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.
You may be thinking how did the constitution stop tyranny? Well we have the answer. Let's start of with what tyranny means, that a leader or king abuses their power. How did the constitution guard against tyranny? Well they abuse their power bad deeds. The constitution guard against tyranny in these four ways. Federalism, separation of power, checks and balances, and small states vs. large states.
James Madison once said,” All men having power ought to be distrusted.” Through these words, Madison made the statement that not all government officials use their authority for good; some abuse that power and use it to gain more for themselves rather than vesting it within the people. This issue may lead to tyranny. Tyranny is when all powers belong to only one person or group. In May of 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia to draft a better constitution. One of the topics that concerned many was how the constitution would guard against tyranny. Madison and the other delegates wanted a Constitution that would be strong enough to unite the states and the people together without letting there be one person or group gain too much power. They achieved this in several ways. Today, the U.S. Constitution guards against tyranny by including a separation of powers, federalism, and the fair representation of states.
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.
Alexis De Tocqueville painted a portrait of a flourishing democracy within the text, Democracy in America. Tocqueville proposed that equality was one of the fundamental tenets that aided the success of American democracy. He defined equality of conditions as the end of aristocracy: “the noble has fallen on the social ladder, and the commoner has risen; the one descends, the other climbs. Each half century brings them nearer, and soon they are going to touch” (Democracy in America, book, 6). American democracy flourishes because there is an established equality of conditions for all; American democracy enforced the absence of formal rank and the end of births into positions of power while encouraging forms of power that challenged rank and privilege. However, in his analysis, Alexis De Tocqueville recognized the presence of race based inequality and cautioned that the reinforcement of a racial hierarchy could be detrimental to American democracy. Such observations characterize Tocqueville as insightful and
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.
James Madison, who glorified the benefits of the system of government outlined in the Constitution, wrote the tenth essay in the Federalist Papers. In his essay, Madison advocated a republic system of government instead of a democracy because it “promises the cure for which [they are] seeking.” According to Madison, in a republic, unlike in a democracy, a “small number of citizens [are] elected by the rest.” In other words, one difference between a republic and a democracy is the fact that a republic is based on representation, while a democracy is based on the rule of the majority (mob rule). Madison favors the republic form of government because representation (republic) recognized the inalienable rights of all individuals, while democracy is only concerned with the views or needs of the majority. Therefore, in Madison’s mind, a democracy is an unsuitable government, especially for the United States; Madison thought democracy is just handing power over to the ...
Tocqueville (rather bizarrely in retrospect) conceived of America as having “an almost complete equality of conditions”. While in respect to the French alone, Tocqueville argues, “the taste and the idea of freedom began to exist and to be developed only at the time when social conditions were tending to equality and as a consequence of that very equality.” Tocqueville draws the first stirrings of equality to the “political power of the clergy,” which upon being consolidated began to spread and upon its ranks to “all classes, to rich and poor, commoner, and noble.” Thus “through the Church, equality penetrates into the government, and he who as a serf must have vegetated in perpetual bondage could, as a priest, take his place in the midst of nobles, and would often sit above kings.” Tocqueville continues to trace the ascent of equality and descent of aristocracy to the financial demise of kings “ruining themselves by their great enterprises; the nobles exhausting their resources by private wars, [while] the lower orders enriching themselves by commerce”. And with the advent and spread of education, the “value attached to high birth declines just as fast as new avenues to power are
...re importantly, it tries to give democracy a good name at a time when democracy, rule by the people, was feared in Europe and the rest of the world. Democracy in America shows us how each society has certain habits that contribute to its definition of democracy. These habits, some of which are good and some bad, check each other to a balance of normalcy in which everyone has opportunity, safety, and potential progress in society. It shows us that democracy incorporates many “habits of the heart” and aggregates them to a common equality, making it an irresistible force in the world. Conversely, the “habits” of the people change over time. So, what Democracy was in America when Tocqueville visited may not be the same as that today or in the future. However, materialism and religion still play key roles in American democracy as a passion and a temper to that passion.
Tyranny riddles many forms of government, such as oligarchy, absolute monarchy, dictatorship, autocracy, and totalitarianism. In May of 1787, delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia gathered to create a stronger central government -- while avoiding the tyranny that so many other forms of government had allowed for. James Madison, of one those very same delegates, defined tyranny as “The accumulation of all powers...in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many...” in Federalist Paper #47. The key to the protection against tyranny in the American Constitution was the way in which power was divided. The Constitution guarded against tyranny by making provisions for federalism, the separation of powers, checks and balances of power, and fairly equal congressional power.
The scenes in creation being intellectual, the put together of constitutional democracy was very empirical. The Constitutional Convention was convened to formulate the constitution. What had to be clear was that the only way to assure a functioning constitutional democracy was the public's discussion. In philadelphia the delegates compromised. The outcome was to integrate states with large populations and states with small populations with a bicameral legislative branch. Also compromises that guaranteed say from both slave owning states and non-slave states could be listened to. The Bill of Rights
Upon the opening words of the Constitution, "We the People do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," one must ask, who are these people? While the American Constitution provided its citizens with individual rights, many members were excluded. Elite framers manipulated the idea of a constitution in order to protect their economic interests and the interests of their fellow white land and slave owning men' by restricting the voices of women, slaves, indentured servants and others. Therefore, the Constitution cannot truly be considered a "democratic document." However, because it is a live document, malleable and controllably changeable according to the interest of congress, it has enabled us to make reforms overtime. Such reforms that have greatly impacted America, making us the free, independent nation that we are today.
The worries of yesterday Eventually, we will have a tyranny without a strong, trustworthy constitution. We do not want to recreate exactly what the colonists were trying to avoid and escape from, which was tyranny. Tyranny refers to when a person has a lot of power, and has a lot on their hands, having complete control, and total control. In 1787 a group of delegates from 12 of the 13 states goes together to try to better the country.
The Articles of Confederation was the first government of the United States. The Articles had created a very weak national government. At the time the Articles were approved, they had served the will of the people. Americans had just fought a war to get freedom from a great national authority--King George III (Patterson 34). But after this government was put to use, it was evident that it was not going to keep peace between the states. The conflicts got so frequent and malicious that George Washington wondered if the “United” States should be called a Union (Patterson 35). Shays’ Rebellion finally made it evident to the public that the government needed a change.
In a speech that Archbishop Desmond Tutu presented in 2011, he raised an argument that the white people of South Africa should pay a special tax to symbolically serve to acknowledge and to compensate for the benefits they enjoyed in the past, in the Apartheid system. In accordance with the Transformative Constitution and the South African Constitution, it would be unjust to put these taxes in place for white people to pay, as a policy of our government. This Constitution’s goal is to transform our country into a non-prejudicial, equal society. By implementing such a law, it would contradict what our Constitution is trying to achieve. We should question whether this possible argument would be justifiable or not in order to fix our past and make up for what the black people lost and what effects it would have on the future generations of South Africa.