Though the collapse of the erstwhile Soviet Union has dealt a body-blow to totalitarian forms of rule over citizens, military regimes and dictatorships in various forms persist in nations small and large, in our times. Democracy itself is not an unblemished virtue, for there is more than one body of opinion about matters such as the rights of people, and the nature of freedom.Rapid economic growth is such a striking feature of some countries under severely restricted rights of citizenship, that there are questions in many minds, as to whether democracy and development may be in mutual contradiction, during the formative years of a new member, or a body of the impoverished, in the comity of nations. The significance of this matter is borne out by the simple fact that countries with relatively large numbers of people who live in secure and prosperous conditions, are in the extreme minority.The United States, for its entire and unrivalled economic prowess today, was not dissimilar to the emerging economies of conventional times, when it was first introduced to democratic governance. The United States, at that time, also followed Europe, rather than led the world of that age, in matters of liberty.
Therefore, the nature and suitability of democratic governance in the United States of 200 years ago, is a matter of great relevance to all those interested in comparisons of current governance modes across the 21st century global village.Comparisons of national systems of governance were less common in the 19th century than they were today. Therefore, the efforts of a French citizen with aristocratic roots, to make searching observations about multiple facets of life in the United States almost two hundred years ago, are remarkable (de Tocqueville, 1863). De Tocqueville was in a unique position to comment on American democracy during his times, because he had direct experience of populist governance in his native France, as well as in England, across the channel.However, it is a moot point, at the introductory stage of this document, to take firm position, on whether the author’s book may have been colored by the emotional and intellectual influences of his ancestry.
The sojourn of de Tocqueville in the United States was far from perfunctory, as evidenced by the scope of his writings, and breadth of his observations about the United States in the 19th century. It is therefore opportune to focus on just one of the many facets which his book has covered, in order to arrive at reasonably reasoned and fairly insightful conclusions about the values and contributions of his labors.Chapter 15 of the book (de Tocqueville, 1863, 324-345) entitled ‘Democracy in America’ written by Alexis de Tocqueville and first published in 1863, relates largely to the concept of the ‘Tyranny of Democracy’. This document is an attempt to critically examine the premise, its assumptions, the rhetoric, the author’s intentions, and the attitude. The objective of such an essay is to draw conclusions about the relevance and limits of democracy as a form of governance.
The Individual Liberty of Dissent “It is to a legislature thus constituted, that almost all the authority of the government has been entrusted” (de Tocqueville, 1863, 325).The author bases the central argument about the oppression of individual liberties by a democratic majority, on the plank that the numbers of people in a group does not necessarily add to the wisdom of their views over and above the intelligence of a single person. The values of equality do not necessarily apply to the intellects of men. Members of a group do not change their basic proclivities on account of association. “The power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them” “men do not change their characters by uniting with each other” (de Tocqueville, 1863, 331).
The author succeeds in bringing the conflict between individual liberty and democratic governance by majority will to the fore. The arguments presented by the author about the tyranny of democracy are founded on incontrovertible facts and follow a logical sequence throughout the passage of the chapter. Though the observations relate to the United States of the 19th century, they apply to contemporary democracies anywhere in the world. It is apparent that the author’s observations are not based on his visit to the United States alone, but relates closely to his previous experiences in his own country, and in other parts of Europe.
It is not enough to locate all the ways in which de Tocqueville highlights the possible failures of democratic governance, for the gravity of such a conclusion has more than one implication. Individual cultures, with differing roots in ethnicity, are in danger of extinction under the brutal force of numbers, and deserve protection against the will of a majority. Perspectives of various economic strata with respect to key elements of national policy may differ: such differences, if quashed by the sheer weight of numbers of votaries, would amount to neglect or even abuse.Exceptions with respect to sexual orientation may become grounds for oppression by those who conform to the majority inclination, though such orientation is devoid of merit at any point of the spectrum.
