
The term went from conservative
complaint to right-wing slogan in the
1960s, when Robert Welch, the founder
of the John Birch Society, used it in a
September 1961 speech, “Republics
and Democracies.” In a democracy,
Welch protested, “there is a centraliza-
tion of governmental power in a simple
majority. And that, visibly, is the sys-
tem of government which the enemies
of our republic are seeking to impose
on us today.”
“This is a Republic, not a Democra-
cy,” Welch said in conclusion, “Let’s
keep it that way!”
These origins are important. If
there’s substance behind “We’re a
republic, not a democracy,” it’s not as a
description of American government.
There’s really no difference, in the
present, between a “republic” and a
“democracy”: Both connote systems of
representation in which sovereignty
and authority derive from the public at
large.
The point of the slogan isn’t to de-
scribe who we are, but to claim and
co-opt the founding for right-wing
politics — to naturalize political in-
equality and make it the proper order
of things. What lies behind that quip, in
other words, is an impulse against
democratic representation. It is part
and parcel of the drive to make Ameri-
can government a closed domain for a
select, privileged few.Who knows U.S. democracy best?
Jamelle Bouie
The idea that
proponents
of greater
electoral
equity have
to quiet down
because we
live in a
‘republic’
is absurd.
In 2007, Thalitha Mukansi moved to
Diepsloot, an informal township on the
northern fringes of Johannesburg. She
was a social worker who settled in the
region because it was what she could
afford, and she liked working with, and
helping, victims of assault.
But outside Ms. Mukansi’s window,
assaults and rapes were common —
sometimes even daily, she said. She
tried to tune out the constant violence,
but she didn’t know how she could
possibly do that. “The things I was
seeing in front of me — it feels like being
helpless,” she said.
Diepsloot, established in 1995, is
home to approximately 138,000 predom-
inantly poor African migrants. The
transient environment, poor economy
and lack of jobs have made it one of the
most violent settlements in South Afri-
ca’s Gauteng province. Close to 2,
violent crimes, such as murder or vio-
lent assaults, were reported to the police
between 2017 and 2018. Sex crimes are
particularly common. In 2016, more
than half the men surveyed in the town-
ship admitted to raping or assaulting
women. Last year, Diepsloot ranked
17th in South Africa for reported at-
tempted sexual offenses and 28th for
rape, according to crime statistics from
the South African Police Service.
These crimes, of course, aren’t unique
to Diepsloot, and neither is the lack of
punishment. A 2017 study found that
since 2003 only 6 percent of reported
rapes and assaults across South Africa
ended up in a conviction.
But the situation is particularly bad in
Diepsloot. Of 500 sexual assault cases
there between 2013 and 2015, only one
ended in a conviction. Anti-violence
advocates say it has come to the point
where they have had a hard time per-
suading the police or prosecutors to
take up cases.
Part of the problem is financial. Until
recently, Diepsloot’s police department
staff was only part-time and could
rarely enforce protective orders if of-
fenders violated them, said Shayda
Vance, an American human rights
lawyer in Washington who used to work
with sexual assault victims in Diepsloot.
“Johannesburg has one of the most
progressive constitutions in the world
when it comes to women’s rights, but
there’s nothing being done to make sure
any of those laws are enforced,” said
Faith Pienaar, a fellow at the Account-
ability Lab, a political justice advocacy
group in Johannesburg. “There is no
agency for women to actually see justice
for crimes committed against them.”
But Lawyers Against Abuse, a local
organization that set up shop in the
region five years ago, is now challeng-
ing the authorities to take sex crimes
seriously by providing survivors with
lawyers and paralegals who work as
victim advocates. Those legal services
are then paired with counseling and
therapies that help women to see their
cases through to the end of a trial.
These legal specialists in victims’
rights are separate from prosecutors.
They have typically been available only
to those who can afford a private attor-
ney. The counselors provide legal guid-
ance, help file for protective orders
against an alleged abuser and work as a
support system for victims who have to
go through a trial, which can sometimes
take years to finish.
The idea is similar to what the United
States military offers with victims’ legal
counselors, who are specialized lawyers
who can argue in court on behalf of
military survivors of sexual assault.
When assault survivors in the United
States who had used victims’ rights
lawyers were surveyed, they attached a
much higher value to their experience
in court than they
would have if they
hadn’t had a lawyer,
according to a 2006
RAND study. Re-
search also showed
that a victim who
has legal represen-
tation tends to view
the outcome of her
case more favor-
ably, even if the
accused wasn’t
found guilty.
“There is a fundamental difference of
what is in the government’s interest and
the victim’s interest in criminal cases,”
said Ryan Guilds, a victims’ legal coun-
selor who represents assault victims in
the American military justice system.
Mr. Guilds said crime victims often
consider state prosecutors as their
personal lawyers, but “a prosecutor is
an independent entity, who while inter-
ested in the rights of the victim, ulti-
mately has a different obligation to
society.”
