Apogee and Decline: From the 19th to the 20th Century

Strengths and Weaknesses of Democracy

A Philosophical History of Freedom

Strengths and Weaknesses of Democracy

The Right to Work
The Law and Its Abuses

Alexis de Tocqueville was a keen observer of democracy and a critic of democratic individualism.

Tocqueville's analysis of democracy essentially extends the distinction made by Constant between the freedom of the Ancients and that of the Moderns. In an 1836 article (Social and Political State of France Before and Since 1789), Tocqueville methodically compares aristocratic freedom with democratic freedom. The former is defined as "The enjoyment of a privilege," and Tocqueville cites the example of the Roman citizen who derives his freedom not from nature but from his belonging to Rome. The second concept, known as "the correct notion of freedom," entails an "equal and inalienable right to live independently of one's peers." This modern notion of freedom is thus distinct from the first; it is a political concept, but it is grounded in natural law, and it is considered correct because it applies equally to every person. It is written:

According to the modern notion, the democratic notion, and I dare say the correct idea of freedom, every man, being presumed to have received from nature the necessary enlightenment to conduct himself, brings at birth an equal and inalienable right to live independently from his peers, in all that relates only to himself, and to regulate as he sees fit his destiny.

Tocqueville is careful to identify all the political and cultural effects of this new way of being, typically modern. An admirer of Pascal, he aims to depict the grandeur and miseries of democracy.

In 1841, in Democracy in America, he analyzes the democratic principle that asserts itself in the equalization of conditions against the hierarchy of classes and the authority of tradition. And he observes that this process logically accompanies the dissolution of social influences, the ties of dependency, and atomizes the social bond, thus threatening the very exercise of freedom and political responsibility of the citizen. Moreover, the loss of great ancient ideals (virtue, the common good) leads to the impoverishment of the meaning of life, "to small and vulgar pleasures," to boredom and unease.

Indeed, the equality of condition, which characterizes democracy, means that each person tends to withdraw into themselves, without a link that attaches them to others. The individual independence that this new freedom consecrates makes the exercise of civic virtues difficult by fostering indifference to the public good. As a result, modern democracies expose themselves to the "soft and regular" despotism of statism, which is made possible by the growing disinterest of the people in political life. Democracy thus tends symmetrically towards two excesses that feed each other:

On one hand, individualism, that is, the "disinterest in public affairs" and "the love of material pleasures." Tocqueville defines individualism precisely as a feeling of self-sufficiency that leads the citizen to isolate themselves from others and to withdraw into themselves. This is hedonistic narcissism.

And on the other hand, statism, which destroys individuals by keeping them in a state of childhood. The State "willingly works for their happiness, but it wants to be the sole agent." Indeed, equalization is accompanied by a greater fragility of individuals who become isolated and separated from one another. To avoid anarchy and protect their possessions, they rely on a unique and central power to which they delegate all their rights. Therefore, according to Tocqueville, it is necessary to develop civil associations and "local democracy" to maintain counterpowers and thereby combat both individualism and despotism, both of which are freedom-destroying.

The author of Democracy in America warns us:

Indeed, there is a noble and legitimate passion for equality that excites men to want to be strong and esteemed. This passion tends to raise the small to the rank of the great. Still, there is also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which leads the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to prefer equality in servitude to inequality in freedom. (...) Nations of our day cannot make it so that conditions within them are equal. Still, it is up to them whether equality leads them to servitude or to freedom, to enlightenment or barbarism, to prosperity or misery.

For Tocqueville, man is much more attracted to equality than to freedom. He views this as a significant threat to democracy. Why does man prefer the passion for equality between the two? Because freedom produces directly visible costs, and its benefits are more distant, inscribed in the long term (freedom does not provide content, only the capacity to seek happiness according to one's judgment). Conversely, equality yields immediately visible positive results, and its faults only become apparent in the long term.