Overall, de Tocqueville’s provocation about the injustice of a majority has numerous confirmatory dimensions. It is necessary, at this juncture, to examine critically, the stated as well as the covert bases on which the author has made his assertions about the tyranny of a majority. Assumptions“All parties are willing to accept the rights of the majority, because they all hope at some time to exercise them to their own advantage” (de Tocqueville, 1863, 327). The author may have discussed the merits and limits of democratic functioning with American politicians of his time, but this categorical assertion about their motivations in participating in a legislative system, is an implicit assumption. Many citizens of democracies may believe that governance by majority is preferable to known alternatives, and no universal reason has been established for support to the powers of majorities.
Chapter 15 does not have any explicit assumptions. However, since de Tocqueville has boldly imputed motives to those who may use their majority strengths unfairly, it becomes necessary to reflect on the relevance of the writings of 2 centuries past, to our own times. The Moment “Men do not change their characters by uniting with each other” ((de Tocqueville, 1863, 331). The statement may be made in gender-neutral terms today, but otherwise its purport is remarkably close to actual developments almost 200 years after it was written.“If ever these lines are read in America, I am well assured of two things-in the first place that all you read them will raise their voices to condemn me, and in the second place, that many of them will acquit me at the bottom of their conscience” (de Tocqueville, 1863, 342). The author is almost clairvoyant about how his observations would be viewed in the distant future.
Having been reassured about the relevance of de Tocqueville’s observations, we may turn our attention to what must have prompted him to undertake the exercise in the first place.Purpose The author, as with explicit assumptions, does not state any specific objectives in the chapter under review. However, it is possible to deduce from the nature of his writings, as to why he expresses concern over the tyranny of democracy: “This state of things is harmful in itself and dangerous for the future” (de Tocqueville, 1863, 327). It appears to be an objective of the author to establish the limits and drawbacks within which popular governments must function.
Such an aim is reinforced by the author’s assertions regarding the ways in which the tyranny of democracy is mitigated (de Tocqueville, 1863, 346-367). The author seems to have grave misgivings about the tyranny of democracy: “Liberty is endangered when this power finds no obstacle which can retard its course, and give it time to moderate its own vehemence” (de Tocqueville, 1863, 332). The author is as concerned with the development of a solution as he is to the enumeration of the problem of the tyranny of democracy.He suggests that an effective administration and an independent judiciary should function to temper the absolute powers of a constituted legislature. Thus, the author’s criticism of democracy is tempered with concrete suggestions regarding safeguards.
Further, the tyranny to which the author refers is not limited by him to democracy, but explicitly against all forms of governance and national life that confer unfettered rights. All observations about the author’s purpose must be speculative, since they are made so many decades after his life.Therefore, supporting evidence in the form of his gleaned attitude would be in order. Attitude “Thus, an aristocracy can never become a majority” (de Tocqueville, 1863, 327). The violent elimination of the author’s ancestors, before he arrived in the United States, ostensibly to study its forms of governance, and to compare this with the same aspects in his own country and continent, naturally leads one to the thought that the author has an ulterior motive in decrying the merits of the democratic system to which his familial and personal interests may be inimical.However, a complete reading of the entire book establishes the author’s objectivity in this respect.
Chapter 16 (de Tocqueville, 1863, 346-367) is largely devoted to the means by which the tyranny of the majority is mitigated. “When I see the right and the means of absolute command are conferred on any power whatever, be it called a people or a king, an aristocracy or a democracy, a monarchy or a republic, I say there is the germ of tyranny (de Tocqueville, 1863, 332).Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that the author has made balanced observations with respect to the limitations of the absolute powers of majorities in democracies, as well as about similar powers in other forms of national control. It would be reasonable to conclude that the author did not have any ulterior motives in the construction of the chapter under review. It is certain that the misgivings which he had foreseen about the tyranny of democracy remain valid to this day, and that his observations regarding the mitigation of the abuse of absolute power, are also still relevant and efficacious.
