The Perils of Democracy

In a time when democracy is often held up as the ultimate expression of human progress, it can be jarring to consider the views of someone who saw its dangers as much as its strengths.

The French aristocrat and political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville traveled across the United States in the early 1830s and distilled his observations into a landmark work, Democracy in America. Tocqueville’s insights—astute, prescient, and dark—reveal a truth: democracy, while often framed as the fairest form of governance, contains within it seeds of potential destruction.

Why revisit Tocqueville’s warnings now?

The challenges he identified nearly two centuries ago—populist fervor, a propensity for mediocrity, the erasure of individuality, and a creeping tyranny of the majority—still plague modern democracies. Tocqueville’s critique allows us to confront uncomfortable truths and examine the dangerous dynamics in today’s democracies.

The Tyranny of the Majority: The Rule of the Mob

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

— George Carlin

One of Tocqueville’s most famous insights was the notion of the “tyranny of the majority.” In a democratic society, the majority wields power, and they impose their will on the minority without restraint. Tocqueville warned that, left unchecked, the majority’s will could suppress minority opinions, squelch individual freedoms, and stifle dissent.

Consider how “majority rule” is often celebrated as the purest form of governance. But Tocqueville saw it differently. He observed that dissenters could easily be marginalized in a majority-driven system, leading to a homogenized society where conformity is the norm. Conformity isn’t freedom.

He argued that democracy, if unmoderated, tends to lead to “soft despotism.” This form of despotism doesn’t come from an iron fist but rather from cultural and social pressure to conform, which leads to the silencing of minority voices.

In our modern context, social media amplifies this phenomenon. Cancel culture and suppressing divergent views are part of the digital landscape. Tocqueville’s observations on the dangers of majority rule prefigured this perfectly: he knew that the tools and tendencies of democracy when turned against individuals, create a tyranny just as stifling as any authoritarian regime.

Democratic Mediocrity: The Quest for Equality at the Expense of Excellence

A major flaw Tocqueville observed in democratic societies was their tendency toward mediocrity. The democratic pursuit of equality drives a societal focus on leveling. In Tocqueville’s view, democracies value equality even at the cost of excellence. (Think Boeing.)

In the spirit of making all citizens equal, Tocqueville argued that democracies are inherently suspicious of greatness and tend to push down those who excel.

This focus on equality produces a homogenized culture where mediocrity is tolerated and celebrated. Think of modern-day schooling systems, where the quest to create “fair” systems has led to “grade inflation” and an aversion to competition. Merit is being sacrificed on the altar of inclusivity. The political arena suffers similarly, as the democratization of media has reduced complex discourse to sound bites and populist slogans, prioritizing personalities over policies.

When everyone is equally mediocre, greatness is not allowed to flourish. The pursuit of equality becomes the pursuit of sameness. Tocqueville was skeptical that democracy could sustain a society of strong, independent thinkers because such individuals threatened the democratic impulse to equalize. Tocqueville foresaw a culture where even a semblance of hierarchy or merit is offensive to democratic sensibilities.

Materialism and Democratic Despotism

As Tocqueville warned, democracy’s emphasis on individual freedom also fosters materialism. In a democratic society, where people are theoretically equal, they are driven to distinguish themselves by pursuing wealth and consumer goods. Tocqueville noticed that democratic citizens often focus on material success to validate their worth. As material prosperity becomes the measure of success, democratic societies become shallow. Their citizens become ever more anxious and competitive.

Tocqueville’s concept of “democratic despotism” takes on a subtle form in such environments. This isn’t the oppressive force of an autocrat but rather a more benign-seeming form of control that lulls citizens into complacency. Sound familiar?

Tocqueville predicted a scenario in which individuals become so absorbed in pursuing personal comfort and material well-being that they gradually surrender their liberties to a paternalistic government. Again, does this sound familiar?

Consider the extent to which this warning applies today. Consumer culture is rampant, and societies encourage accumulation over critical reflection. As people become more preoccupied with personal pleasures and material gain, they become less engaged in political and civic life.

Democracy, rather than engaging citizens, encourages a society of passive consumers. And as citizens abdicate responsibility, the government assumes an ever-greater role—yet another instance of Tocqueville’s soft despotism.

Erosion of Individuality

Tocqueville was deeply concerned about the potential for democracy to erode individuality. He feared that democracy’s emphasis on the collective diminishes the uniqueness of each individual. He observed that democratic societies are characterized by a certain pressure to conform, leading to a loss of distinctiveness and originality over time. Tocqueville described democracy as producing a “social state” in which people are more likely to blend in than to stand out.

In modern democracies, technology and media exacerbate the erosion of individuality. There is less tolerance for dissent; those who express unconventional opinions are marginalized or censored.

This tendency toward conformity also affects political discourse. Leaders and policies are chosen not for their distinctiveness but for their alignment with the prevailing mood. Politicians no longer aspire to inspire or challenge the electorate but to pander to it.

In an era where public figures can be “canceled” for the slightest deviation from social norms, Tocqueville’s fears about the erasure of individuality in democracy are prescient.

The Fragility of Democratic Institutions

Finally, Tocqueville warned that democratic institutions, while appearing robust, are inherently fragile. The great irony is that democracy relies on its citizens’ commitment to principles it cannot enforce. Democratic institutions are meant to be fair and transparent, but they only work when citizens uphold these values. Without civic responsibility, democracy erodes from within.

The fragility of democratic institutions is evident when we look at political polarization today. In many democracies, citizens no longer see their political institutions as legitimate, often viewing them as tools elites manipulate. Tocqueville understood that once the public loses faith in democratic institutions, the entire system is at risk of unraveling.

Moreover, Tocqueville believed that democracy tends toward centralization, as citizens increasingly expect the government to solve their problems.

Tocqueville argued that when people cede too much power to the state, they risk creating a bureaucratic leviathan that is difficult to control. In our time, the erosion of civic responsibility and the rise of bureaucratic governance present a real threat to the sustainability of democracy.

Wrap Up

Alexis de Tocqueville’s warnings about democracy were not made lightly or outdated. His insights remain relevant, offering a framework for understanding the challenges facing modern democracies.

The question that remains is whether democracies can heed these warnings.