»

Alexis de Tocqueville on freedom and democracy

Anna Celuch, SSP II

Political and legal thought course

              Alexis de Tocqueville went down in history as a great political thinker, historian and author of significant works on the history of state. This Frenchman from an aristocratic family related to the Bourbons, was born in 1805, received legal education and became a deputy and later on also general counsellor of the Manche department. His political activity led him in 1831 to the United States of America together with another young scholar, Gustave de Beaumont. This journey, undertaken for the purpose of collecting information about American penitentiary system, resulted in deeper study on several institutional issues, fruits of which were gathered in Tocqueville's widely recognized book "Democracy in America". His work is considered a thorough study of the then first fully democratic country in the world, as his research included such various aspects as law, customs, politics, philosophy, and culture.

              Tocqueville in his study on the American political system presented the technique of model thinking, rather unpopular at this time (later it was used also by, among others, Max Weber and Karl Marx). He created a type of ideal democracy, meaning an egalitarian society based on "equality of opportunities". His work he supported with empirical study: beginning with observation and description, he later used them to formulate in-depth generalisations and forecasts (many of which proved to be astonishingly accurate). He considered the society's organisation precisely and in action. Moreover, his studies focused on sociological issues as well, which was another uncommon method. For instance, he provided the example of public roads which in fact served only the bourgeoisie since the peasants were not allowed to use them.

              The thinker was one of the advocates of critical (or sceptical) liberalism. This branch of the liberal philosophy is characterized mainly by the theory of conflict between liberty and equality, about which later. When liberalism is concerned, Tocqueville was constantly torn between his aristocratic heritage and his approval for innovative democratic ideas. He remained conservative in the sense that he valued very highly historic traditions and therefore part of him opposed to most of the phenomena he wrote about. He believed aristocracy were source of numerous important values, such as liberty, dignity, high political culture as well as experience in governing and that all of them later became the foundations of democracy. All the more he praised the feeling of security and stabilisation rooted in the class society in which all individuals knew their place. Often he even expressed his despise for the uneducated populace. Nevertheless, his comprehensive study proved Tocqueville was aware of the inevitability of democratisation of modern countries and appreciated all merits of democracy.

              Tocqueville argued that democracy may but does not have to be a political system of liberty; that it does not equal liberty. Democratic societies prefer liberty, but it is the conflict between the latter and equality that lies at the heart of democracy. Liberty merely seems to represent the greatest value to human beings, but in fact, is so to only a fraction. The majority desires equality - such attitude is the way of expression for human envy, mutual to all of us. Tocqueville states that "[democratic peoples'] passion for equality is ardent, insatiable, eternal, and invincible. They want equality in freedom, and if they cannot have that, they still want it in slavery." Societies are thus ready to give up their freedoms in exchange for remaining equal in their bondage. This notion refers to most areas of life: politics, wealth, social issues, law-making; the latter finds its expression in the popularity of the idea of equal rights to all humans assured in statutory law (Tocqueville claims that uniformity of law-making provides stable and peaceful government). As a result, even though the author was considered a liberalist, he strongly believed the future of civilization lay in equality and democracy.

              One of the greatest advantages of democracy Tocqueville mentioned was the wide range of possibilities it provides for each individual. Being a system of equal chances and values of all human beings, democracy supports and encourages everyone to constantly develop their personal skills, fulfil their desires, plans and needs and make the best use of all available opportunities. This notion is for instance connected with universal suffrage, thought one of the most important instruments of democratic systems. Tocqueville considers it, among others, an institution which "inflames the passion for equality and flatters it".

              However, equality poses the danger of the society being dominated by the "tyranny of the majority", which he describes as the tyranny of the mob over the educated and wealthy minority. Tocqueville connects that with the inevitable development of the state and society, and the resulting increase of the state's functions and the centralisation of various areas of life. He fears that the extensive power of democratic state is in fact a threat to proper democracy and may lead to statist democracy, meaning one where society is controlled by the government to a great degree. Moreover, it causes a gradual incapacitation of the equal individuals - a moderate deprivation of their freedoms. Although the tyranny in democracy does not result in physical aggression or discrimination of  those who wish not to conform to the opinion of the majority, it causes them to lose most of the influence they could have on the government, the society's condition, and public opinion. In consequence, democracy tends to have a neutralising effect on an individual, creating a society in which its citizen is subject to it and absorbed by it, losing his unique character. That is so, for a single human being does not have enough moral strength, authority and social significance to oppose to the will of the majority.  Having said that, Tocqueville became one of the first thinkers speaking of "a mass society", which he describes as a "multitude of people equal and alike". In his opinion, a mass society is the inevitable effect of the dangers lurking over democracy. The idleness of the unaware, ignorant majority creates a perfect opportunity for a despotic government to take over.

