Democracy, Petitions, and Legitimation

Abstract

has been beneficial to the development of American democracy. Although it is beyond dispute that these petitions facilitated American empire, it is unclear by what measure these petitions would be any less central to American democratic development than petitions that facilitated the spread of the franchise or the development of the party system. As the franchise and parties are still with us today, so too is American empire. In many ways, the answer to the first question carries over into the answer of the second. It is likely the case that a consequentialist argument rooted in nineteenth century transformations fails to make the normative case that petitions are necessary for democracy, because the struggle for equal representation is still ongoing. The gap between representative and represented will always exist and the nineteenth century created as many gaps as it filled. Although the petition campaigns of this period likely facilitated other forms of equal representation, like a universal franchise and a robust party system, these tools do little to protect entrenched minorities at the margins—especially colonized peoples who fight fiercely to remain outside of the political community of the imperial government. Democracy by Petition closes with the statement that “only a fool would surrender the right to vote for the right to petition” (481). But refusal to further the American colonial project with electoral participation is far from foolish. Nor would this refusal seem at all foolish if the United States finally offered the full-throated right to petition enshrined in the Constitution—a right that, as Carpenter persuades, gave birth to the democracy we now cherish.