“The time is now come for me to examine separately the supremacy with which the Union has been invested, and to cast a rapid glance over the Federal Constitution (p.125)”. Here we are, 124 pages into the book, and Tocqueville is just now turning to an examination of the Constitution, which, to a modern reader at least, would seem backwards. To us, the U.S. Constitution is America. It is what sets it apart from other nations and history. It is what Americans celebrate and what their politicians invoke. So why didn’t he start with it? And why is he only going to take a “rapid glance” at it? The book is over 800 pages long, wouldn’t the Constitution warrant considerable space?

 

Tocqueville appears to be reminding us that America is a bottom-up phenomenon, not a top-down one. It was not the Constitution that made America, but America the Constitution. The Constitution is merely the final manifestation of what America is. Also, since the governments at each level only give up some of their power, it made no sense to talk about the government at the top since it only begins where the others end.

 

In fact, the other governments are responsible for so much, that society was able to function just fine while the Americans were debating what constitution to adopt following the failure of their first compact during the Revolution. Tocqueville writes: “But it is a novelty in the history of society to see a great people turn a calm and scrutinizing eye upon itself, when apprised by the legislature that the wheels of government are stopped; to see it carefully examine the extent of the evil, and patiently wait for two whole years until a remedy was discovered, which it voluntarily adopted without having wrung a tear or a drop of blood from mankind (p.127)”.

 

I can’t imagine any more clear sign that a people are already well-governed than that statement just made. And later, he says, “In the United States the action of the Government may be slackened with impunity, because it is always weak and circumscribed (p.145)”. By which he means, the federal government. Since the townships and the States are doing most of the governing, the society is not convulsed when there is an interruption to the federal apparatus. It would be interesting to hear what Tocqueville would say today given the increase in power that the federal government now exercises in America relative to what it did in his day.

 

This brings us to another interesting point Tocqueville makes. He argues that it is dangerous to have a combination of two things in your head of State, lots of power and winning that power through elections. For Tocqueville says: “The most weighty argument against the election of a chief magistrate is, that it offers so splendid a lure to private ambition, and is so apt to inflame men in the pursuit of power, that when legitimate means are wanting force may not unfrequently [sic] seize what right denied (p. 143)”. Soon afterwards, he speaks of his own experience in France where the people are blind to the notion that it is the power of the head of State that is the problem, not just one or another who wields it or how they wield it. The solution, for Tocqueville, is to reduce the powers of the executive to make the position less alluring to the ambitious, and, leave the winner with less power to act once they get there.

 

This makes me ask: in the U.S. and Canada, have our executives grown too powerful that we are now at risk of the concerns our systems were originally designed to prevent? In Canada, the system always put more power in the hands of the Prime Minister than the President in the U.S.. But Parliament was meant to be a check on that power. Over time, Parliament’s role has diminished and the power of the Prime Minister has grown considerably. Many in society are starting to talk about this problem and are suggesting ways to reduce the power of the Primer Minister. The main concern seems to be that we get worse government when there is too much power in the Prime Minister’s hands. It is good to be conscious of Tocqueville’s warnings of the more dangerous outcomes it may be leading to as well, such as people being willing to circumvent elections in order to grab power. Given the recent brushes with election fraud in both countries, this is timely advice.