Tyranny--The Logical End State Of Democracy?

Everyone knows that Alexis de Toqueville wrote the book on Democracy in America—literally and metaphorically. However, Toqueville was also a penetrating political philosopher generally. Today at The Saker there’s a long article on Toqueville’s thought under the same title: Democracy in America. What I’ve done is this. I’ve taken the second half or so and bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated it. There’s actually plenty of the original left, but I have edited it liberally and inserted some of my own reflections. Please bear that in mind. What I’m trying to present here is a greatly shortened summary of Toqueville’s reflections on democracy—what leads to democracy and where democracy takes us.

I should explain that one of my neighbors has bumper stickers on his cars: “=”. Equality, get it? It’s a constant irritant for me. One of the things I like about this piece at The Saker is that the author understands, as did Toqueville, that equality is most properly a mathematical concept, and ill suited for dealing with individual humans. When we insist, nevertheless, in doing so unwelcome complications tend to arise.

Yes, we all like to say that we’re all “equal” because we all share in the same human nature. What’s usually left unsaid, however, is that as individual exemplars of humanity we are anything but equal. We are, in short, individuals, and therefore not equal one to the other except to the extent that we share a common nature. The reason I bring this up is because this is at the root of Toqueville’s reflections. These reflections seemed to be especially timely because many of us have been expressing our concerns about the end of our republic. Toqueville was there before us.

One caveat. I don’t insist on the details here—I present it as a reflection on the tendencies inherent within most modern democracies. For example, some readers may take issue with Toqueville’s view of the American character as he observed it in his travels. To me, the important point is whether, as an overall tendency, what Toqueville believed he had observed reflects tendencies within modern American life.

See what you think.

When is a system really democratic? – Tocqueville asks. A study of history reveals a continual progress toward equality, but this process is accompanied by persistent social inequality. At the same time we find a generalized yearning for liberty of freedom.

What is liberty? According to Tocqueville liberty is a sensation or a feeling rather than something that can be measured by an examination of laws that are "on the books". It is crucial to perceive and feel the sensation of freedom daily and continuously because if we don’t feel the sensation, there is no freedom.

The key to understanding this, says Tocqueville, is that the mind naturally rejoices in deliverance on any terms from perplexity and suspense. To paraphrase Aristotle, all men by nature desire ... to be free of uncertainty. That is the attraction of written constitutions and all the other trappings of mass democracy as we have come to know it. But when mass-man demands ‘freedom and democracy’ he is asking for disaster.

There can be political systems that do not allow specific freedoms yet in which citizens feel free. And the reverse is also true – there are systems that may appear to be quite free, but in which the individual feels that he is not free. Furthermore, the liberty of a citizen in one nation is not the same liberty of a citizen of another nation. And liberty in one historical time is not the same liberty as perceived 20 or 30 years later.

Tocqueville reached the following conclusion: In future there may be republics, monarchies and other mixed forms of government, but in essence only three political systems can exist:

* One where liberty is the most important feature, irrespective of its consequences. But this tends toward anarchy, which is the antithesis of a political structure.

* The second possibility is a system where equality and liberty coexist, with a tendency for equality to be perceived as more important than liberty. But, except for anarchy, says Tocqueville, this would be perhaps the worst possible political system – from which an exit to freedom would be most difficult.

* The third possibility is a system where the political status-quo is daily brought into question and citizens are continuously involved.

It doesn’t take much reflection to come to the realization that the second form of government is pretty much where we find ourselves today in America. Not, perhaps, 100%, but that’s definitely the direction we’re headed in. The only question is whether the momentum can be changed, and whether we can arrive at the third possibility—continuous citizen involvement. My strong impression is that Toqueville was skeptical regarding that possibility, at least as regards “mass” societies.

Regrettably, both in the 19th century (as Tocqueville remarked), but also in our own times it is the equality-above-freedom political structure that the world at large seems to be directed towards. Most people like and want this system because it seems most attractive on the surface – consequently it will be implemented. “You will own nothing and you will be happy.”