When Lindsay Henson started to
work for Lawyers Against Abuse in 2014
as its executive director, she and her
team surveyed residents of Diepsloot
and found that anecdotally, there were
deep divides between the residents and
how they viewed the criminal justice
system. “We saw mistrust with police,
particularly with domestic violence
victims, who were told their problem
was a family problem,” she said. “We
had one client who police told her that it
wasn’t ‘the African way’ to deal with
problems like this.”
The lawyers provided to victims in
Diepsloot may not directly represent
clients in the same way that the Ameri-
can military’s victims’ legal counselors
do (they can’t stand up in court and
object to a judge), but they do act as
victims’ advocates. They guide their
clients from reporting the crime to theend of the trial and also challenge,
through formal complaints, decisions
made by the police or prosecutors if a
legal process is done incorrectly.
For example, women who come
forward with a rape allegation are sup-
posed to have a female officer handle
their complaint. If the police don’t pro-
vide one, or if she asks for one and the
police refuse, Lawyers Against Abuse
would file complaints to the police de-
partment’s top brass until the victim
was given a female officer. The job, Ms.
Henson said, is primarily keeping the
police and prosecutors accountable.
As of this year, Lawyers Against
Abuse has provided legal assistance to
more than 800 women, with 68 cases
currently in trial. Since the program
started, it has helped survivors secure
28 convictions.
But reports of sexual assault in Diep-
sloot are now increasing, according to
the South African Police Services. And
that’s a good thing, said Bandile Seleme,
a resident therapist at Lawyers Against
Abuse. “From my perspective, the
increase in assaults and rapes being
reported may look bad, but I think it
actually tells a different story of how
effective we’re being with getting wom-
en to come forward,” she said.
After a woman reports a rape, there is
a high likelihood that the police — or
even the victim herself — might drop
the case. A 2017 report published by the
South African Medical Research Coun-
cil found that most rape cases were
dropped before an arrest was even
made. And even if cases do get to trial, it
could be years from when the rape was
reported. That process takes a toll on
survivors, who often drop their cases.
To combat this attrition, Lawyers
Against Abuse takes a unique approach.
It bolsters legal support with therapy,
such as drama classes, which helps
build confidence and self-esteem.
In 2017, a 16-year-old who was re-
ferred to the organization had such a
hard time testifying on the stand that
she lost consciousness. She was given a
drama therapist, who gave her the tools
to combat her anxiety when she took the
stand, such as breathing techniques and
coping mechanisms. When she took the
stand to testify against the person she
accused of raping her, she did it without
blacking out.
Combining both legal victim advoca-
cy and therapy, Ms. Henson, the execu-
tive director of Lawyers Against Abuse,
said that the program is helping to give
women more agency in coming forward
and staying with their case.
“The therapy is not just for the holis-
tic wellness of our clients, which is
critical,” she said. “We believe it leads to
a better justice system.”JOSEPH DARIUS JAAFARIis a documentary
filmmaker and a 2019 fellow at the
Marshall Project, a nonprofit news site
that reports on criminal justice.Joseph Darius Jaafari
Thalitha Mukansi, left, with coworkers at the Lawyers Against Abuse office in Diepsloot, near Johannesburg, South Africa.
JOAO SILVA/THE NEW YORK TIMESA call to punish rapists
In South Africa
between 2006
and 2017, only
6 percent of
reported cases
of rape and
sexual assault
ended in a
conviction.opinion
manity, and they hold more than $1. 1
trillion in U.S. Treasury bills, notes and
bonds, which is 27 percent of all the U.S.
government debt held by foreign coun-
tries, and they’re pretty good at making
stuff.
For instance, it takes about 22 hours
on Amtrak to go by train from New York
to Chicago. Beijing to Shanghai is about
the same distance, and it takes China’s
bullet train 4.5 hours to make that trip.
That’s not a typo. And it partly explains
why a lot of Chinese officials look at
America today as a dysfunctional mess
that elected a crazy man as president
and that can’t build anything big and
hard anymore because it can’t act to-
gether.
Also, while I respect the comprehen-
sive approach Trump’s actual trade
negotiators took in these talks — they
wanted China to enact laws and regula-
tions that would outlaw stealing of
intellectual property, forced technology
transfers, certain government subsi-
dies, and to create a U.S.-China mecha-
nism to verify compliance — it might
have been too much change all at once
for the Chinese system. That’s not an
excuse for Beijing. It’s just a fact.
Xi seems to be saying that he can’t
write into Chinese law the market-
opening, verification and transparency
regulations that Trump demands —
even though they would enhance Chi-
na’s own needed economic reform
process — because Xi would appear to
be conceding to the demands of foreign-
ers and because it would constrict the
Communist Party’s arbitrary powers.
What Trump also underestimated is
that we don’t just have a trade access
problem with China today, we also have
a trust shortage problem. When all we
bought from China were toys and T-
shirts and cheap electronics, we did not
care if they were communists, capital-
ists, authoritarians or vegetarians. But
now that China wants to sell us many of
the same high-tech products that
America and Europe make — from 5G
infrastructure to cellphones to ad-
vanced electronics — products that get
deeply embedded in our society and
can be dual use (civilian and military),
we need a whole new level of trust
between our societies. That will take
time to build.
