Tocqueville considers whether restrictions should be placed on the freedom of association, particularly with respect to political parties.

 

Tocqueville turns his attention to associations: “…in the United States associations are established to promote public order, commerce, industry, morality, and religion… (p. 219)”. We are familiar with such institutions in our own day, such as lawn bowling clubs, public speaking groups (Toastmasters) and environmental organizations (Greenpeace), among others. Some argue that we no longer participate in associations as much as we once did (see “Service clubs get creative” in July 15, 2014 Toronto Star), citing declining or aging membership in organizations such as Rotary Clubs and Kinsmen (now Kins) groups.

 

This is certainly true for the type of association that Tocqueville focuses his attention on – political associations, particularly, political parties. People today just don’t participate in political parties to the extent they used to. So it is hard for us to relate when Tocqueville singles them out as a particular danger to democracy. In fact, he is so concerned about them that he actually suggests, at one point, that governments should put limits on association in certain cases: “…the unrestrained liberty of political association cannot be entirely assimilated to the liberty of the press. The one is at the same time less necessary and more dangerous than the other. A nation may confine it within certain limits without forfeiting any part of its self-control; and it may sometimes be obliged to do so in order to maintain its authority (p. 221)”.

 

At first glance, it seems weird to put limits on people’s ability to associate and meet. Is Tocqueville suggesting that limits should be put on how often a group may meet, or where? He doesn’t provide details. On further reflection, however, we may be able to come up with examples of our own, and sympathize with Tocqueville’s concerns. For in Canada, we do put limits on free association. We limit both the amount and the source of donations to political parties. Only individuals can donate and they are limited to a donation of $1,500 per year. In other words, political parties are entirely restricted from receiving corporate or union donations and partially restricted in how much they can receive from each citizen. This is a substantial restriction.

 

I’m pretty sure, however, that these kinds of spending concerns were not top of mind for Tocqueville, but rather, the fact that a group of people organized around a political belief or set of beliefs could resort to violence to impose its will if it didn’t find success through legal channels. “The first notion which presents itself to a party, as well as to an individual, when it has acquired a consciousness of its own strength, is that of violence… (p. 225)”. He is particularly worried about this outcome in Europe, but not so much in America. Why?

 

There are a couple of reasons why he thinks the freedom of association is less dangerous in America than in Europe. First, the differences between the parties in America are not as gaping as between those in Europe. Second, the Americans are more experienced with parties, given the English heritage of many Americans. But, most importantly, and this may be the part that mitigates the other concerns, greater suffrage in America means it is hard for a party to claim it is representing the unrepresented, whereas in Europe, parties will play this angle to claim they have greater support than they actually have, for they represent those who can’t even vote, according to them. By giving everyone the vote, it becomes clear whether a party has the support of a majority, for it would be elected.

 

This is the second time that Tocqueville brings up the idea of universal suffrage. This is a huge point he is making. For he is addressing those who believe that the solution to keeping a people under control is to control them more. In order to get a handle on something, you clamp down, or restrict freedom. But he is saying the opposite. It is one of those paradoxes he is fond of pointing out. “Thus it is, in the vast labyrinth of human laws, that extreme liberty sometimes corrects the abuses of license, and that extreme democracy obviates the dangers of democratic government (p. 226)”. He is saying that by allowing everyone to vote, you take away the power of the factions in society that rely on undemocratic means. By bringing everyone into the system, no one works outside of it.

 

This is an interesting observation. For let’s combine a couple of Tocqueville’s ideas and apply it to a modern example. First, Tocqueville says that there is a permanent tendency to equalize society. That is, people want more and more power over time. They want to make more of the decisions. And, two, the more you share power, the less disagreement and faction you will have in society. So if we are seeing greater faction in society, such as people breaking the law to stop fossil fuel exploration and transport, we could conclude that people don’t feel like they have as much power today as they’d like. We might say, to use economic language, that the demand for democracy is currently outstripping its supply. This imbalance is showing up as problems in society, such as civil disobedience. People want more equality, but society has not changed yet to give it to them.

 

This would help explain at least two modern phenomenon at first glance. One, people want to reform the voting system to have proportional representation, or some other system that gives their vote more meaning. They feel that their “voice” is not being counted with our current system. That is, they feel disenfranchised. They feel that their ability to vote in a first-past-the-post system is no longer enough to count as democracy or suffrage.

 

Second, there are increasing factions in society that don’t accept government decisions around environmental issues, such as pipelines and tankers. These factions feel so strongly that they are willing to break the law in order to get their way. They feel that the decisions get made undemocratically both because corporations have so much power relative to citizens and the environmental review systems do not permit their voices to be heard. We have mentioned the phrase “social license” before. This is a sign, one could argue, that people want more democratic control over corporate activity. For to receive a social license surely means to receive the approval of the majority in society.

 

So despite having a democracy in which everyone can vote, people no longer feel enfranchised. People no longer feel equal. There are two ways we could approach this. First, we could simply dismiss it as the upset minority and nothing more. The Green Party of Canada cannot get elected federally, but green policies are now being adopted by other political parties at the provincial level; and, every federal party except the ruling Conservatives now has a substantial green platform. So our democracy is responding. No need to change anything.

 

The other approach is to say, yes, we have a democratic deficit. If we don’t act to increase the ability of the people to have their vote matter and to control areas of society that were not previously under their control, we are going to start to see increasing problems, perhaps even increasing violence. But what would we do? Would changing to proportional representation really enfranchise people? What about the option of making voting mandatory? Can we look at countries that have implemented mandatory voting to see if these issues are less acute in their societies? Should we give citizens more power over corporations and large projects, such as oil pipelines? Or is part of the problem that we haven’t properly enfranchised aboriginal Canadians, even though they have the right to vote? It’s interesting to ask these questions against the backdrop of the enfranchisement and equality issues.
Of course, we would also have to ask: at what point do we have too much democracy? If we give people more power over corporations or directly link their vote to the share of political power through proportional representation, do we open other risks to society? These are good questions to consider.