Democracy in America

Tocqueville argues that the United States has two governments: one, the states, “responds to the daily needs of society,” while the federal government “applies only to certain general interests” (56). The key aspects of American political institutions and culture first existed on the state level, and it is essential to begin there to understand it.

The township system is Tocqueville’s first avenue of exploration, because it is not unique to America. He argues that anywhere society forms, townships exist. What is unique about America is the freedom and independence township government still exercises. Townships endure not because they are strong enough to withstand central government’s intrusions but because of “the continuous action of laws and mores, of circumstances and above all time that comes to consolidate it” (57). Local government depends both on cultural norms and legal support. Tocqueville compares townships to schools, in that they habituate citizens to participating in government and give a society the “spirit of freedom” (57).

Tocqueville argues that the nature and consequences of townships is best studied in New England, because “they are strong by law, stronger still by mores; they exert an enormous influence on the entire society” (58).

Tocqueville stresses that township population is typically about 2,000 or 3,000 people, which helps ensure the population has common interests and that there are enough qualified individuals to participate in local offices. Most measures, like establishing schools, must be brought to the entire voting public; town administrators, called selectmen, preside over town meetings but citizens request them. Town meetings also choose officials for law enforcement and tax collection.

Tocqueville then turns toward the philosophical, explaining that he must also account for why men who are free obey governments. He explains that a democratized individual

obeys society not because he is inferior to those who direct it or less capable than another man of governing himself; he obeys society because union with those like him appears useful to him and because he knows that this union cannot exist without a regulating power (61-62).

Additionally, submission to authority extends only to public life—in most other spheres, a free citizen of a democracy must be accountable “only to God” (61). Tocqueville portrays people as essentially pragmatic: they give up some freedom in exchange for other things they find valuable, knowing that this sacrifice will be somewhat limited. He extends this analogy further in discussing the relationship of townships with central government. Townships, like self-interested people, only defer to federal authority in support of “interest […] which they share with others” (62). Townships also must fulfill state laws and mandates, such as funding schools when an education law is passed. In doing so, they retain “rights of individuality” (63), meaning discretion about how this is carried out.

Townships appeal to an individual’s love of “independence and power. It acts, it is true, in a circle that it cannot leave, but its movements within that are free” (63). Local patriotism exists as long as this source of local power exists: Tocqueville argues that Europe has townships, but their lack of authority and importance means their occupants are “only those under its administration, and not citizens” (63). This vision of citizenship is both active and emotional: Sentimental engagement is only made possible through the exercise of local authority, and Tocqueville finds his own culture wanting in this area.

He further indicates that townships are significant because they are the primary arena available for citizens to have influence; federal postings might offer more power, but they are “few in number” (64). Tocqueville points out that this has unforeseen positive effects: it channels human desires like “the taste for power and for attention” to arenas that are closer to domestic life (64). The township’s presence is felt throughout daily life, which results in a sense of “movement that agitates it without troubling it” (64). It is clear that Tocqueville regards townships as unqualified goods, as they channel humanity’s more problematic impulses into community and provide routine possibilities for social engagement. The importance of tradition and historical roots further explains the harmonious nature of New England’s politics. Townships never replaced a system of aristocratic rank, and they are so well established they are “primitive” (65).

Tocqueville notes that the American solution to maintaining government while safeguarding freedom was to create a system where “authority is great and the official is small” so that administrative tasks are divided among many individuals. This is particularly visible in Massachusetts, where “administrative power is almost entirely confined within the township but it is divided there among many hands” (68). This is accomplished by laws that are attentive to “minute details” and “encloses secondary bodies and their administrators in a multitude of strict and rigorously defined obligations” (69). Townships cannot avoid paying taxes without facing a fine, and their officials can be punished for crimes in court. But the most common redress, for ordinary misconduct or failure to perform duties, is elections: Citizens can choose to replace poor leaders.

