“Democracy, carried to its furthest limits, is therefore prejudicial to the art of government… (p. 244)”.

 

Tocqueville continues with his theme that unlimited democracy is not necessarily good. The important thing to note in his quote here is the qualifier, “carried to its furthest limits”. Tocqueville is saying that democracy is good, but that we can’t let it run wild. You need certain institutions or characteristics in order to keep democracy within certain bounds. He addresses several areas of concern, including how democracies spend too much, how they fail to elect the wisest or most skilled, and how they lack administrative experience or continuity.

 

That last concern, about administration, seems moot in our own day. We now have very large and permanent bureaucracies that help administer our governments, rather than relying on a single, elected office-holder with a short term, as appears to have been the case in early America (society was much simpler and communities smaller back then, of course). In fact, our local government bureaucracies have become so extensive that citizens, in letters to the editor, now complain that the administrators are running the show, rather than the elected officials. My friend who was elected to our local government, Councillor Maguire, confirms that it often feels as if the elected officials are redundant, as they change very little of what staff bring forth, such as the budget (this is not to say that she or I think that councillors are redundant; it just highlights the degree to which the bureaucracy has grown to play a much larger role today than it formerly did).

 

This does, nevertheless, raise the question: have we gone too far away from unlimited democracy? Do our bureaucracies have too much power today? Councillors are still important; but are they important enough? It would be interesting to analyze what could be done to give more power back to councillors if that was desired. Given that terms for councillors were just increased from three years to four, it would interesting to know if that is going to help or exacerbate the situation. For one might argue that by having four year terms, councillors will be more experienced and have more time to move their own agendas forward, making them less dependent on the bureaucracy. Perhaps six-year terms then? Don’t shoot me Maeve! Of course, it could also be that we just have pretty darn good government these days, so there wouldn’t need to be a lot of debate over the budget put forth by staff. However, given that taxes appear to be rising at a much more significant rate than inflation, I would have reservations about that conclusion.

 

That is a good segue into another of Tocqueville’s concerns with unlimited democracy. They tend to spend too much. Why? Tocqueville’s analysis depends on looking at the interests of the various classes in society. The very rich don’t need government to spend money on them to have better life, so they aren’t tempted to have large expenditure programs. At the same time, their vanity might lead them to fund extravagant, but unnecessary, projects. Given that it is a small portion of their income, such projects often go ahead.

 

At the other extreme, the very poor don’t have enough money for all they need, so they want policies that spend lots on them. At the same time, they don’t pay much or any taxes given their low incomes, so it is no burden to them that the government spends lots. Given the larger number of poor than rich in society, there is great pressure for spending of this sort. The great check on all of this spending, according to Tocqueville, is the middle class. They feel the pinch of taxation the most, given that it cuts into their spending power the greatest. They aren’t as desperate for spending programs to help them, either, so they are less inclined for governments to spend lots. So the greater the size of your middle class, the more likely your democracy will have better economic management, for it reduces both the need to spend and the willingness to pay. This is why Tocqueville thought democracy in America was fortunate, because most of the people had enough income to feel the pinch of taxation. A democracy with too many poor, or non-taxpayers, is the most profligate.
This analysis is very interesting to apply to America today. For their society has a smaller middle class than Canada’s. They have more poor (I should check this) and they also have more rich, or at least richer rich. If there weren’t so many poor, would they have instituted Obamacare? It will be interesting to see if America continues to adopt policies to help the lower class given its increasing size. This will only frustrate the middle classes further, which is perhaps why we are seeing the TEA Party movement today (the middle class is feeling squeezed by too high taxation to help the poor as the rich aren’t doing their part as much anymore). Of course, there are policies which are like secret taxes that the middle classes won’t notice so much (because they result in higher costs of goods and services by being imbedded in the price), such as minimum wage laws, which I just read yesterday are starting to gain more momentum than they have had in years in America.