              On the other hand, centralisation is essential for a modern state to create a strong organisation and is developed parallel to the process of democratisation. Tocqueville states that the intervention of the state is unavoidable, joining it with his abstract view of freedom explained before.

              In order to defend its citizens from such injustices as mentioned earlier, a state shall create a specific protection system. Analysing the American political system, Tocqueville remarks a whole net of security means introduced to prevent members of government and the army from exploiting equality for the purpose of dashing people's freedom. This practice is necessary even in fully democratic countries which may at first glance seem nearly impossible to see a despotic coup d'état.

              The very basic forms of protection are the federal system, the decentralisation of the administration and finally the independent courts. Also the Constitution is an element shaping the society in accordance with democratic expectations, in particular by ensuring all citizens' freedoms, rights and obligations. The judicial system of the United States, based on common law, includes one factor particularly expressing democratic values according to Tocqueville: the author puts a great weight to the jury as a good way of exercising power lying in the sovereign's hands (in democracy - the citizens, of course). Together with the independence of the court from any external factors, it results in a stabilising influence on the society and the government. Federation and decentralisation of the administration, in turn, serve as instruments of control over public persons to disenable them to abuse their competences. The argument supporting this practice is obvious since it is well-known one of the humans' most common vices is deep care for self-interest. It is therefore required to prevent bureaucracy from spreading and gaining more power, causing the tyranny of the officials.

              The best means to it, as Tocqueville claims, is political education for all citizens - "upbringing in democracy and for democracy". As some of its elements the author points out decentralised administration and autonomic local self-government, allowing citizens to consciously participate in politics. Next, he mentions independent political, cultural, industrial, scientific and trade associations, emphasising their importance as substitutes for freedoms of the old aristocracy adapted to new social conditions. Tocqueville considers it essential to create a new intellectual elite that would fill in for the nobles in this field. Finally, to Tocqueville, morality holds the position of a fundament of societies in general. He believes that if it is not honoured by the people and developed by the state, the lack of morality could become the source of diverse social failures.

              Alexis de Tocqueville undoubtedly contributed greatly to the studies of political systems. His thorough and wide-ranged research on the American society as well as its political customs and principles led to an exhaustive study which until this day gives us a deep insight into the mechanisms of the first full democracy in the modern world. The thinker's innovative methods enabled him to both provide an accurate description of the country and make predictions of the inevitable global democratisation, which were largely correct. In addition, he could consider not only the advantages, but also the disadvantages of the democratic system, and warned about actual risks that were inseparably connected to it. Naturally, since his roots were aristocratic, he could not completely cut himself off from his legacy and often expressed certainty of the aristocrats' superiority over common people. However, in general view, he strongly supported the idea of democratic states.

Bibliography:

J. Baszkiewicz, F. Ryszka, "Historia doktryn politycznych i prawnych", PWN, Warszawa 1979.

K. Chojnicka, H. Olszewski, "Historia doktryn politycznych i prawnych", Ars boni et aequi. Przedsiębiorstwo wydawnicze, Poznań 2004 .

H. Izdebski, "Historia myśli politycznej i prawnej", Wyd. C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2007.

J. Justyński, "Historia doktryn polityczno-prawnych", Wyd. Dom Organizatora, Toruń 2009.

R. Scruton, "Słownik myśli politycznej", Wyd. Zysk i S-ka, Poznań 2002.

A. Sylwestrzak, "Historia doktryn politycznych i prawnych", Wyd. LexisNexis, Warszawa 2009.
"Leksykon myślicieli politycznych i prawnych", pod red. E. Kundery i M. Maciejewskiego, Wyd. C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2009.