Summary: Democracy in America (page 3)

Tocqueville is deeply concerned: The consequences of this state of affairs are disastrous and perilous for the future ¹.

Could the omnipotence of the majority give rise to fears of majority tyranny? One thing is certain: for Tocqueville, the omnipotence of any social actor is always dangerous—except that of God, whose goodness and wisdom are equal to it.

Thus, the threat to America is not excessive freedom, but tyranny—the tyranny of the majority. On this subject, we find the following famous passage from Democracy in America:

When a man or a party suffers injustice in the United States, to whom can he turn? To public opinion? But that is the majority itself. The legislature? It represents the majority and obeys it blindly. The executive? It is appointed by the majority. The police? It is nothing other than the majority under arms... ².

Thus, no matter how unjust or unreasonable the measure that oppresses you, you must submit to it ³.

However, there are ways to guard against this danger. The legislature must represent the majority with a certain detachment, while the executive and judicial powers must possess independent strength.

Tocqueville distinguishes between two often-confused notions: arbitrariness and tyranny. Arbitrariness may be exercised in the interest of the governed, in which case it is not tyrannical. Tyranny, on the other hand, may be imposed through the law itself, in which case it ceases to be arbitrary.

Democracy can turn into a true tyranny of the majority, particularly in matters of freedom of thought. It is customary to associate democracy with freedom of thought as a matter of course. For Tocqueville, however, this is not necessarily so.

He observes that in a monarchy, the king may forbid certain writings from circulating freely, but he cannot prevent his subjects from thinking whatever they wish in the privacy of their own minds. In a democracy, by contrast, the majority exerts control not only over actions but also over morals and opinions: individuals are compelled, in the depths of their own minds, to think like everyone else. A king has only material power, which acts upon actions but cannot reach the will; whereas the majority wields a force that is both material and moral, influencing the will as much as actions, preventing not only the deed but even the desire to act ⁴.

Tocqueville puts it thus: In America, the majority draws a formidable circle around thought. Should the writer, the journalist, or the philosopher dare to step beyond it, they face persecution ⁵.

He observes that despotism has been refined in this way: once, it struck the body to reach the soul; now, it bypasses the body and attacks the soul directly ⁶.

This is how this subtle despotism, embedded at the heart of democracy, operates:

The master no longer says: 'You will think like me, or you will die.' Instead, he declares: 'You are free not to think like me; your life, your property, everything remains yours. But from this day forward, you are a stranger among us. You will retain your privileges in the city, but they will become useless to you [...] When you approach your fellow men, they will flee from you as if you were impure ⁷.

No writer can escape the obligation to praise his fellow citizens. The majority thus lives in perpetual self-adulation. This amounts to a generalisation of the court spirit, now pervading all social classes in a democracy.

This tyranny of the majority can therefore lead to intellectual uniformity: At first glance, one might believe that in America, all minds have been cast in the same mould ⁸.

¹ p.372
² I, p.378
³ I, ibid.
⁴ I, p.381
⁵ I, ibid.
⁶ I, p.382
⁷ I, ibid.
⁸ I, p.386