Tocqueville's Power To Balance Of Democracy
Tocqueville has a preeminent and keen insight of democracy in America that he apperceives the disadvantages of the omnipotence of the majority of America and its consequences. He believes that this omnipotence should be limited and the jurisprudence could be the greatest power to balance it.
In chapter seven, Tocqueville primarily talks about the unlimited power of the omnipotence of the majority of America. The natural strengths of the majority rule are clearly elaborated by Tocqueville in two ways. First he asserts that “The very essence of democratic government consists in the absolute sovereignty of the majority” (p. 282). Meaning that the essence of democratic government has determined the inevitable fate of the superior power of majority rule in this country. On the other hand, this trend has been strengthened by the constitution of some major states in the United States. The legislature, which can be the most vulnerable governmental agency affected by the majority, is the best embodiment of the majority rule. It is due to the fact that the lawmakers are directly elected by the majority, besides, their term of service are incredibly short as compared with the great power they were …show more content…
given in their term, which means that their actions are not just influenced by the majority in a short term, but also in a long run. Those legislature, which consist of elected lawmakers, has grabbed the legislative and even controlled the administrative and the jurisdiction. Compared with the provisions written in the constitution, the effect of such a majority appears more powerful in this country that Tocqueville says “Custom, however, has done even more than law” (p. 283).
How comes the power of majority? Tocqueville explains it with the moral authority of the majority. In this case, the theory of equality is actually applied to the equality of intelligence. the moral authority of the majority originates from the notion that the Americans believe “there is more intelligence and more wisdom in a great number of men collected together than in a single individual” (p. 283) leading to a result that the quality of legislators is defeated by the quantity of them. Even though the minority may hold different opinions against the majority, as time goes by, they will get used to be ignored by the majority. The second principle pursued by the Americans, also contributes to the moral authority of the majority is that the interest of the majority should be preceded by that of the minority. When a country is governed by the aristocracy, there exists the conflict between the interest of the minor (the aristocracy) and the majority (the commoners), while the America was established and developed by people who were completely equal, hence, the long-term antagonistic interest of different residents has not came into being. Consequently, unlike some countries in which the minority will always be hostile to the majority, every parties in America admit the power of the majority and will tend to turn to them for support.
In the second part of chapter seven, Tocqueville further explained the process of how this kind of omnipotence became the tyranny of the majority, summarized as following. The most evident defects of the increasing power of the majority reflects in the instability of the laws. Democracy allows legislators to constantly change and take turns to enjoy the supremacy of the power, presented by Tocqueville as “America is, at the present day, the country in the world where laws last the shortest time” (p. 285). This habitus is running through the whole system of America, from local government to central government. Which has a further effect on the dependent relation of the administrative to the majority.
Another way to look at the process of tyranny is through analyzing the influence caused by the tyranny of the majority in America. Tocqueville holds that “Unlimited power is in itself a bad and dangerous thing” and “human beings are not competent to exercise it with discretion” (p. 288). From his point of view, when a authority has been given unlimited power then there is a great possibility that it will grow to be a tyranny regardless of upon who it is been exercised. And what Tocqueville has been criticized about the American democratic government was not about its weakness but the few measures it made to be against with the tyranny. The tyranny is formed when it is done to infringe the rights of the minor by the omnipotence of the majority. When the justice that presents the majority surpass the law presenting the minority – the weak is being treated unfairly, they have no way to go – because every organization it concerns with is in the interest of the majority. Thus, a legislature, which can represent the majority but insists the neutrality at the same time, is needed to prevent people from infringement of exaggerated power of the majority.
The moral authority of the majority also contributes to the tyranny in the way it affects the minds of the Americans. Tocqueville describes the power of it vividly by making comparison between the absolute monarchies and the majority. Even the most autocratic king cannot stop people from spreading thoughts that against him, but in America, there is above suspicion once a decision was made by the majority. The king only possess the power which control the materials of his people while spirits and materials of Americans are both under control of the majority that makes the minor have to give up their original thoughts or even more to go on the road made by the majority. Under this circumstance, few unique thinkers can be born in America.
Tocqueville cites the quote of Mr. Hamilton in the book as “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part” (p. 298). If the interest of “the other part” is constantly being infringed, it will make them intolerable and force them to resort to force. Leading to the anarchy of state. Hence one can conclude that the abuse of majority power may result in the tyranny governing the country and the possibility of the collapse of the republic. To combat it, Tocqueville brings up with three ways.
