Tocqueville assesses the sovereignty of the American people. He notes it is clearer and more fully accepted there, “…it spreads freely, and arrives without impediment at its most remote consequences.” Interestingly, it was war that helped speed it along. During the American revolution, appeal was made in the name of the sovereignty of the people, “…every class was enlisted in its cause…,” such that, after winning the Revolution, there was no question anymore about the sovereignty of the people. This provides an interesting parallel with the American Civil War, for it was enlisting African-Americans in the cause that led to their unquestioned freedom thereafter.

 

This phenomenon is supported by another observation Tocqueville makes, “There is no more invariable rule in the history of society; the further electoral rights are extended, the greater is the need of extending them; for after each concession the strength of the democracy increases, and its demands increase with its strength (p. 63)”. Looking back, we can clearly see the evolution of suffrage. He basically saw this a century and a half before it was complete.

 

I wanted to see if his theory about war was correct, so I looked up when the U.S. and Canada extended the vote to women. Sure enough, in Canada, the vote was extended in 1918 to “war widows, women serving overseas, and women with family serving overseas (wikipedia)”. The following year, it was extended to many more women, though not all. In the U.S., 1920 was the year of women’s suffrage. So, in one case, suffrage was clearly linked to the war and, in the other, so close after the war ended that it is safe to assume a connection.

 

While I was on wikipedia, I also noted that the total number of countries that granted women’s suffrage during or shortly after the world wars spiked. I suppose it’s kind of hard to ask people to sacrifice for their country when they’re not politically recognized as being part of it. At the same time, it is kind of disturbing that war is a cause of progressivism in society. I know people often make the case that, economically and technologically, this is when societies advance, but it is also clear from Tocqueville that socially they can advance as well. Does this mean we need war to move towards peace? An interesting thought to explore. It would be neat to study ancient Roman history to see what impact the constant warfare had on the social progression of its society, for I believe there was a link there too. Perhaps it was the study of Rome that led Tocqueville to make this remark!

 

Tocqueville turns to an analysis of the townships. He notes that they are the most natural form of government, as “…wherever a number of men are collected it seems to constitute itself.” They are also, he appears to argue, the lifeblood of a democracy: “Town-meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they bring it within the people’s reach, they teach men how to use and how to enjoy it. A nation may establish a system of free government, but without the spirit of municipal institutions it cannot have the spirit of liberty (p.67)”.

 

I love this idea that it is not the writings of Jefferson, the leadership of Washington, or the text of the U.S. Constitution that secures liberty to the people, but the simple fact that neighbours gather together to determine where new sidewalks should be built. People participating in, practising, is perhaps a better word, democracy, much as a lawyer practices the law and the doctor medicine, is what ensures liberty. Tocqueville observes that the Americans were very good at ensuring there were lots of opportunities for citizens to practice governing: “…power has been disseminated with admirable skill for the purpose of interesting the greatest possible number of persons in the common weal (p.74)”. They did so, in part, by creating many more elected roles than we have in Canada, such that there were more opportunities to be elected than just becoming a town councillor. This is something I’ve often felt. We don’t have enough opportunities for public-spirited citizens to become involved in government. Should we create more? If so, how?

 

It should also be noted that Tocqueville identifies two conditions that make participating at the local government level so liberating. Tocqueville says that U.S. townships have both independence and authority (p. 73). They have the power to do things and are free from higher levels of government. That said, they do give up some of their powers to higher levels of government. But they have the power and then give it up, rather than receiving their powers from a higher level of government. It would be interesting to compare U.S. townships with Canadian towns to see what difference this source of power has on the feeling of liberty. For our towns are creations of our provincial governments, though I feel they have as much freedom as U.S. townships.

 

“He obeys the government, not because he is inferior to the authorities which conduct it, or that he is less capable than his neighbor of governing himself, but because he acknowledges the utility of an association with his fellow-men, and because he knows that no such association can exist without a regulating force. If he be a subject in all that concerns the mutual relations of citizens, he is free and responsible to God alone for all that concerns himself. Hence arises the maxim that everyone is the best and the sole judge of his own private interest, and that society has no right to control a man’s actions, unless they are prejudicial to the common weal, or unless the common weal demands his co-operation. (p.71-72)”.
The Americans, Tocqueville is pointing out, are free and cede control only because they recognize that certain things need to be done collectively. That is, they hold the power and freely give some of it up. In turn, their townships then give up some of their power in order to get things done collectively at a higher level. This may seem natural to us, but it would appear that in the past (in Europe), the governments were free and only gave certain power to the lower levels of government and the people. Governments had rights instead of people.