Sheldon Wolin has pointed out that The Federalist Papers (1787-88) and Democracy in America (1835) are the two classics in American political theory. While the former symbolizes the thinking of the founding fathers of the American Republic, the latter "is invoked more often in support of some interpretation of present day American politics". The author of Democracy in America, Charles-Alexis Henri Clerel de Tocqueville (1805-59) was one of the mainly imaginative French political theorists, sociologist and a historian of the 19th Century. His writings reflected the concerns of a historian, a political scientist and a sociologist creation it hard to categories these. Tocqueville was concerned with the future of the democratic society and was conscious of the tumultuous social changes that his times produced and the impact it had. He understood democracy as an unstoppable march towards equality in all its dimensions—legal, political, social and economic.
Tocqueville beside with his friend Gustave de Beaumont (1802-65) visited America in 1831 to revise its democratic institutions and draw lessons for France and penned them down in two volumes entitled Democracy in America, He analyzed the federal constitution, the question of people's sovereignty, the role of the constitution and warned in relation to the tyranny of the majority, a theme, that John Stuart Mill (1806-73) subsequently urbanized. He could grasp the new and universal trend, namely the desire for equality and its intricate connection with individual liberty and democracy. He stressed on the importance of local self-government, decentralized administration, widespread ownership of property and voluntary associations for maintenance of political liberties, stability of government and protection against the tyranny of the majority. Like Charles-Louis de Secondat Montesquieu (1 689-1755) lie admired English political institutions and the English aristocracy. Unlike France, the English aristocracy constantly renewed itself and was in a location to wield its power through proper exercise of political experience and wisdom. He could perceive the momentous changes sweeping his time, which was why he described it as the end of an era and a beginning of a new one. Both Montesquieu and Tocqueville dissected the merits and demerits of the dissimilar shapes of governments not in an abstract timeless sense but in its historical, political and social contexts.
Tocqueville, just as to J.S. Mill was the first to write in relation to the democracy and its actual functioning in the belief that it could become a viable political system. An aristocrat, Tocqueville became a liberal while learning and writing in relation to the American democracy. He measured freedom or liberty as the core political value, which stood threatened through the lethal combination of political democracy and social equality, Democracy in America is measured as the "best ever written work on democracy and the best book ever written on America". Tocqueville measured America to be at the forefront of a great democratic revolution and that it would bring to Europe an approximately complete equality of condition like the one that lived in the New World. His aim was to describe the impact of democratic social circumstances not only on politics but also 'on civil society, on habits, thoughts, and mores‘. He did not think it was necessary for Europe to imitate American political institutions but stressed that the revise of America would yield instruction from which Europe could gain.
An analysis of the writings of Tocqueville does not allow us to basically conclude that he was an aristocratic reactionary. Curtis labeled him as an aristocratic conservative, while Kirk regarded him as a liberal conservative in the similar custom as Edmund Burke (1729-97). In Tocqueville‘s writings one discovers both liberal and conservative dimensions. His passion for freedom and its protection and the desire to protect property rights symbolize the liberal tendencies. As a conservative he was the first to caution against the dangers in relation to the too much of democracy.
ON DEMOCRACY, REVOLUTION AND THE CONTEMPORARY STATE
Tocqueville accepted that there have been healthy aristocracies. But the French landed nobility was undermined through the policies of the absolutist monarchs who had centralized the government tools and excluded the old aristocracy from provincial administration. T he aristocracy had its privileges but without any link flanked by duty and privileges. Tocqueville regarded the link of interdependence and obligation flanked by social groups as of crucial significance. He often compared the French nobility with their counterpart in England and praised the latter's modest and low key profile which allowed their sustained participation in local administration and politics throughout the 19th Century. Tocqueville was equally critical of the Irish aristocracy, usually absentee landlords who remained unconcerned in relation to the plight of their tenants. He concluded that an aristocracy once dislodged could never be restored.
Though Tocqueville disliked revolutions yet he offered a balanced view. He conceded that ―while one great revolution may set up liberty in a country, many revolutions in succession create orderly liberty impossible there for a extensive time". He disliked the reign of terror and despotism of the French Revolution. Our Economists had a vast contempt for the past. ―The nation has been governed" Letronne declared, "on wrong rows altogether; one has the impression that everything was left to chance‖. Starting out from this premise, they set to work and there was no French institution, though venerable and well founded, for whose immediate suppression they did not clamor if it hampered them to even the slightest extent or did not fit in with their neatly ordered scheme of government.
When we closely revise the French Revolution we discover that it was mannered in precisely the similar spirit as that which gave rise to so several books expounding theories of government in the abstract. Our revolutionaries had the similar fondness for broad generalizations, cut-and-dehydrated legislative systems, and a pedantic symmetry; the similar contempt for hard facts; the similar taste for reshaping institutions on novel, ingenious, original rows; the similar desire to reconstruct the whole system instead of trying to rectify its faulty parts. He did not, like Burke criticize the French Revolution in its totality for he approved of its commitment to freedom and equality. But what he disapproved was the subsequent stress on extreme equality that undermined liberty and human greatness.
Though lie proclaimed himself to be an aristocrat through instinct, one which despised and feared the masses he was prepared to accept the defeat of his class as inevitable. He described his age as a new one characterized through a desire for equality, a movement that was ardent, insatiable, incessant and invincible. America for him symbolized this new universal trend. He was worried that this passion for equality would lead to uniformity, which would eventually destroy liberty. The power of public opinion led to conventionality rather than individuality, mediocrity rather than excellence, materialism rather than spiritualism.
Tocqueville took note of the widespread respect for the rule of law in America whereas in France arbitrary rule had only encouraged contempt for the law. In America and England local self-governing institutions were strong whereas in France the sale of municipal offices through the Crown had weakened the custom. In America people naturally shaped associations and groups whereas in Francs, individualism and reliance on omniscience of central government were much stronger. In America there was no fear from an elected chief executive since the constitution not only limited the powers of the government but also had an elaborate mechanism of checks and balance to counter any excess. In France, through contrast, the extensive recognized custom of centralized administrative power and a weak legislature made the elected president at the head of the executive a threat to liberty.
As a sociologist Tocqueville took interest in the ethos of society and pointed to the contractual nature of contemporary relationships without any moral obligations or human affections. He understood the role of the state as one that would unify all special interests of the several social classes into a whole body politic. He could see the require for an adequate and equitable system of taxation if the state had to last for extensive. His insights into the economic foundations of the contemporary state enabled him to brilliantly analyze the character of the absolutist state. In L‘ancien regime et al Revolution (1856) he discussed in detail the unfair sharing of taxes and services in the middle of the classes with the peasantry bearing the brunt. The absolutist state was made possible when the king liberated himself from constitutional institutions such as estates or parliaments in order to become free and self-governing to raise taxes for his own military or domestic projects.
Tocqueville was also careful in relation to the spread of democracy. He understood democracy to mean not only increased political participation but also civic and social equality. The abrogation of privileges was a means to an inevitable trend to the creation of an egalitarian society. The consequences of this change were momentous. Removal of social barrier led to new innovations. It also meant constant change within the social structure, as in a democratic society, unlike its precursors, there would be absence of natural leaders. Individuals would have to fight for political location on the foundation of interests rather than privileges. The passion for equality would lead to social leveling eroding any differences in the middle of human beings. Equality conferred power in excess of public opinion and that meant the rule of the average person in the street. He argued that equal social circumstances could lead to either sovereignty of all or the absolute power of one man. It is, in fostering free and participatory political institutions that lie saw the key to resisting the despotic tendencies inherent in the principle of equality. Tocqueville‘s notion of the inevitable progress of equality is similar to the modern notion of modernization. It is a historic procedure that would undermine all traditional or aristocratic political order that did not result in democratic self-government.
Tocqueville defined liberty as absence of external political restrictions. He remained skeptical and fearful of the excessive emphasis on equality. We took note of the threat of the tyranny of the majority‘ which would manifest itself in the form of intolerance of individual deviation from the social norm. But he was realistic enough to accept the inevitable progress towards equality and attempted to reconcile equality with liberty. His political ideal was freedom under the rule of law. He was insistent that people ought to have as distant as possible direct manage in excess of their own affairs, through vibrant local government and free associations, something that was dissimilar from decentralization under feudalism. He, like Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) measured strong local institutions as a preventive to arbitrary intervention through central power and the revolutionary subversion of the state, an aspect that the neo-conservatives in the United States revived in the last quarter of the 20th Century.
Through tyranny of the majority in America, Tocqueville did not consider like James Madison (1751-1836) in a permanent and deep division in the society flanked by majority and minority but a widespread consensus in the middle of citizens who rarely felt that laws enacted through the majority were arbitrary or unjustly coercive. Equal political rights and active participation in the political procedure gave individuals "an equal love and respect for the laws of which they consider themselves the author". Besides political equality there was social equality, which was so widespread that it underpinned the thought of majority rule. He also pointed to the issue of uniformity considering it in the middle of the undesirable characteristics of American life, He observed that unlike Europe there was presently one society in America. "It may be either rich or poor, humble or brilliant, trading or agriculture; but it is composed everywhere of the similar elements. The plane of uniform civilization has passed in excess of it. The man you left in New York you discover again in approximately impenetrable solitude: similar clothes, similar attitude, similar language, similar habits, similar pleasures". Tocqueville attributed this striking uniformity to the spirit of equality that made possible stable society life. The problem of uniformity was not a political one. Government and laws were seldom used for oppression and coercion as there was no separate and separate group of citizens to coerce and oppress. Neither was majority rule a source of power and despotism. Instead what it ensured was that fundamental differences did not arise within the society. What Tocqueville feared was the ‗moral power' of the public opinion in America, which not only regulated people's actions but also molded their extremely nature as well. He also noted with appreciation the extent of uniformity as it seemed to suggest that the majority of spirits were joined jointly in the expression of sure common opinions. Though, this uniformity and harmony indicated a voluntary, tyranny. Besides uniformity, there lived profound separation and dependence that made possible for psychic coercion and thereby reinforced the uniformity inherent in an egalitarian society. He also observed that the old categories of political thought were inadequate to deal with this new state of affairs. Unlike traditional shapes of despotism that oppressed through political coercion the new form is neither political nor overtly oppressive. It is social in nature. J. S. Mill took note of this observation and incorporated it in his arguments for freedom of individuality, his critique of majority power and egalitarianism in his treatise On Liberty (1859), Mill whispered that if people had the right thought in relation to the democracy then the tyranny of the majority that Tocqueville warned in relation to the could be abated. Unlike Tocqueville, Mill was sanguine that if the best minds could ensure their ascendancy through calling for democracy, for democracy accompanied through representation, would not threaten to induce debasement of intelligence or cultural deprivation, Representative democracy would ensure a free society without a dominant power. Unlike Tocqueville who eulogized the aristocracy Mill regarded it as a menace to the progress of civilization.
Tocqueville, like Montesquieu measured commerce as the inevitable and appropriate development of rising social equality and individual freedom. Though, he could also perceive the destructive face of unrestrained materialism and the hazards of excessive economic inequality, He pointed to the twin dangers of the connection flanked by democracy and equality that would result in 'tyranny of the majority' and also whether democracy was enough to overcome the powerful in egalitarian tendency latent in the development of capitalism.
Tocqueville regarded slavery as not only inhuman but also contrary to the enlightened self-interest of the slave owners themselves. He rejected Joseph-Arthur Gobineau‘s (1816-82) thought of racial hierarchy and warned against the selective misuse of the thesis, like the anti-abolitionist leaders in America who argued that the blacks were dissimilar and inferior but suppressed the proposition that the Anglo-Saxon race was also on the decline. He measured racial hierarchy as another form of aristocracy that was destined to crumble through the onslaught of democracy and social equality.
RELIGION
The 16th Century as exemplified in the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) is acknowledged to be the beginning of secular politics in Europe. Machiavelli though anti- Church and anti-clergy measured religion as necessary for individual's social life and for the health and prosperity of the state. Religion beside with good laws and a well-disciplined citizen militia would produce order, which in turn brings forth peace, fortune and success. As a social force, religion played a pivotal rote for through its doctrine of rewards and punishment it induced proper behaviour and good conduct that was necessary for the wellbeing of society. While Machiavelli understood that religion was socially useful he could not comprehend its intrinsic link with liberty, a theme that Tocqueville succinctly urbanized in opposition to the mainstream Enlightenment credo to uphold cause and liberty through being anti religion.
The striking originality of Tocqueville lies in recognizing the extraordinary importance religion played in strengthening democracy in America. Me measured religion as a 'political institution' and vital to the preservation of freedom in a democratic society particularly from the despotic tendencies that equality of circumstances unleashed. He observed: ―despotism may govern without religion... liberty cannot". Democracy, because of equality of circumstances needed moral lies and hence needed religion. He pointed to the utility of religion rather than the truth of any one religion. This extraordinary emphasis on religion was because lie regarded it to be crucial to establishing democracy in France and other Christian states of Europe. He concluded that due to the variance flanked by ―the spirit of religion" and "the spirit of freedom" democracy failed in Europe. The alliance flanked by the Catholic Church and the French monarchy, although injurious to religion in itself, was feature of a more calamitous alliance flanked by Christianity and the moribund aristocracy. The Church measured democracy to be antithetical to religion and consequently an enemy. In America the two were closely connected which explained the success of democracy there.
America, the nascent Puritan commonwealth rejected Europe's aristocratic heritage and accepted the principles of democracy. The Puritans brought to the New World a Christianity that was democratic, constitutional and republican. They introduced such principles as the participation through the people to rule, the free voting in matters of taxation, fixing the responsibility of political representatives, guarding personal liberty and trial through jury. They instilled a love of freedom anchored in religious conviction through teaching Americans that their freedom is a gift from God and so had to be taken seriously and used wisely. Christianity associated itself with the principles of liberal democracy that it initiated to make, and hence could hope for an autonomous legroom that was both enduring and timeless.
Historically, for Tocqueville democracy began when Jesus unequivocally proclaimed universal human equality thereby creation the realization of democracy possible. Furthermore the Christian teaching that was significant for a democratic society was the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Religion taught human beings to strive for eternal happiness through resisting "the selfish passions of the hour" and therefore democratic individuals would learn that only through persistence and hard work something permanent could be attained in both private and public spheres. They acquired the art of managing their life. Through believing in ―super sensual and immortal principles" they learnt to focus on the spiritual rather than the base and therefore develop an instinctive love for liberty. At a first glance it appeared that religion was divorced from American politics. The clergy restricted their sovereignty to religious matters and did not criticize the fundamental principles of the republic. Though, in reality they actively promoted them. Tocqueville felt that if Christianity did not exercise such self-restraint then it ran the risk of not getting marginalized. American clergy not only accepted the supreme power of self-interest but also enlisted the selfish passion for the service of religion. They showed in their congregations that Christian virtues were compatible with freedom and prosperity as well as salvation therefore bringing both the head and heart to the altar. Furthermore, the dictum ―the things that are Caesar's" and "the things that are not Caesar's" made it mandatory that no political or military power could enjoy complete power in excess of human beings. This was the primary cause for the end of European feudalism.
Tocqueville, though himself a practicing Catholic, acknowledged, like Max Weber (1864-1920) later, that the Protestant Ethic encouraged individualism and freedom but with proper respect for political power. With greater social equality and the support of the middle class, this spirit extended to democracy. The combination of all these factors led to the American success with a harmonious development of both Christianity and democracy in America. Interestingly, this unique attainment of America has been made possible through realizing the principle of separation of the Church and the state. This has prevented the consolidation of vested religious interests' in scrupulous political parties and groups as has happened in Europe. In America there was a harmonious coexistence of religion and democracy. In information, democracy facilitates the spread of religion through guaranteeing the right of religious beliefs. All religious faiths gained through political liberty and consequently religion also supports the separation of state and Church.
Besides religion the second significant factor conducive for democracy in America was equality of circumstances. Interestingly, this attribute through itself did not lead to freedom and was compatible with a new type of despotism made possible through the forces of individualism and materialism that democracy unleashed. While old aristocracies with its hierarchical class structures allowed people to forge firm and lasting political ties democracies with its doctrine of equality loosened those bonds. Big number of human beings became economically self-governing and as a result wrongly assumed that they had complete manage of their destinies. This false sense of independence changed the sentiments of obligation that aristocracy fostered into radical self-interest.
Religion appeared as the savior of democracy through checking this degeneration. Tocqueville conceded that religion might not be able to contain the whole urge of individualism and the pursuit of well being, but was the only mechanism of moderation and education. He saw religion sustaining moderate individualism with drive for material prosperity, both of which were essential For the success of democracy. Instead of seeing religion as an antithesis of human liberation as Karl Heinrich Mars (1818-83) did, Tocqueville felt a happy blending of democracy and religion was possible and desirable.
Tocqueville was categorical that democracy did not rest on either constitutional arrangements or laws but on mores of society, which embraced both habits and opinions made possible through religion for it inculcated moral habits, with respect for all human beings. This was necessary in a free society in the absence of political manage. This was the essence of the success of American religion. In contrast in Europe the champions of human freedom attacked religious opinions not realizing that without religious faith despotism was inevitable and liberty unrealizable. The lack of self-restraint due lo destruction of faith led to the reign of terror after the French Revolution. In the absence of religion, atheism and tyranny would be the fate of all contemporary democracies.
A successful political democracy has to be grounded on moral institutions, which means religious faith. The dynamics of the democratic procedure and its interaction with society at big minimizes theological thoughts and the otherworldly attitude that religion fosters. The version to democratic life means religion would have to accept the philosophies of well being and prosperity. In return religion purifies and regulates through emphasizing honest means to reach these ends. The greatest advantage of religion is moderation and self-manage. The fine balance of democracy and religion and its uninterrupted success in America contrasted with the stark failure of irreligious communism provides credence to Tocqueville's analysis.
WOMEN AND FAMILY
Like Mary Wollstonecraft (17-59-97), Tocqueville attacked the institution of arranged marriages for it encouraged loose sexual morals thereby undermining personal freedom. He is critical of the French Revolution which might have democratized the country's political life but failed to make a civilization of freedom. He was impressed with the high stage of sexual morality in America which was seen as a private affair buttressed through religion particularly Christianity rather than political traditions. The sexual code as outlined through the Christian ethics incorporated virginity outside of marriage, continence and fidelity within marriage, and strict avoidance of all shapes of license. Besides religion other factors like racial makeup, climate, social condition and role of statesmanship also played a important role. Marriages in America were not arranged and that enabled women to enjoy personal happiness and sexual connection based on mutual respect and love. Marital freedom guaranteed a high stage of chastity.
For Tocqueville Americans educated their women through giving them freedom rather than exerting parental power. Americans valued chastity because it promoted healthy commercial habits, kept families productive and helped in maintaining political stability, the key to prosperity proving that chastity was not due to religion alone but also had its secular origins. This was not the case with European women. Nevertheless they enjoyed unprecedented equality with their spouses for marriage was a contract flanked by two mature, morally responsible and free adults. Tocqueville observed that American women despite their lack of formal political power were able to contribute to America's freedom and prosperity because of the dignity and freedom in their personal lives.
In America there was no adultery or crimes against women. In the 1830s women could fearlessly undertake extensive journeys alone. Men also adhered to the sexual morals partly due to marital freedom and restraints imposed through an articulate public opinion, and partly due to their ambition to pursue wealth creation them practical, non-erotic and busy, Tocqueville regarded prostitution as a regrettable but wise concession keeping in mind the lust of the male.
Post a Comment