Tocqueville’s Tyranny of the majority Alexis de Tocqueville was a French politic who studied American Society and its democracy. One of the things that he admired the most about America was the democracy that existed in the government, however this democracy generated some problems. One of them was the level of power that a majority could have. Since all the citizens were equal among them, a problem that existed was that the interests of majorities will have more importance than the ones of minorities. In a democracy people will be actively participating in the decisions that are taken and when a group of people has different interests than other, a tyranny of majority can appear. This can be defined as when the opinions and points of view …show more content…
He mentions how people have some predetermined ideas in their mind that contribute in the power given to majorities. “The moral empire of the majority is founded in part on the idea that there is more enlightment and wisdom in many men united than in one alone” (Tocqueville, CP, 141). One of the problems with this idea is that a lot of people can think in the same way, but that does not always mean that they are right. In a society with a democracy as America, the interests of a large group of people are more taken into consideration than the ones of a minority because of this predetermined idea that people has. “The moral empire of the majority is also founded on the principle that the interests of the greatest number ought to be preferred to those of the few”. (Tocqueville, CP, 141). Democracy can lead to having a tyranny of a majority because since all the people are equal, and therefore have the same right to express themselves, the interests of minorities would be ignored because a lot of people will be happy with the decisions that are taken even if they are wrong. Ethical and moral background play a big role on the power that majorities …show more content…
Tocqueville said that one of the problems with legislative was that there are always new people coming to the power, and that creates instability. “Legislative instability is an evil inherit in democratic government because it is of the nature of democracies to bring new men to power”. The legislative is the power that is going to be creating the laws of the country, having new representatives in short periods of time can create some instability because these new people could have new ideas and points of view than their predecessors. “American is the one in which the laws have the least duration” ( Tocqueville, CP, 142). It is true that the laws change a lot, but also the environment around them is constantly changing. Stability is always necessary, but if the conditions change then it is a good idea having the laws changed too. Unfortunately, when something changes, the interests of the minorities can be ignored because democracy tends to watch over the interests of the
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'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.
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
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.
In Federalist 10 James Madison argued that while factions are inevitable, they might have interests adverse to the rights of other citizens. Madison’s solution was the implementation of a Democratic form of government. He felt that majority rule would not eliminate factions, but it would not allow them to be as powerful as they were. With majority rule this would force all parties affiliate and all social classes from the rich white to the poor minorities to work together and for everyone’s opinion and views to be heard.
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 ...
For hundreds of years, politicians have searched for the perfect form of government to be the foundation onto which a strong and prosperous nation can be built. A Democracy is a form of government by the people. In a Democracy, a code of law is not required and the majority always rules. Similarly, in a Republic, the power of the government resides with the people. In addition, a Republic requires a code of law, which protects the minority by limiting the majority, and a system of checks and balances. In the New Nation era, the Sedition Act and the Revolution of the 1800s demonstrated the need for a code of law in order to prevent revolts. Furthermore, in the Jacksonian Era, Andrew Jackson’s abuse of power exhibited the importance of checks
Although Anthem’s society seems extremely surreal, aspects of its collectivist society closely mirror today’s society. By its use of majority rule, America’s democracy models a collectivist society. Take elections for an example. Although, Americans vote individually, the decision ultimately is based on the country as a whole. The use of majority rule relates to
" Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."
...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.
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.
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...
Since this argument is him addressing one of the many responses to why Americans are so politically ignorant, I feel that it wasn’t really based on hard facts, mostly sound assumptions. Thus, the best way to make this individual argument more strong is by providing factual evidence, such as a poll, that Americans have troubling understanding the U.S. political environment mainly because it is complex. Other than that, I feel it was a logical and strong enough argument. In my opinion, this discussion about the complexities of our political system ties back to our readings of several essays from the Federalist Papers, where the creation and reasoning for them were discussed. I had several questions while reading this essay. One of them is what other specific ways does the author suggest when it comes to being informed enough about the world. Also, what would he think would be the cause of a drop in political awareness among Americans
The majority and the minority bring forth change in policy in a democratic society. Majority rule means that, if there were an over whelming amount of support on a issue their voices would be heard by the government. Our government is run on a majority rule. People in our society elect officials and put their faiths in them to make their choices.
In "Civil Disobedience," Thoreau criticizes the American government for its democratic nature, namely, the idea of majority ruling. Like earlier transcendentalists, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Thoreau believes in the importance of the individual. In a society where there are many individuals with conflicting perceptions and beliefs, Emerson chooses passivity and isolation to avoid conflict with others. However, unlike Emerson, Thoreau rejects passivity and challenges his readers to stand up against the government that focuses on majorities over individuals. Thoreau argues that when power is in the hands of the people, the majority rules, "not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest" (Thoreau 64). Thoreau portrays this very fundamental element of democracy, w...