If you want to restore your faith in democracy, read pages 282 to 293 of Democracy in America. Tocqueville very eloquently makes a number of points that show why democracy is such a powerful system of government, including: 1. The more you consult the people, the more respect there is for the law. 2. Giving rights to all means all respect rights. 3. Ensuring everyone has property means everyone has a reason to respect property rights. 4. Knowing that one day the party you support may set the laws inclines one to respect the laws other parties set in the meantime, in the hopes that your laws will be respected in turn. And, 5. Free institutions create an energetic and enterprising people.

 

I’ve tried repeatedly to write some meaningful commentary on these points, but every attempt just seems to distract from and water down the force of Tocqueville’s remarks, so I’ve decided to pretty much just write out his remarks. I’ve included some deleted text that I was working on in case anyone is interested in my watered down commentary afterwards.

 

“In America the lowest classes have conceived a very high notion of political rights, because they exercise those rights; and they refrain from attacking those of other people, in order to ensure their own from attack. Whilst in Europe the same classes sometimes recalcitrate even against the supreme power, the American submits without a murmur to the authority of the pettiest magistrate (p. 283)”.

 

“The government of democracy brings the notion of political rights to the level of the humblest citizens, just as the dissemination of wealth brings the notion of property within the reach of all the members of the community; and I confess that, to my mind, this is one of its greatest advantages. I do not assert that it is easy to teach men to exercise political rights; but I maintain that, when it is possible, the effects which result from it are highly important… (p. 284)”.

 

“It is not always feasible to consult the whole people, either directly or indirectly, in the formulation of the law; but it cannot be denied that, when such a measure is possible, the authority of the law is very much augmented. The popular origin, which impairs the excellence and the wisdom of legislation, contributes prodigiously to increase its power (p. 285)”.

 

I feel we have lost sight of this notion in our society today. Especially on contentious issues, it would be good to involve the people more. That way, once you have a result one way or the other, even if it is close, people will be more willing to accept the result. If it is simply imposed from on high, the people may not respect it.

 

“…in the United States everyone is personally interested in enforcing the obedience of the whole community to the law; for as the minority may shortly rally the majority to its principles, it is interested in professing that respect for the decrees of the legislator which it may soon have occasion to claim for its own (p. 286)”.

 

This reminds me of Boris DeWiel’s book, Democracy: a history of ideas, in which he suggests that we need to keep people in the game, so to speak. If they believe they have a chance of changing the law in their favour one day, they will respect the law set down by others in the meantime. If we get to a point where they don’t feel they could ever change the law, such as when we enshrine things in a constitution, then they may resort to unlawful activity to get their way. Important concept to keep in mind.

 

“Amongst civilized nations revolts are rarely excited, except by such persons as have nothing to lose by them… (p. 287)”.

 

Interesting to consider that aboriginals are largely the only ones taking up arms against the government anymore (e.g. Oka, Ipperwash, Caledonia). Will this change with land and treaty settlements, or will we simply then have multiple competing nations, leading to violence between them? Or is the problem that natives aren’t invested in the broader society because they are less likely to have good jobs and own their own homes (i.e. lacking economic equality), and less likely to see themselves as having the same political rights and investment in Canadian democracy (e.g. feeling the law does not care as much about missing and murdered aboriginal women as others)?

 

“On passing from a country in which free institutions are established to one where they do not exist, the traveller is struck by the change; in the former all is bustle and activity, in the latter everything is calm and motionless (p. 287)”.

 

“I have no doubt that the democratic institutions of the United States, joined to the physical constitution of the country, are the cause (not the direct, as is so often asserted, but the indirect cause) of the prodigious commercial activity of the inhabitants (p. 290)”.

 

“Democracy does not confer the most skillful kind of government upon the people, but it produces that which the most skillful governments are frequently unable to awaken, namely, an all-pervading and restless activity, a superabundant force, and an energy which is inseparable from it, and which may, under favourable circumstances, beget the most amazing benefits. These are the true advantages of democracy (p. 291)”.

 

“We must first understand what the purport of society and the aim of government is held to  be. If it be your intention to confer a certain elevation upon the human mind, and to teach it to regard the things of this world with generous feelings, to inspire men with a scorn of mere temporal advantage, to give birth to living convictions, and to keep alive the spirit of honorable devotedness.; if you hold it to be a good thing to refine the habits, to embellish the manners, to cultivate the arts of a nation, and to promote the love of poetry, of beauty, and of renown; if you would constitute a people not unfitted to act with power upon all other nations, nor unprepared for those high enterprises which, whatever be the result of its efforts, will leave a name forever famous in time – if you believe such to be the principal object of society, you must avoid the government of democracy, which would be a very uncertain guide to the end you have in view.