Such dreams may seem the children of an idle brain, begot of nothing but vain fantasy. Yet equality is attractive because everyone understands it. “I have the same rights as my neighbor, whatever my title, ethnic group, age, social condition, mode of dress or accent may be.” It appears as the application of the simplest mathematical concept, 2=2, the foundation of reasoning, the principle of equality, of identity and of non-contradiction. Equality is a principle easily impressed on our mind, whereas liberty is more complex.

But why, in a democratic system, does equality seems more important than freedom? Because unconsciously we pretend to imitate the American pioneers on the Western frontier of old. Let us imagine – says Tocqueville – that we live in a system where education, origin, speech, religion do not compromise the concept of equality.

However, that quickly involves us in a paradox. We all say that we want to be equal, but in reality we all wish to be better than our neighbor, simply because we are human. We can't say so, because that would fly in the face of the doctrine of equality, and so we can't defend the real sources of inequality: education, life experience, determination, drive etc.

In the end there is only one element that enables a citizen to demonstrate that he is better than his neighbor – meaning, in an environment where all wish simultaneously to be equal in theory but unequal in practice. And that contradiction-enabling element is money, more luxury items, more possibilities of ostentation, etc.

The materialistic drive produces yet another paradox. Perceived social pressure forces the mythical average citizen to dedicate himself to earning more money, to buy a bigger house, much like the pioneer of Tocqueville’s anecdote. "Be all you can be" comes to seem to be a practical reality rather than a lifetime aspiration.

Hence the conviction that, with sufficient effort, one can resolve any problem, even when that problem is political in nature. This is bad, says Tocqueville, because problems dealing with freedom and politics do not have easy solutions. Equality--a mathematical concept--provides the illusory promise of simple solutions, but in fact cannot do so because individual humans are not equal and will not behave in equal or identical ways. Yet the search for simple solutions goes on, no matter how often it fails and even makes things worse.

He who compares himself with his neighbors may perhaps feel equal, but when he compares himself with the the mass of his society he feels very small. I am as good as my neighbor – he may say to himself – but the mass inspires fear. And in a democratic system with emphasis on the material aspect of things the circle of reality becomes ever more restricted.

For this sentiment Tocqueville coined the term individualism, (1835), as confirmed by the Oxford dictionary that explains Tocqueville’s neologism as, “a self-centered feeling or conduct as a principle.” Individualism – adds Tocqueville – is the first characteristic of a bad democratic system, leading to more people living alone and/or alone with their heart. In the end– continues Tocqueville – citizens will only be interested in the most restricted circle of their family. In the 19th century families were still large, and it was revolutionary to think that eventually families would become smaller and smaller, with interest concentrated on the nuclear family, excluding everyone else.

The fragmenting of the family is certainly a signal characteristic of modern life—and not only in America. What are the political consequences?

Individualism, obsession with obtaining more money and more material things was characteristic of the pioneers whom Tocqueville met in America. I help other people so that they can help me, but without any other interest. Which means that I see others not as human beings but as a function of what they can do for me. The ‘other’ person becomes an item of exchange, an element of the market. Which gives rise to another mysterious phenomenon or evolution; Tocqueville calls it the ‘tyranny of the majority.’

He explains this concept as follows. To the self-centered individual political problems appear resolvable without great effort. For the mind rejoices at deliverance on any terms from perplexity and suspense. The democratic illness, says Tocqueville, is the widespread belief that problems can be resolved because they are assumed to be practical – like the material problems the citizen resolves in his daily life, where effort and dedication determine the result. This reasoning, when applied to concrete social or political issues, is transformed into the belief that, although a political problem is assumed to be resolvable, the individual has no time to dedicate himself to its solution, for he needs to concentrate his effort on the complications of his daily life and struggle for material well being.

In defective democracies the individual citizen thinks that others have decided what is required to resolve the problems that he has no time to solve. Hence yet another paradox. In previous eras tyrannies could easily be identified with the persons who held power. Theoretically, tyranny could be ended if a sufficient number of individuals were willing to act. But eliminating the tyranny of the majority is a paradox, for we are the majority and consequently we tyrannize ourselves.