Xi, for his part, completely misreadhow much Republicans, Democrats and
the broad U.S. business community are
behind Trump’s unwillingness to toler-
ate China’s trade abuses any longer —
not when China wants to make and
export all the same products that we do.
If Xi thinks Americans will continue to
tolerate the status quo in U.S.-China
trade, he is badly mistaken.
So for all of these reasons it’s best to
go right now for a truce and a period of
confidence-building, during which
China proves that it really will open up
— if it can do so in its own way without
embarrassment — and Trump proves to
China that all he wants are results he
can brag about — not a revolution in
Beijing.
If Trump and Xi can forge a bigger
deal right now, God bless them. I’ll tip
my cap. But everything I see today tells
me that we should just focus on better.
I’d be happy making some real trade
progress now, lowering the temperature
so we can have a more rational, long-
term discussion about rules and avoid-
ing a new Cold War with China that will
destabilize the whole globalization
system — a system that’s also not per-
fect but, boy, you will miss it if it’s gone.Both Trump and Xi can win this war
F RIEDMAN, FROM PAGE 1
Order the International Edition today at
nytimes.com/discover
In unpredictable times, you need journalism that cuts through
the noise to deliver the facts. A subscription to The New York
Times International Edition gives you uncompromising reporting
that deepens your understanding of the issues that matter,and includes unlimited access to NYTimes.com and apps for
smartphone and tablet.Newspaper subscription offer:
Save 66% for three months.
Whatever happens
next, we’ll help you
make sense of it.
Offer expires December 31, 2019 and is valid for new subscribers only. This offer is not available in all markets and hand
delivery is subject to confirmation by local distributors. Smartphone and tablet apps are not supported on all devices.RELEASED BY "What's News" vk.com/wsnws TELEGRAM: t.me/whatsnws
RELEASED
sive approach Trump’s actual trade
RELEASED
sive approach Trump’s actual trade
negotiators took in these talks — they
RELEASED
negotiators took in these talks — they
wanted China to enact laws and regula-
RELEASED
wanted China to enact laws and regula-
tions that would outlaw stealing of
RELEASED
tions that would outlaw stealing of
intellectual property, forced technology
RELEASED
intellectual property, forced technology
transfers, certain government subsi-transfers, certain government subsi-RELEASED
BY
Also, while I respect the comprehen-
BYAlso, while I respect the comprehen-
sive approach Trump’s actual tradesive approach Trump’s actual tradeBY
"What's
dies, and to create a U.S.-China mecha-
"What's
dies, and to create a U.S.-China mecha-
nism to verify compliance — it might
"What's
nism to verify compliance — it might
have been too much change all at once
"What's
have been too much change all at once
for the Chinese system. That’s not anfor the Chinese system. That’s not an"What's
News"
tions that would outlaw stealing of
News"
tions that would outlaw stealing of
intellectual property, forced technology
News"
intellectual property, forced technology
transfers, certain government subsi-
News"
transfers, certain government subsi-
dies, and to create a U.S.-China mecha-dies, and to create a U.S.-China mecha-News"
vk.com/wsnws
hard anymore because it can’t act to-
vk.com/wsnws
hard anymore because it can’t act to-
Also, while I respect the comprehen-vk.com/wsnws
Also, while I respect the comprehen-
sive approach Trump’s actual trade
vk.com/wsnws
sive approach Trump’s actual trade
negotiators took in these talks — they
vk.com/wsnws
negotiators took in these talks — they
wanted China to enact laws and regula-
vk.com/wsnws
wanted China to enact laws and regula-
tions that would outlaw stealing oftions that would outlaw stealing ofvk.com/wsnws
TELEGRAM:
transfers, certain government subsi-
TELEGRAM:
transfers, certain government subsi-
dies, and to create a U.S.-China mecha-
TELEGRAM:
dies, and to create a U.S.-China mecha-
nism to verify compliance — it might
TELEGRAM:
nism to verify compliance — it might
have been too much change all at once
TELEGRAM:
have been too much change all at once
for the Chinese system. That’s not an
TELEGRAM:
for the Chinese system. That’s not an
t.me/whatsnws
Also, while I respect the comprehen-t.me/whatsnws
Also, while I respect the comprehen-
sive approach Trump’s actual trade
t.me/whatsnws
sive approach Trump’s actual trade
negotiators took in these talks — they
t.me/whatsnws
negotiators took in these talks — they
wanted China to enact laws and regula-
t.me/whatsnws
wanted China to enact laws and regula-
tions that would outlaw stealing of
t.me/whatsnws
tions that would outlaw stealing of
intellectual property, forced technology
t.me/whatsnws
intellectual property, forced technology
transfers, certain government subsi-transfers, certain government subsi-t.me/whatsnws