Douglas I. Hodgkin is professor emeritus of political science at Bates College.

What ever happened to the Founders’ “checks and balances” in the U.S. Constitution? They rejected adoption of a monarchy, but they feared direct democracy, for the people were subject to demagogues, who appeal to the public’s emotions, prejudices and fears.

The framers of the Constitution permitted a role for a limited electorate, but each official was to be limited by others. Each branch would need to take the others into account.

As James Madison stated in Federalist Paper No. 51, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” For example, the Senate would be limited by the House of Representatives; the House would limit the Senate; and the Congress as a whole could be checked by the president’s veto.

Madison further argued that “the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others.” One way to ensure their independence was to provide them with different modes of selection. Yet, here we are, with a president on the verge of dictatorship.

I argue that, over the years, the Founders’ system has been so “democratized” that it has devolved to become captured by a demagogue. All are subject to a similar electorate and therefore have little incentive to check one another.

Here is how the Founders’ system has been undermined:

• The Founders themselves established political parties. Parties permitted a mobilization
  across state lines and across the institutions of government. This worked to create the ability to legislate in response to popular opinion because each party tended to be a “big tent” that tolerated dissidents.
• The Electoral College was a compromise with check-and-balance implications. A president elected by Congress would be too beholden to the legislative branch. Popular election of the president was vulnerable to demagogues. Therefore, it was left to the states to determine the choice of the electors. Ultimately, all are nominated by the parties and chosen by the people in their respective states.
• Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Johnson and other assertive presidents have taught us to
  accept presidential primacy and leadership.
• The Framers had provided that United States senators would be elected by their respective state legislatures. The adoption in 1913 of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution provided for their direct popular election.
• Candidates for the House had been nominated by district or state conventions. These
  conventions were composed of party stalwarts who knew the candidates and their qualifications for winning the general election and, most important, for their ability to
  govern. Throughout the 20th century, reformers have gradually successfully
  provided the nomination of candidates (including for both House and Senate) via the
  direct primary. Now, members of Congress are beholden to a demagogic president who
  can generate a primary opponent. They literally fear the consequences of opposing the
  president. Therefore, the threat of impeachment of the president for abuse of power has
  been nullified.
• Similarly, local caucuses and state conventions used to choose delegates to the national conventions. Now, a presidential candidate can bypass the party organization and win enough delegate votes in primaries to win the nomination prior to the national convention.

The courts seem to be the only check on the president, if he chooses to abide by contrary rulings. The courts have very limited enforcement power, primarily relying on other branches and public opinion. Current proposals to make the courts more democratic would only exacerbate potential control by a demagogue.

Certainly, other developments have contributed to our current situation: congressional delegation of power to the president or bureaucracy, unchecked campaign funds, propagandistic “news” channels, computer-generated gerrymanders, acceptance of racism and xenophobia, multiplicity of special interests, etc.

However, while the individual reforms hoped to remedy various abuses, collectively they all were measures that enhanced “democracy,” but gave each branch similar constituencies. Ironically, they opened the way to a demagogue that Madison feared.