Essay: Madison’s Federalist #10 Paper

Madison’s Federalist #10 paper is centered on factions, or congregations of people centered on common causes, identities, and ideologies. Without a centralized form of control, a hierarchy of power develops with majority factions at the top. To counteract this political overshadowing, Madison presents two alternatives: either erase factions or control their effects. The former, Madison argues, is unrealistic, for ridding a government of factions would require the removal of their causes. This would mean either stripping a government of its liberty, which undermines the concept of freedom in democracy, or streamlining the public opinion, which is impossible given the diversity of society. Thus, Madison offers up the idea of controlling the effects of factions with a republic framework in which the needs of the general populace are filtered through – and controlled by – elected officials. Madison looks positively upon the idea of a larger republic; an increased population size calls for more elected officials, which reduces the chance of corruption because politicians must always pander to their citizens to get reelected. With a republic also comes larger factions. Madison believes, however, that no one faction would ever get too big because they would never be able to unify given the varying perspectives and identities within each. Madison concludes by stating that a republic is the only means to unify the country. He says that with a republic comes the semi-muting of each citizen’s voice. In practice, this ensures that every voice gets the chance to be heard without demanding too much space. If there was no mode of electoral-based political representation, people would only ever support causes that satisfied their own explicit needs. A republic encourages a unified nation that has focused drives.
Federalist #10 is still relevant in a different vein. When Madison was writing, he was writing about the disparities in land shares. There was a clear minority of people who laid claim to a majority of the land. Madison panned to this small subset of the community, convincing them that the republic framework would protect them from the majority of the poor. Our country has since grown to accept a wider array of identities and ideologies, making the socioeconomic climate far more diverse. With this has come a wider array of needs, and the only way for those voices to be heard is through political representation in legislation. Without a republic, nothing would ever get done and no voice would ever be heard.
As for bringing democracy to Syria, I believe that Madison would support the idea of the country completely shifting its governmental structure. As it stands, there are still many in Syria who have not been liberated. Voices are muted by impeding, powerful majorities and the intrusion of dominating countries. If Syria transitioned to be fully democratic, Madison would likely say that it would lower the country’s susceptibility both to outside intervention and ill-intentioned majorities, for a strong governmental system would ensure that no singular force would get too powerful. It is possible that the introduction of democracy to Syria would dampen the more polarizing, deafening powers in Syria.