“The birth of the democracy dates back to the Antique where it was implemented in Greece before Christ. The word ‘democracy’ origins from ‘demos’ and ‘kratos’ in Latin, and it is translated to the power of the people and developed by Plato and Aristotle. This power has since its birth been interpreted and applied to the society all over the world. Since the ideas which arose during the period of the Enlightenment have shaped the Modern Western World, this assignment will investigate whether the main principals developed by the political thinkers are still applicable in the post-modern society. Not only did Plato and Aristotle play a significant role, Charles-Louis de Secondat Montesquieu and Alexis Tocqueville have also interpreted the thought of equality and the greater good in a state. In a post-modern perspective Francis Fukuyama and especially Samuel P. Hunting challenges the idea of democracy nowadays. This paper will argue that growing democratization in form of greater social and political equality cannot prevent tyranny of the majority or threats from armed non-state actors. This assignment will investigate different political theories which shaped democracy and compare them. Additionally, this assignment will emphasize the transition towards the basic values in the post-modern society. Lastly, this assignment will put up counterarguments to why increased democracy has not lead to a greater social and political equality.
Charles-Louis de Secondat Montesquieu (1689-1755) who was strongly inspired John Locke’s imperialism did not have much attentiveness in social interests, but was captured by nature, history and the ‘encyclopaedia’ approach. Montesquieu believed that it was possible to secure the personal freedom with the separation of powers, and thereby his theory also became the roots of democracy. (McClelland, 1996, P. 325) The separation of powers consists of the legislative, the executive and the judicial powers, which is balanced, independent and handled by different persons. It should be handled by different persons because Montesquieu believed that the closer the connection between the persons are, the higher the risk is of despotism. Thereby Montesquieu also thinks that each type of government has its own activating principle, virtue in a republic, honour in a monarchy and fear in despotism. (McClelland, 1996, P 326) Since the republic was impossible, Montesquieu believed that the monarchy was the best solution, with the right mixture of the king, aristocracy and democracy. Thereby this is also a direct link to the ancient Rome with the consuls, senators and tribunes. Montesquieu believed that with monarchy the chances of becoming despotism was almost non-existing and therefore supported the monarchy greatly. Even though Montesquieu was such a supporter of the constitutional monarchy he still provided his theory of the separation of powers to later democratic theorists.
Thereby it can also be argued that Montesquieu argues historically on the basis of human experience. For instance, in the case of the separation of powers Montesquieu uses the British system to criticize the French and points out that despotism is not a legitimate form of government, but a corrupt form of government. Despotism is a corrupt because it is controlled by fear as stated by Montesquieu. The absence of structure makes it possible for one person to obtain power according to Montesquieu, who also believes that anarchy is the political expression for despotism. (McClelland, 1996, P 334) Thereby Montesquieu greatly supported his own theory of the separation of powers, and therefore he was also against revolutions. Since the monarchy is based on the rule of law, it also minimizes the chances of revolutions. From Montesquieu’s point of view, monarchy was the second best option, because he preferred the republic, but also realised that it is not possible due to the large population. For that reason, it was not only Montesquieu’s theory of the separation of powers, but also the fact that people can be controlled with other methods than fear which inspired thinkers later on. (Lec. 13, seminar days)
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) was both a politician and a lawyer in France during the 18th century. After his travels to the United States (US) in 1831-1833 he published “De la Démocratie en Amérique”(1835) which was the first serious and comprehensive defence of the modern democracy. And therefore his work was also based on what he experienced in the US, and thus recommends something similar in Europe. (Lec 5, Modern Democracy and Social Liberalism) Tocqueville perceived democracy as the provider of liberty and believed that the extension of the right to vote would result in greater social and political equality in the society, which might also be leading to the despotism and the tyranny of the majority. Therefore, Tocqueville argues for the fact that democracy should not be taken too far as seen with classical ‘Lockian’ liberalism. (Lec 5, Modern Democracy and Social Liberalism) This is due to the fact that the individual should always prefer inequality in freedom to equality in servitude, and therefore also always choose liberty over equality. (Lec. 5, Modern Democracy and Social Liberalism) Also to remember is the fact that democracy is based on liberalism, and therefore Tocqueville’s theory has been one of the elementary thought on democracy.