The township system is unique to New England; regions to the south invest counties with more of the powers of local administration. County government often consists of elected assemblies, and counties reserve for themselves more powers than townships receive in Massachusetts. But both institutions operate on the same key principle: “each is the best judge of whatever relates only to himself, and is in the best position to provide for his particular needs” (77). Self-determination is, as noted previously, key to American political life.

Tocqueville then describes how state governments typically operate: Most state legislatures have an upper chamber, a Senate that confirms political appointees and is involved in judicial matters, and a lower house, typically called a house of representatives. Senators usually have longer terms of office. Tocqueville notes that bicameral legislatures serve to “divide legislative strength, thus to slow the movement of political assemblies, and to create a court of appeal for the revision of laws” (80), which is now understood as essential. Tocqueville notes that chief executives of states, governors, have comparatively little power.

Tocqueville then turns to the theoretical problem of how centralized governments and their administration can be. The French monarchy in the 18th century was highly centralized because “the same man made general laws and had the power to interpret them” (83). In the United States this strength belongs to local governments. They are so strong, “[n]othing can stop it on its way, neither privileges, nor local immunity, nor personal influence, not even the authority of reason, for it represents the majority that claims to be the unique organ of reason” (84). Tocqueville finds this more concerning than encouraging, as legislative power also changes often due to frequent elections.

Tocqueville then points out that the federal government has no agents in the localities, so there are no “general rules of order” (85). While Europeans tend to champion centralization and argue that localities cannot adequately self-govern, Tocqueville argues America proves otherwise: “in this case the collective force of citizens will always be more powerful to produce social well-being than the authority of government” (85). Any partisan of central government who “claims to replace completely the free cooperation of those primarily interested, it deceives itself or wants to deceive you” (86). Tocqueville establishes himself as a strong supporter of individual initiative, self-direction, and community freedom. He argues that centralized authority can impose a system, but it is “suddenly reduced to impotence” when the time comes to direct individuals (86).

To advance his argument, Tocqueville turns to the question of results. He argues that American localities are able to provide infrastructure and meet citizen needs, saying, “I do not know a people who has succeeded in establishing schools as numerous and as efficacious; churches more in touch with the religious needs of the inhabitants; common highways better maintained” (87). Further, a more intrusive government might be more effective, but it would ultimately create overly dependent citizens. Tocqueville argues that in parts of Europe, the individual citizen feels more like a “colonist […] For himself, he enjoys these goods as a tenant, without a spirit of ownership and without ideas of any improvement whatsoever” (88).

As he considers counterarguments, Tocqueville argues that while Europeans have historically defended their communities, this was often out of religious devotion, as in the Ottoman lands when citizens supported Islam as represented by the sultan. The solution to this inertia are “laws to awaken and direct that vague instinct of the native country that never abandons the heart of man” (88). As a result of its framework, the American system works because investment is personal: “The inhabitant applies himself to each of the interests of his country as to his very own” (89). Tocqueville argues that this is especially evident in the American judicial system, as all citizens are invested in “providing proof of the offense and catching the offender” (91), which compensates for an underdeveloped judicial system and police force.

Tocqueville concludes by contrasting aristocratic systems with democratic ones. While the elite of an aristocracy in “a certain order in the bosom of freedom” and maintaining privilege, the common people are protected from “despotism” (91). In democracies, local government is a crucial counterbalance to dictatorial rule. While this has not yet been the case in America, Tocqueville is concerned that democracy easily lends itself to co-optation by a central government, as occurred in France after the 1789 revolution. In contrast, democrats in both England and the United States are strong supporters of provincial institutions even if they critique their central governments, a trend Tocqueville supports. He opines, “It is only peoples who have few or no provincial institutions who deny their utility; that is to say, only those who do not know the thing speak ill of it” (93). Tocqueville, then, sees certain disadvantages to democracy—its less organized administration, its novelty as a system—but treats provincial government and local authority as the cure for most of these issues, which Europeans would do well to consider.