intro

In 1831 a young man named Alexis de Toqueville set out to answer a fundamental question of the times: Was American democracy working? The nation, under 50 years old at this point, was a lab rat for Europe. In France, Toqueville’s home country, the desire for a stable democracy lingered like a tiger hiding in the shadows. Armed with a pen and open mind, Toqueville became an astute observer of the American experiment. His observations were published in Democracy in America, which instantly was recognized as a masterpiece. Here are a few takeaways from the introduction to this book.

notes

“nothing struck me more forcibly than the general equality of conditions”

Toqueville argues that the American democracy works because of the relatively equal conditions of people in the country not just in wealth, but in education, social status, and power. Europe had a large history of inequality and classism, but the colonists in the US all arrived on if not the same, at least a more similar playing field.

If not a fundamental necessity for democracy, relative equality at least makes democracy an easier goal to pursue. Homogeneity of a group means that they are more likely to reach a consensus through a vote instead of a decision through repression or bloodshed. Thought there might be disagreements within ballot issues, the people are more likely to agree on the type of issues which can even appear in a ballot.

Slavery was a complete contrast to the idea that the people in the US were generally equal. This unarguable inequality put a huge pressure on democracy, devolving into the bloodiest civil war in the world at that time. The threat that slavery posed to a stable democracy was recognized by the founding fathers. Jefferson famously said of slavery, “we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other”. The survival and stability of democracy rests upon a “general equality of conditions”. When the imbalance becomes too high, democracy is threatened.

An important caveat here is that a forced equality has the same effects as great inequality. In a democracy, people cannot be forced to have equal conditions or unequal conditions. There must exist routes that an individual can pursue to improve their own conditions.

“In the eleventh century nobility was beyond all price; in the thirteenth it might be purchased”

I think this is such a nice way of summarizing the role wealth had in equalizing a population. In an age prior to the free market, heritage and nobility were the sole determinatns of one’s position in society, giving no room for those not born of a certain class to rise in society or improve their conditions much. However, as commerce began to blossom in Europe, wealth became a new way to gain power. For the first time, people could rise in society through their own efforts.

“When the exercise of intellect became the source of strength and of wealth, it is impossible not to consider every addition to science, ever fresh truth, and every new ideas a a germ of power placed within the reach of the people”

A direct byproduct of the free market being a route for people to have independence for their own future, more products and ideas flourished. Driven by personal desire, people began to innovate and create, inadvertanly improving the standard of life for everyone.

“In perusing the pages of our history, we shall scarcely meet with a single great event, in the lapse of seven hundred years, which has not turned to the advantage of equality.”

Toqueville continues to stress the idea that history tends towards democracy reminiscent of Martin Luther King’s statement that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice”. He gives France as an example. Feudalism in France was overtaken by the Church, which allowed people of all ranks to work towards positions within the Church. Relationships between people became more complex and equal. Does complexity of a society lead to equality? It certainly seems when the power dynamic is unclear, it is harder for one group to oppress another. Toqueville pointed out that Kings themselves often gave freedom to the lower orders to repress the aristocracy. Inequality is unstable and hard to maintain because it requires the agreement of all parties to repress another group.

I disagree with the idea that history inevitably tends towards a more democratic equilibrium. Barbara Tuchman, another fantastic historian, brings up the idea that when societies fall into disarray they can become more democratic or more authoritarian. Roman society was more democratic than the middle ages after it’s fall. Slavery was abolished in Britain in 1834, but only over a century later did India gain its independence. It takes effort and the correct conditions for democracy to remain in a stable condition.