One is that although a centralized government exists in the United States, a centralized administration can hardly be seen in there. Tocqueville thinks that, it’s easy to find the despotic characteristic of the majority, though, the majority “is still destitute of the more perfect instruments of tyranny” (p. 300). Interpreted as despite of the fact that governments in all levels are dominant by the majority, the connections between each of them are relatively loose. A will given out by the majority cannot make every citizens in every parts of the country to obey and the process of carrying out that will may also be contorted due to the decentralization of different levels of governments. And the central government is more likely to focus few special things rather than to involve in the management of all minor affairs in the society, which limits the despot of the majority in a kind of spots instead of spreading throughout the whole states.
The other way that balance the power of the majority is the profession of the law. Tocqueville says “the authority they (the Americans) have entrusted to members of the legal profession, and the influence which these individuals exercise in the Government, is the most powerful existing security against the excesses of democracy” (p. 301). Tocqueville analyses the characteristics of the members of the profession of the law in England and America that he concludes that the members of the legal profession, on the one hand, are tend to pursue the formalized order because of their hobbies and special status in the society, which further makes them closed to the upscale; on the other hand, they will support the broad masses of people because their origins and their own interests are inseparably connected with that of those people. Thus, they has become the adhesive relieving potential conflicts between the democracy and people. In this case, Tocqueville makes a comparison of the profession of the law between England and America. He states that though both jurists in Britain and the United States value the established facts of law, their people hold completely different attitudes towards the law. Britain respect the law for its history not for its value. They are afraid to be revolutionary that would rather violate the rationality and humanity than to change one word in the legal provision. While in America where no old aristocracy exists, people have no trust in the rich, hence, the jurists are formed to be a higher political class, who constitute the most knowledgeable part of the society. People are willing to respect them and when the tides of democracy are too radical, the inherent drawbacks of the law – the conservative and the caution will stop people from being overambitious and unrealistic. Which just right to balance the democracy in America.
Trial by jury, is another factor in law which benefits the balance of democracy.
After describing many general advantages of the jury system, Tocqueville lays stress on the status of jury in civil causes. He considers that the judges have a supreme status when dealing civil causes because relevant legal knowledge is extremely needed in those cases. The jury has little influence in the civil causes and it is in those cases that the spirit of law can be express to the public. Hence, the public get closer to the law and constantly increase their knowledge of the law, which contributes to the influence they result in the criminal offences. Thus, the jury, “which is the most energetic means of making the people rule, is also the most efficacious means of teaching it to rule well” (p.
316)
To conclude, no democracy seems to be perfect, the inherent property of it – the power of the majority, is what needs to be notice and people should keep thinking about how to use the most efficient force – the law, to protect their own rights.
In chapter seven, Tocqueville primarily talks about the unlimited power of the omnipotence of the majority of America. The natural strengths of the majority rule are clearly elaborated by Tocqueville in two ways. First he asserts that “The very essence of democratic government consists in the absolute sovereignty of the majority” (p. 282). Meaning that the essence of democratic government has determined the inevitable fate of the superior power of majority rule in this country. On the other hand, this trend has been strengthened by the constitution of some major states in the United States. The legislature, which can be the most vulnerable governmental agency affected by the majority, is the best embodiment of the majority rule. It is due to the fact that the lawmakers are directly elected by the majority, besides, their term of service are incredibly short as compared with the great power they were …show more content…
given in their term, which means that their actions are not just influenced by the majority in a short term, but also in a long run. Those legislature, which consist of elected lawmakers, has grabbed the legislative and even controlled the administrative and the jurisdiction. Compared with the provisions written in the constitution, the effect of such a majority appears more powerful in this country that Tocqueville says “Custom, however, has done even more than law” (p. 283).
How comes the power of majority? Tocqueville explains it with the moral authority of the majority. In this case, the theory of equality is actually applied to the equality of intelligence. the moral authority of the majority originates from the notion that the Americans believe “there is more intelligence and more wisdom in a great number of men collected together than in a single individual” (p. 283) leading to a result that the quality of legislators is defeated by the quantity of them. Even though the minority may hold different opinions against the majority, as time goes by, they will get used to be ignored by the majority. The second principle pursued by the Americans, also contributes to the moral authority of the majority is that the interest of the majority should be preceded by that of the minority. When a country is governed by the aristocracy, there exists the conflict between the interest of the minor (the aristocracy) and the majority (the commoners), while the America was established and developed by people who were completely equal, hence, the long-term antagonistic interest of different residents has not came into being. Consequently, unlike some countries in which the minority will always be hostile to the majority, every parties in America admit the power of the majority and will tend to turn to them for support.
In the second part of chapter seven, Tocqueville further explained the process of how this kind of omnipotence became the tyranny of the majority, summarized as following. The most evident defects of the increasing power of the majority reflects in the instability of the laws. Democracy allows legislators to constantly change and take turns to enjoy the supremacy of the power, presented by Tocqueville as “America is, at the present day, the country in the world where laws last the shortest time” (p. 285). This habitus is running through the whole system of America, from local government to central government. Which has a further effect on the dependent relation of the administrative to the majority.