 

“But if you hold it to be expedient to divert the moral and intellectual activity of man to the production of comfort, and to the acquirement of the necessaries of life; if a clear understanding be more profitable to man than genius; if your object be not to stimulate the virtues of heroism, but to create habits of peace; if you had rather witness vices than crimes and are content to meet with fewer noble deeds, provided offences be diminished in the same proportion; if, in short, you are of opinion that the principal object of a Government is not to confer the greatest possible share of power and of glory upon the body of the nation, but to ensure the greatest degree of enjoyment and the least degree of misery to each of the individuals who compose it – if such be your desires, you can have no surer means of satisfying them than by equalizing the conditions of men, and establishing democratic institutions (p. 292)”.

 

Wow! Beautiful.

 

“Hobbits must seem of little importance, being neither renowned as great warriors, nor counted amongst the very wise. … In fact, it has been remarked by some that Hobbits’ only real passion is for food. A rather unfair observation as we have also developed a keen interest in the brewing of ales and the smoking of pipeweed. But where our hearts truly lie is in peace and quiet and good tilled earth. For all Hobbits share a love of all things that grow. And yes, no doubt to others, our ways seem quaint. But today of all days, it is brought home to me it is no bad thing to celebrate a simple life.” – Bilbo says at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring.

 

Incredibly important point about the value of democracy. The value is not in getting wise legislation, but a bustling, energetic, engaged society, focussed on the basic, material needs of the people. I know I am constantly lamenting the imprudence of our legislators. I wrack my brain trying to figure out how to get better outcomes in legislation and policy. Perhaps, according to Tocqueville, this is misguided. The more we limit the ability of democracy to make poor decisions, the more we may sacrifice the energy of our societies. From this perspective, free trade deals may be a problem, not because of the policy it locks in, but because it locks in policy. We remove an area from democratic deliberation. We also do this with other policy areas by, for example, removing monetary policy from legislators to the Bank of Canada. Some of the things we lock in may be warranted and worth the trade-off. But it is worth keeping in mind that there is, potentially, a trade-off being made. Joseph Heath talks about using kluges to help get better policy, such as arms-length monetary policy. Are we in danger of using kluges too much, throttling our society by limiting democratic participation?

 

Upon consideration, these maxims are really not that unexpected. When you involve people and give them a stake in something, they are more inclined to participate fully and civilly. When people are not invested, problems arise. As Tocqueville says, “Amongst civilized nations revolts are rarely excited, except by such persons as have nothing to lose by them… (p. 287)”. When people are not invested in their society and its benefits, why would they respect laws for others’ benefit? In society today, we can start to see some fissures along these lines. Following the 2008 economic recession, economic and political inequality became hot topics again. People occupied public places for months at a time, pushing public patience to the limit as protesters defied court orders to take tents down and leave. Conversations about too much property at the top and not enough at the bottom became du jour. Subsequently, political movements to increase the minimum wage launched and are finding success. Leaders of serious political parties, in Canada at least, are talking about raising taxes specifically on the rich for the first time in decades. Thankfully, it would seem most people are still invested enough in society that these demands are being channeled through democratic channels. Parties are responding, laws are changing and people are no longer breaking laws en masse to agitate for change.

 

Perhaps most revealing, however, is the incident in the 2012 American election campaign when Mitt Romney was caught on tape telling an audience of wealthier Americans that he needn’t court almost half of Americans because they pay no taxes but feel entitled to generous government benefits: “These are the people who pay no income tax.. My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” Now, there are two things that should disturb democrats here. First, and most obviously, that a presidential candidate believes that nearly half of Americans are uninvested in society and, consequently, unworthy of his concern. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, that the claim is, in part, true.

 

According to 2009 tax records, 47.4% of U.S. households paid no federal income tax. Now, as articles on this issue point out, many of these households would be paying other taxes, such as state income taxes as well as federal payroll taxes, among others. But, nevertheless, it is shocking that nearly half of American households would not contribute to the budget for the U.S. military (though they’re probably more likely to contribute their lives and limbs), foreign policy, health care of the elderly and poor, and many of the executive departments, such as the Food and Drug Administration and the Departments of Justice and Education. So, as a presidential candidate, then, Romney has a point. If half of the people voting for you receive only benefits from government, but pay no share of its operation, it is hard to imagine them voting for you if you are the party of fiscal prudence. Of course, many do, for reasons other than personal economic benefit, but the idea that half of the citizenry is not financially invested in the federal government as taxpayers is troubling.

 

To the extent that this reflects significant inequality in society or, at least, a significant proportion of poor people in society, this would be a concern for democracy. To the extent that it reflects a tax policy that undertaxes people in the lower income quintiles despite them not necessarily being poor, it is less of a concern. That is, if you are simply not taxing people who have a decent amount of wealth, it is one thing. If you are not taxing them because they are too poor to be taxed even if you wanted to, that is another. In America, I think it is a mix of the two, though probably more as a result of too many poor than is healthy.