Tocqueville had experienced the breakdown of democracy in France which lead to revolutions, and thereby used his travels in the US to undermine an understanding for the fact that the US had been more successful with democracy. Thereby, Tocqueville uses his experiences in the US as basis for his theory. Tocqueville described despotism as” […] it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” (Tocqueville, 1835, page 31) Thus Tocqueville recognizes the fact that too much equality can lead to despotism, due to the fact that the state continually will nurture the citizens, while they become more inactive and in the end incapable of choosing their own government. For that reason, it can be concluded that democracy is creating more liberty, but also that too much equality can lead to more despotism.
A more modern perspective of democracy and which values it applies to the society is passed on by Francis Fukuyama. In 1989 Fukuyama wrote the essay “End of History?”, where he expressed the fact that the democracy has won, and that the end of the Cold War would lead to more peace. Thereby Fukuyama claimed that ideologies no longer are important for the greater social and political equality in societies. (Information, 2014) This is what Fukuyama believed due to the fact that he believed that liberalism is the only ideology which will survive because liberalism is impacted in many political and economic structures over the world. (Garner et al., 2012, p. 136). Thereby Fukuyama’s mind-set can be compared to Aristotle’s illusion of the perfect world: Eudaimoia. Unlike Tocqueville Fukuyama does not mention the tyranny of the majority or perceives it as a threat to the democracy. It can be argued that Fukuyama strongly believed that the democracy applied greater social and political equality to the Modern Western world. Also that he believed it so much that it has come to the point of an illusion, since the democratization today is not without troubles.
As a counter argument to Montesquieu and Tocqueville’s point of view is Aristotle’s thoughts.
Aristotle (384-322 BC) who was born in what today is Northern Greece and who was a student of Plato, was an ethical relativist who insists that a ’scientific study’ should be carried out. Not only did his ideas dominate European political thoughts in the later middle ages, but also became a topic for discussion, which is seen in Leviathan (1651) by Thomas Hobbes and in” The spirit of Laws” (1748) by Montesquieu. (Boucher, 2003, P. 75) Aristotle believed that the pursuit of the good life in term of human happiness and a life where everything falls into place could be called ‘Eudaimonia’. Furthermore, Aristotle gave the term ‘justice’ a lot of new thought, and this explains also why many of his ideas and thoughts were based on justice. Thereby Aristotle also points out that every man has a sense of good and evil equal to just and unjust. Thereby different levels of justice should be present in a just government. (Boucher, 2003, P. 74) For instance, Aristotle believed that there were no slaves, but recognised the fact that some people are better off by someone making decisions for them, and therefore it was correct not to treat them equal to others. (Lec 1, Antiquity and the Middle Ages) Even though this is a notable difference to democracy today, some of Aristotle thoughts and ideas in relation to equality and justice managed to shape the democracy.
Aristotle’s thoughts on justice and equality are not the only ones who have formed the modern society. Aristotle also presented a classification of different pure government systems, which also are used today. His classification was divided into two. A state with monarchy, aristocracy or polity was presented as the state of the common good, whereas a state with tyranny, oligarchy and democracy was presented as corrupt states. (Boucher, 2003, P. 76) He stated the difference between a corrupt and just society, and he believed that the state is the purpose and goal of human relations. Furthermore, Aristotle thought that a just state with good laws had the potential for the good life, which Aristotle also called Eudaimoia. (Lec 1, Antiquity and the Middle Ages) As such Aristotle also perceived democracy since everybody acts in their own interest. Aristotle’s preference was aristocracy, since the ruler was the most competent according to Aristotle. (Boucher, 2003, P.82) Because aristocracy is not a possibility it moves closer to polity which is the best option. This also comes closer to democracy, and the amount of virtuous people are greater than the amount of non-virtuous people and therefore ruling will be in the interest of the people. Thereby it can be argued that Aristotle’s final suggestion is similar to the idea of democracy under the theory of virtue.