Another way to look at the process of tyranny is through analyzing the influence caused by the tyranny of the majority in America. Tocqueville holds that “Unlimited power is in itself a bad and dangerous thing” and “human beings are not competent to exercise it with discretion” (p. 288). From his point of view, when a authority has been given unlimited power then there is a great possibility that it will grow to be a tyranny regardless of upon who it is been exercised. And what Tocqueville has been criticized about the American democratic government was not about its weakness but the few measures it made to be against with the tyranny. The tyranny is formed when it is done to infringe the rights of the minor by the omnipotence of the majority. When the justice that presents the majority surpass the law presenting the minority – the weak is being treated unfairly, they have no way to go – because every organization it concerns with is in the interest of the majority. Thus, a legislature, which can represent the majority but insists the neutrality at the same time, is needed to prevent people from infringement of exaggerated power of the majority.
The moral authority of the majority also contributes to the tyranny in the way it affects the minds of the Americans. Tocqueville describes the power of it vividly by making comparison between the absolute monarchies and the majority. Even the most autocratic king cannot stop people from spreading thoughts that against him, but in America, there is above suspicion once a decision was made by the majority. The king only possess the power which control the materials of his people while spirits and materials of Americans are both under control of the majority that makes the minor have to give up their original thoughts or even more to go on the road made by the majority. Under this circumstance, few unique thinkers can be born in America.
Tocqueville cites the quote of Mr. Hamilton in the book as “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part” (p. 298). If the interest of “the other part” is constantly being infringed, it will make them intolerable and force them to resort to force. Leading to the anarchy of state. Hence one can conclude that the abuse of majority power may result in the tyranny governing the country and the possibility of the collapse of the republic. To combat it, Tocqueville brings up with three ways.
One is that although a centralized government exists in the United States, a centralized administration can hardly be seen in there. Tocqueville thinks that, it’s easy to find the despotic characteristic of the majority, though, the majority “is still destitute of the more perfect instruments of tyranny” (p. 300). Interpreted as despite of the fact that governments in all levels are dominant by the majority, the connections between each of them are relatively loose. A will given out by the majority cannot make every citizens in every parts of the country to obey and the process of carrying out that will may also be contorted due to the decentralization of different levels of governments. And the central government is more likely to focus few special things rather than to involve in the management of all minor affairs in the society, which limits the despot of the majority in a kind of spots instead of spreading throughout the whole states.
The other way that balance the power of the majority is the profession of the law. Tocqueville says “the authority they (the Americans) have entrusted to members of the legal profession, and the influence which these individuals exercise in the Government, is the most powerful existing security against the excesses of democracy” (p. 301). Tocqueville analyses the characteristics of the members of the profession of the law in England and America that he concludes that the members of the legal profession, on the one hand, are tend to pursue the formalized order because of their hobbies and special status in the society, which further makes them closed to the upscale; on the other hand, they will support the broad masses of people because their origins and their own interests are inseparably connected with that of those people. Thus, they has become the adhesive relieving potential conflicts between the democracy and people. In this case, Tocqueville makes a comparison of the profession of the law between England and America. He states that though both jurists in Britain and the United States value the established facts of law, their people hold completely different attitudes towards the law. Britain respect the law for its history not for its value. They are afraid to be revolutionary that would rather violate the rationality and humanity than to change one word in the legal provision. While in America where no old aristocracy exists, people have no trust in the rich, hence, the jurists are formed to be a higher political class, who constitute the most knowledgeable part of the society. People are willing to respect them and when the tides of democracy are too radical, the inherent drawbacks of the law – the conservative and the caution will stop people from being overambitious and unrealistic. Which just right to balance the democracy in America.
Trial by jury, is another factor in law which benefits the balance of democracy.
After describing many general advantages of the jury system, Tocqueville lays stress on the status of jury in civil causes. He considers that the judges have a supreme status when dealing civil causes because relevant legal knowledge is extremely needed in those cases. The jury has little influence in the civil causes and it is in those cases that the spirit of law can be express to the public. Hence, the public get closer to the law and constantly increase their knowledge of the law, which contributes to the influence they result in the criminal offences. Thus, the jury, “which is the most energetic means of making the people rule, is also the most efficacious means of teaching it to rule well” (p.
316)
To conclude, no democracy seems to be perfect, the inherent property of it – the power of the majority, is what needs to be notice and people should keep thinking about how to use the most efficient force – the law, to protect their own rights.