The word democracy may stand for a natural social equality in the body politics or for a constitutional form of government in which power lies more or less directly in the people’s hand. The former may be called social democracy and the later democratic government. The two differ widely, both in origin and in moral principle. Genetically considered, social democracy is something primitive, unintended, proper to communities where there is general competence and no marked personal eminence. There will be no aristocracy, no prestige, but instead an intelligent readiness to lend a hand and to do in unison whatever is done. In other words, there will be that most democratic of governments—no government at all. But when pressure of circumstances, danger, or inward strife makes recognized and prolonged guidance necessary to a social democracy, the form its government takes is that of a rudimentary monarchy established by election or general consent. A natural leader emerges and is instinctively obeyed. That leader may indeed be freely criticized and will not be screened by any pomp or traditional mystery; he or she will be easy to replace and every citizen will feel essentially his or her equal. Yet such a state is at the beginnings of monarchy and aristocracy.
According to the author, a social democracy would adopt a formal system of government when: