Democracy in America: Alexis De Tocqueville - Essay Example

? DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA Introduction Tocqueville arrived in America in 1931 exploring intellectual clarity regarding the essence of democracy, obscured from European view by the devastating French revolution violence. This voyage gave rise to Democracy in America, a critical book forming the foundation of Maneth’s research. Alexis could observe democratic revolution operating in a comprehensible and possible way. He could observe the complete sense of the democratic concept and understood its “generative reality,” the equality of social conditions. Tocqueville had lived through the French revolution and was the son of highly prominent aristocratic family where the mobility lineage went extremely far back, this could have caused a disdain for money. He was from egalitarian society not the newly formed capitalist society, so this could justify why he had a blind spot concerning capitalism and could not redress the challenges of industrial commercial system on the democratic system that strives towards the equalization of social conditions. Discussion Tocqueville ideas have had extensive impacts on the concept of penance and crime, equality and democracy. His historical background immensely influenced his democracy theories. Equality of conditions is the main point of focus of Alexis Tocqueville theories. He suggests that parity is fundamental to democracy, and absence of parity caused crime. His opponents use this dependence on the concept of equality as the central weakness. For instance, Tocqueville failed to recognize that unequal wealth accumulation resulting from capitalism could not be controlled in a democracy, which meant to have socially equalizing tendencies. The equality of situations denotes a social state where one person’s influence over another –based on the aristocratic regime- is substituted with the egalitarian notion of individual consent. In these conditions, the act of each has two main reasonable basis, public will and personal will. The triumph of consent over the impact and the advancement of human autonomy closely connected to it have critical, political and social impacts, leaving little as it was1. Alexis Tocqueville felt religious terror, when he examined the inspiring power of this historical transformation, which he observed as providential and in agreement with humanity, therefore, his examination of the democratic world somehow is an attempt to explore his fear. Tocqueville argues that, “intellectual life would be changed by democracy, just like the passion of men” p 230. In addition, under pressure from autonomy of individuals, views would be generalized, mores softened. Therefore, public view translates to the central, influential voice. Whereas individual rights controls, men’s live, the ends of man heeds into neglect. Similarly, the moral life’s content is emptied from the vessel of democracy. The desire for equality, essential to democracy, overwhelms all other concerns, and starts its powerful battle to eradicate the inherent inequalities of people. It is possible to recognize the modern society in Tocqueville’s views. What critics stress in Alexis works is the tragic, and, in fact, paradoxical, recognition that democracy is extremely natural to human beings and, if not controlled, detrimental to human nature. Allowed free dominance, this desire for equality- an egalitarian instinct- restricts democracy itself, in various ways. For instance, it limits democracy by paradoxically rebuilding a natural state, originally elaborated by critical thinkers such as Plato, Marx and Hobbes as the pre-civilized situation at the centre of democratic civilization. In addition, its spreads envy, destructive of any system; and finally, by gathering the natural autonomies of virtue and reason. Even though, Tocqueville recognized the aristocratic rule to be unfair, as it was anchored on an unnatural principle of familial autonomy, its hierarchical order still preserved room for principles transcending the individual will. The democratic system threatens to obscure all significant points that limit the sovereign individual. Whereas public opinion is crucial to democracy, it can be dangerous at times. Tocqueville stresses on democracy in his explanation about the majority tyranny. His majority tyranny asserts that, “in an egalitarian society, the majority will indispensably seek to oppress the few” p 235. This implies that the main support of public opinion will tyrannize the few. Tocqueville asserts that the power of majority is both irresistible and preponderant; it surpasses all other societal powers. He claims that the power of majority is crucial to preserve democracy; while, on the contrary, the power of tyranny, can limit democracy2. Tocqueville failed to understand that the power of majority acts to sustain capitalists in power and promote wealth inequalities between people. This is because the powerful aristocrats use their autonomy and resources to suppress and manipulate public opinion to support their schemes and put them to power. In his democratic ideas, Tocqueville fails to consider economic factors, for instance, he failed to consider capitalism impacts in his democracy analysis. Tocqueville concentrates on equality, neglects economic and capitalism factors that may have significant influence on inequalities between people. Some economic structures such as means of production may lead to social conflicts and inequalities in capitalistic societies because of exploitation of proletariats by bourgeoisie. The capitalist societies or individuals control the means of production and thus enslave the proletariat or working class. Therefore, democracy was a tool for the powerful individuals to control market forces and exploit the minority groups. Tocqueville viewed democracy as a “remarkable social condition; it was an evolutionary destiny for humanity” p 238. He centered his social ideas on equality of social conditions and social conflict and democracy relied on equality of these conditions. Similarly, democracy could not exist without equality leading of social crisis. According to Tocqueville, economic autonomy was a crucial source of freedom of Americans. He neglects the fact that this idea of economic mobility reinforces the rule of capitalism and is naturally exploitative. Tocqueville also misjudged the idea of democracy of Americans. He demonstrates American societies as an “egalitarian or democratic community of parity and opportunity” p 239. He argues that opportunity is widespread in the United States and that the poor can, through hard work and luck, rise to autonomy. He also argues that poverty and wealth constitutes semi permanent conditions, not just permanent inequality. He failed to understand that this is but just a basis of capitalism that rises to power and assume the full control over the market and means of production in commercial societies. Some critics believe that Jacksonian American society was both an egalitarianism era and the age of inequality. In fact, America was not as egalitarian as Tocqueville described it, because a better percentage of Americans were poor. Similarly, economic success was not as Alexis explained it. In other words, he overestimated the poor while underestimating the opulence of the capitalist. In addition, Tocqueville view of American democracy did not consider the inequality experience by the slaves (women and black American) in the hand of their masters, the capitalist. Many scholars argue that a society cannot be egalitarian or democratic if the majority of their population lives as slaves. Similarly, a society cannot be democratic if some of its population has no access to free market, property ownership, control of production means and access to economic decisions and choices3. To some extent, Tocqueville objected the slavery act in United State referring to it as “the closest act to American aristocracy,” (p 240) but he did not see how this could lead to capitalism and inequality. There is no doubt that Alexis Tocqueville misjudged the equality of societies in America, but in various aspects compared to European aristocratic societies, American society was undeniably egalitarian. The constitution demanded that people had to be equal, and there were less legal obstacles to economic mobility. Various American middle class individuals were of relative fortune, therefore, as compared to the modern aristocratic societies the American society was egalitarian. Experts agree that equality, though it brings enormous gains to people, paves way to extremely detrimental instincts - capitalism. It tends to separate individuals from one another and have every person think for herself. It opens souls to an inordinate crave for material gain. Tocqueville asserts that love for material gains and pressure enhances democracies due to aggressiveness and instability of such times. In addition, the aristocrats, with their tastes and demands for physical pressure met without problems and anxiety, turns their focus to other pursuits. Similarly, the democrats, on the other hand, live in an era when opportunities and fortunes are lost and won. In these conditions, Tocqueville asserts, “the needy conceive a desire to seek comfort and the wealthy thinks of risks of losing their comfort - the fortunes owner never acquire comfort without effort or involvement in anxiety” p 240. In this concept, Tocqueville idea seem incomplete, although his remarks concerning anxiety appear reasonable his argument regarding democratic attachment to wealth or material gains is highly problematic. For instance, some scholars argue that true democracies are attributed by frugality, mainly because of the tendency of equality to enhance distributive policies and facilitate the acquisition of crucial fortunes. Tocqueville is just but purely a foreseer of disaster. He suggests that better liberal democracy needs its people be politically energetic, dynamic ones concerned with their own improvement. He argues that a powerful nation must have exceptional people, and autonomy is a matter of survival. He failed to realize that his ideas are the basis of capitalism because people will struggle for domination and maintenance of their survival means by acquiring more wealth, and controlling production means. Conclusion In conclusion, therefore, Tocqueville arguments though relevant to American democracy, failed to see how unequal accumulation of wealth in American societies might lead to inequalities in wealth and inhibit democracy. Critical thinkers agree that modern societies are highly fair and dissatisfied, and are driven by an endless agitation to fulfill human needs and work to accumulate and maintain more gains that are material. Bibliography Tocqueville, Alexis de, Harvey Claflin Mansfield, and Delba Winthrop. 2000. Democracy in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Read More