Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Plato and aristotle thought on leadership
American democracy in the 19th century
Historical roots of american democracy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Plato and aristotle thought on leadership
When we first viewed the ancient theorists, both Plato and Aristotle supported a form of aristocracy where the preeminent members of a state would rule. Because they were the most knowledgeable, wise, and virtuous, they would know what is best for a state and its citizens. But human nature has convinced us that without properly limiting its power, a government has the power to rule arbitrarily, succumb to corruption, and introduce great inequalities. Tocqueville, however, argues that the development of equality in the world has fundamentally changed our worries about government and that democracy has become the new standard. But because of the alluring nature of democracy, it’s extremely easy for people to overindulge, so we must be cautious and mindful of the spread of democracy.
The democracy Tocqueville found in America was built upon the principles of equality and the “sovereignty of the will of the majority.” These principles were only strengthened by the American Constitution, which places a disproportionate amount of power in the legislature, thereby forcing government to conform to the people’s will. Rule by majority does indeed seem favorable, as “the interest of the greatest number should be preferred to that of those who are fewer.” And while European nations seem to have settled into the thought that government of a few will know what is best for a state, Tocqueville asserts the contrary. He claims that a passionate people, who are interested in their own affairs, are better suited to achieve “social prosperity.”
But Tocqueville also admits that a democracy faces the challenge of first motivating its citizens into taking an interest in politics. Centuries of hierarchical government may have made people apathetic ...
... middle of paper ...
... due to its extreme stance on equality and freedom, is but a step away from either anarchy or tyranny. It seems to have worked in America, but there were several factors leading to its success. The state was founded on the premise of equality and its citizens had a strong desire to prevent the arbitrary rule of a tyrant, ensuring their active participation in government. The balance of power was also ensured by the ingenuity of the nation’s founders, who were away of the dangers of democracy and established a vast, complex system to prevent its abuse. While Tocqueville lauds the American experiment, even he acknowledges that it may not be repeated verbatim in other countries. The world may inevitably turn democratic, but we should not embrace democracy just because it looks pretty. As we have seen, democracy has numerous pitfalls, and we must be wary to avoid them.
Lani Guinier, in her essay titled “Tyranny of the Majority” (1944), justifies her political ideas and explains that as a result of these ideas, she has explored decisionmaking rules that prevent The Majority from “exercise[ing] power unfairly or tyrannically.” She supports her justification by incorporating childlike anecdotal stories, quoting loved American patriots, and creating conceptual analogies. Guinier’s purpose is to convince her opponents, as well as Americans with moderate political orientations, that her views and ideas aren’t too radical, in order to convince them that in order to make America a “true democracy,” they must consider her methods and strategies for desegregating The Majority. She adopts a patriotic, idealistic tone
Tocqueville seems to like democracy in its ideal form. However, nothing can be perfect and thus America is not a perfect democracy. Tocqueville found numerous problems with democracy and the influence it had on the populace. These problems range from their distrust of dogmatic beliefs to the imperfect equality that is in place in America. He also found the effects of these problems to be quite problematic as well. For instance, individualism, an effect of equality, is very problematic to democracy. Tocqueville enjoys considering America as an experiment in democracy, but does not find it to be faultless.
Democracy may be the best foundation on which to build a society, but to glorify it
Alexis de Tocqueville's visit to the United States in the early part of the nineteenth century prompted his work Democracy in America, in which he expressed the ability to make democracy work. Throughout his travels Tocqueville noted that private interest and personal gain motivated the actions of most Americans, which in turn cultivated a strong sense of individualism. Tocqueville believed that this individualism would soon "sap the virtue of public life" (395) and create a despotism of selfishness. This growth of despotism would be created by citizens becoming too individualistic, and therefore not bothering to fulfill their civic duties or exercise their freedom. Tocqueville feared that the political order of America would soon become aimed at the satisfaction of individual needs, rather than the greater good of society. Alexis de Tocqueville viewed participation in public affairs, the growth of associations and newspapers, the principle of self-interest properly understood, and religion as the only means by which American democracy could combat the effects of individualism.
Tocqueville, a foreigner, came to the United States to study American prison reform, but was so disgusted with the way our society was and how our government functioned under Jackson that he changed the focus of his study to an analysis of democracy. He saw democracy by our example as “far from accomplishing all it projects with skill” and that “Democracy does not give people the most skillful government.” Jackson’s example of democracy was horrible.