The Right to Work

The right to work is a good example of the drift of democratic egalitarianism. In a speech to the Constituent Assembly in 1848, Tocqueville took a stand against the right to work in the draft constitution. If the State undertakes to provide work for all workers, he argued, or if it ensures that they always find it in the job market, as the socialists want, it will lead to becoming "the great and unique organizer of labor."

In this speech, Tocqueville compares socialism to the Ancien Régime, for whom "its subjects are infirm and weak beings who must always be held by the hand, lest they fall or hurt themselves." Socialism is thus "a new form of servitude" for three reasons:

Morally, socialism promotes irresponsibility through its directive and collectivist state control. It is always characterized by "a profound contempt for the individual as such."
Politically, it is despotic because, in the name of happiness, it seeks to become "the master of every man, his tutor, and his educator."
Economically, it is inefficient because it eliminates competition through its regulations and its rejection of private property.

The Law and Its Abuses

What did Frédéric Bastiat think of democracy? He answered as early as 1846:

I am for democracy, if by this word you mean: To each the property of his labor, freedom for all, equality for all, justice for all, and peace among all. (Free Trade).

However, in 1848, following the February Revolution, Bastiat was elected deputy of the Landes in an assembly where the socialists made a triumphant entry. These latter only demanded one thing: that the law enshrine the principle of fraternity. In other words, to pass laws to provide work, education, and healthcare for all.

Under the reign of socialist ideas, Bastiat observed that the electoral machine was used to plunder public money, thus the citizen:

Public finances will not be long in falling into complete disarray. How could it be otherwise when the State is tasked with providing everything for everyone? Taxes will crush the people; borrowing will follow borrowing. After exhausting the present, the future will be devoured. Finally, as it will be accepted in principle that the State is responsible for fostering fraternity among its citizens, the entire population will become petitioners. Land property, agriculture, industry, commerce, the navy, industrial companies, everything will stir to claim the favors of the State. The public treasury will literally be plundered. (Justice and Fraternity)

The State then becomes, according to Bastiat's words,

the great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else. (The State) Bastiat also develops the idea that conflict arises when the law strays from its rightful role. In his famous pamphlet The Law, he demonstrates why and how the law has become "the battlefield of all greed," meaning a source of privileges, situational rents, and arbitrary taxation. As soon as it is admitted in principle that the law can be diverted from its true mission, that it can violate properties instead of guaranteeing them, a class struggle necessarily follows, either to defend against spoliation or to organize it for one's benefit.

In cases where the law merely enforces the rights of each individual and guarantees "the collective organization of the individual right to legitimate defense," no one is in a position to exploit it for their benefit at the expense of all, to such an extent that the very form of government becomes a secondary question.

It is only when the law exceeds its rightful bounds that the legislator becomes corruptible. This then leads to a fierce struggle between various categorical interests, all eager to capture the legislative apparatus to obtain privileges that, by definition, are spoliatory.

According to Bastiat, socialist democracy leads to a permanent budget deficit and ultimately to violence. Indeed, by tirelessly multiplying promises and being unable to fulfill them, the electoral machine develops a bitterness that lays the groundwork for revolutions. He writes:

But if the government takes it upon itself to raise and regulate wages and cannot do it; if it takes it upon itself to assist all misfortunes and cannot do it; if it takes it upon itself to provide pensions for all workers and cannot do it... Do we not see that, alas, at the end of each disappointment? More than likely, there is an equally inevitable revolution. (The Law)

Bastiat's conclusion: Take a look at the globe. Which are the happiest, most moral, and most peaceful people? Those where the Law intervenes the least in private activity; where the government is least felt; where individuality has the most resilience and public opinion the most influence; where administrative mechanisms are the fewest and least complicated; the taxes the least burdensome and the least unequal; popular discontent the least provoked and the least justifiable; where the responsibility of individuals and classes is the most active, and where, consequently, if the morals are not perfect, they tend inexorably to correct themselves; where transactions, agreements, associations are the least hindered; where labor, capital, and population suffer the least artificial displacements (The Law)

Quiz

phi1016.2

1/5

What is Frédéric Bastiat's critique of socialist democracy?