 

All of this talk is not to criticize America or Mitt Romney, even though one may fairly do so. It is to show that there are consequences for democracies and how well they function when societies become less equal. Even though America or Canada may not be at the point of real revolts by their peoples, the energy and initiative of their societies is likely being affected by their inequality. This is both a cause for despair as well as a cause for hope. It is a cause for despair because it is a shame that more people are struggling to earn a decent living and that they would not be as invested in their democracy as they should be. On the flip side, it means there may be a way to improve our societies that we have otherwise been overlooking. That is, by increasing opportunities for democratic participation in society, we may unleash energies and initiative in our communities. It is interesting to consider an overly bureaucratized economy with respect to this idea. By creating barriers to starting and growing businesses, such as requiring quota to be a dairy farmer, are we making society unequal and sapping initiative? A person of modest means cannot start a dairy in Canada anymore. You would have to take on way too much debt to make it viable.

 

Besides the economic unfairness, does this damage our democracy? We complain about needing to be rich to run for high office, particularly the presidency in the U.S. But if a person can’t even become a dairy farmer without being rich, isn’t that a problem too? I mean, we complain that the cost of law school or medical school is prohibitively high for a segment of our populace. Why aren’t we equally disturbed that only rich people can become dairy farmers? Is there enough opportunity left in society to consider ourselves lands of opportunity? Of course, this is not to imply that there is no room left in society for enterprising people. But it is worth asking, when we pass laws and consider policy, does this reduce the opportunities for all people in our society to exercise their freedom?

 

Tocqueville certainly recognizes the shortcomings of democracy, but he does not shy from praising it, either: “Democracy does not confer the most skillful kind of government upon the people, but it produces that which the most skillful governments are frequently unable to awaken, namely, an all-pervading and restless activity, a superabundant force, and an energy which is inseparable from it, and which may, under favourable circumstances, beget the most amazing benefits. These are the true advantages of democracy (p. 291)”. It is hard for people in our age, with personal experience only of democracies, to fully appreciate this idea that democracies create an energy in society that non-democracies lack. But to someone like Tocqueville, who had experience of a range of societies, this phenomenon was obvious: “On passing from a country in which free institutions are established to one where they do not exist, the traveller is struck by the change; in the former all is bustle and activity, in the latter everything is calm and motionless (p. 287)”. A big part of this, Tocqueville suggests, is that people who are free and enfranchised are invested in society. They protect and respect the rights of others because they themselves benefit from similar treatment from others. They obey the law because they know that, if not presently, they may one day make the law. Their effort is rewarded both in the private and public sphere.

 

Either here or somewhere else, work in Mitt Romney’s comment about only 47% of people paying income tax. Turns out it’s true. 46.4% of households, not just individuals but households, don’t pay federal income tax. They pay state and payroll and other taxes, of course, but they don’t pay federal. Some because they are poor or get credits for kids, others because they are elderly and don’t have much income in retirement. But that is an incredible amount any way you look at. If it was 46.4% of individuals, that would be bad enough, but to be households, that means it would be an even higher percentage of individuals, for every house that doesn’t pay tax has two non-taxpayers, but every house that pays tax does not necessarily have two taxpayers. It would be interesting to know the percentage of individuals. In Canada, the info I found says that, in 2009, one-third of Canadians aged 25 – 64, or something like that, wouldn’t pay tax. That is huge, too. So if a democracy is strong when everyone is a part of it, in terms of paying taxes and making sure they are spent wisely by participating in politics, what happens when nearly half of your citizens aren’t paying tax? Of course, as many of the articles point out, many of those not paying tax are the elderly, who have likely paid tax their whole lives already, or the young poor, who may one day start to pay tax. The percent who don’t and won’t pay tax for their lives is still rather small, though not as small, likely, as we would want it to be. Another way to look at this, of course, is to say, well, if they’re not paying tax, it likely means that they’re not getting a big enough paycheck. That is, if we want to include them in the polity, the solution is not to start taxing them, it is to help them get better pay or simply to help them get a job.

 

Tocqueville explains that democracy and equality create a certain type of people. People more concerned with comfort and peace than with excellence and heroism. We can use this backwards too. The more a society is focused on comfort and peace, the better its democracy must be functioning. The less so, the poorer is its democracy. The more bustle of its entrepreneurs, the more democratic. The poorer work ethic, the less democratic. It is interesting to compare America and Canada along these lines today. For I get the sense that Canada is now a better democracy than America given that Canadians seem less interested in greatness, military matters, vast wealth, etc. More people feel they have an opportunity in Canada. The Canadian dream is alive, but the American dream is failing. This is because America’s democracy is failing.