Democracy in America has been a guiding principle since the foundation of the country. Many over the years have commented on the structure and formation of democracy but more importantly the implementation and daily function within the democratic parameters that have been set. Alexis de Tocqueville was a French political thinker and historian born July 29, 1805. He is most famously known for his work Democracy in America. Democracy in America has been an evolving social and economic reform, and has continually changed since it’s founding.
For both Tocqueville in his “Democracy in America” and Locke in his “Second Treatise of Civil Government”, liberty holds a place of paramount importance in the pantheon of political values, specifically those in relation to democratic and republican systems (though Locke does not explicitly demand a republic as Tocqueville does) . From Tocqueville’s belief in the supremacy of liberty over equality , to Locke’s inclusion and conflation of liberty with property and life itself in his natural rights , liberty plays the crucial role of linchpin in both author’s political philosophy. Though this belief in the centrality of liberty is found in both Tocqueville and Locke, they each derivate liberty from fundamentally disparate sources, and thus hold
Alexis de Tocqueville discussed how he believed that majority rules in the United States. He writes about how the majority in America has control over the opinions of the masses and how people do not think for themselves. The latter part of that is true. The masses do not form many of their own opinions but these opinions are not given to them, like Tocqueville says, by the majority. These "ready made opinions" (Tocqueville 11) are given to American people by a powerful few. Tocquville's writing does not apply to the US today because several kinds of minorities wield inordinate amounts of power in modern American society.
In this excerpt from Democracy in America Alexis Tocqueville expresses his sentiments about the United States democratic government. Tocqueville believes the government's nature exists in the absolute supremacy of the majority, meaning that those citizens of the United States who are of legal age control legislation passed by the government. However, the power of the majority can exceed its limits. Tocqueville believed that the United States was a land of equality, liberty, and political wisdom. He considered it be a land where the government only served as the voice of the its citizens. He compares the government of the US to that of European systems. To him, European governments were still constricted by aristocratic privilege, the people had no hand in the formation of their government, let alone, there every day lives. He held up the American system as a successful model of what aristocratic European systems would inevitably become, systems of democracy and social equality. Although he held the American democratic system in high regards, he did have his concerns about the systems shortcomings. Tocqueville feared that the virtues he honored, such as creativity, freedom, civic participation, and taste, would be endangered by "the tyranny of the majority." In the United States the majority rules, but whose their to rule the majority. Tocqueville believed that the majority, with its unlimited power, would unavoidably turn into a tyranny. He felt that the moral beliefs of the majority would interfere with the quality of the elected legislators. The idea was that in a great number of men there was more intelligence, than in one individual, thus lacking quality in legislation. Another disadvantage of the majority was that the interests of the majority always were preferred to that of the minority. Therefore, giving the minority no chance to voice concerns.
Analyzing this time period in America brings further understanding to the implications that can arise in a democracy. More importantly the very same democratic mechanisms that took away equality in the first place can be utilized by the citizenry to bring it back. With an understanding of Tocqueville’s argument of industrial aristocracy in a democracy, the American Gilded Age and the sovereign response to the elite, the appearance of inequality during this time period becomes clearer. The culmination of evidence across multiple sources will prove what led to the growth of an industrial aristocracy, its effects on the worker and the overall effectiveness of the sovereign
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
The very history of the country, a major contributor to the evolution of its political culture, shows a legacy of democracy that reaches from the Declaration of Independence through over two hundred years to today’s society. The formation of the country as a reaction to the tyrannical rule of a monarchy marks the first unique feature of America’s democratic political culture. It was this reactionary mindset that greatly affected many of the decisions over how to set up the new governmental system. A fear of simply creating a new, but just as tyrannic...
Plato states that as the just city (i.e. an aristocratic society) develops, it will inadvertently fall into depravity, because despite the excellent constitutions of its wise leaders, they are still fallible human beings. He outlines four distinct forms of government—of which he considers to be depraved—that the just city will transform into, with each one being worse than its predecessors. The four systems, which are ordered by their appearances in the line of succession, are: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and finally tyranny. The focus of this essay will be on Plato’s criticisms of democracy. Since democracy is recognized and practiced by most of modern western societies, it is especially relevant and important to examine whether this model
“We have had the habit of thinking of democracy as a kind of political mechanism that will work as long faithful as citizens were reasonably in performing their duties” (Dewey 1939, 2).
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”