Tocqueville “Democracy in America” - analysis. Who wrote the best book about America?

Book one

Part one

ABOUT THE PRINCIPLE OF PEOPLE'S AUTHORITY IN AMERICA

Comprehensive dominance of the principle of democracy

in American society. - The Americans' use of this

principle before the revolution. - The influence of the revolution on the development of the principle of democracy. - Gradual and steady reduction of qualifications.

When speaking about the political laws of the United States, one must certainly begin with the concept of democracy.

The principle of democracy, which to one degree or another is always the basis of any social institutions, is usually almost invisible. They obey him, although they do not recognize him, and if sometimes it happens to bring him into the light of day, then immediately people rush to hide him again in the darkness of the sanctuary.

The will of the people is, perhaps, one of those slogans that intriguers and despots of all times and peoples have most abused. Some believed that this will is expressed by approval emanating from individual corrupt minions of power; others saw it in the voices of a concerned or fearful minority; some even found that the will of the people is most fully manifested in their silence and that from the very fact of their obedience their right to command is born.

In America, unlike other countries, the principle of democracy is implemented openly and fruitfully. It is recognized by the customs of the country, proclaimed in its laws, it evolves freely and achieves its ultimate goals without hindrance.

If there is a country in the world in which the principle of democracy can be appreciated, where it can be studied in its application to public affairs and judged both of its advantages and of its disadvantages, then that country is undoubtedly America.

By the time the impact of the laws and the results of the revolution became gradually apparent to the whole society, democracy had already won an unconditional victory. Democracy triumphed in practice, seizing power into its own hands. It was not even allowed to fight against her. The upper classes submitted to it meekly and without resistance, as if it were an evil that had now become inevitable. What happened to them is what usually happens to those who lose their power: the purely selfish interests of each individual come to the fore, and since power can no longer be wrested from the hands of the people and since the masses do not arouse in them such deep hatred that they do not obey them, insofar as they decide to seek the favor of the people at all costs. As a result, the most democratic laws, one after another, were put to a vote and approved by the very people whose interests suffered most from these laws. By acting in this way, the upper classes did not arouse popular anger against themselves; on the contrary, they themselves hastened the triumph of the new system. And - strange thing! - the democratic impulse manifested itself most irresistibly in those states where the aristocracy took deepest roots.

The state of Maryland, founded at one time by noble nobles, was the first to proclaim universal suffrage and introduce democratic forms into the state government system.

When any people tries to change the electoral qualifications in force in the country, one can assume that sooner or later they will abolish it completely. This is one of the unchanging rules of life in any society. The more the voting rights of citizens expand, the greater the need for their further expansion, since after each new concession the forces of democracy grow and, simultaneously with the consolidation of the new government, its demands also increase. The more people gain the right to vote, the stronger the desire of those who are still limited by the electoral qualification to obtain this right becomes. The exception finally becomes the rule, concessions follow one after another, and the process develops until universal suffrage is introduced.

Today the principle of democracy is as fully realized in the United States as imaginable. He was cleared of all kinds of fictions that they tried to create around him in other countries; gradually, depending on the circumstances, it begins to manifest itself in the most various forms: then the people in in full force, as was the case in Athens, makes the laws himself; then the deputies, elected on the basis of universal suffrage, represent this people and act on their behalf and under their direct control.

There are countries in which the government, being, as it were, outside the social organism, influences it and forces it to follow one or another path of development.

There are also other countries where power is divided and is partly in the hands of society, and partly outside it. You won't see anything like it in the United States; society here acts completely independently, governing itself. Power comes exclusively from him; It is almost impossible to meet a person who would dare to imagine and especially to express the idea of ​​​​looking for it in another place. The people participate in the drafting of laws by electing legislators; He also participates in the implementation of these laws - by electing representatives of the executive branch. It can be said that the people themselves govern the country, for the rights granted to the government are very small and limited; the government constantly feels its original connection with the people and obeys the power that created it. The people rule the world of American politics like the Lord God in the Universe. He is the beginning and the end of all things; everything comes from him and everything returns to him.

Part two

WHAT IS THE STATEMENT BASED ON?

THAT IN THE UNITED STATES THE PEOPLE RULE THE COUNTRY

In America the people themselves choose those who make the laws and those who carry them out; he also elects a jury that punishes lawbreakers. All state institutions are not only formed, but also function on democratic principles. Thus, the people directly elect their representatives to government bodies and do this, as a rule, annually, so that their elected representatives are more completely dependent on the people. All this confirms that it is the people who rule the country. And although government has a representative form, there is no doubt that in the daily management of society the opinions, prejudices, interests and even passions of the people are freely manifested.

In the United States, as in any country where democracy exists, the country is governed on behalf of the people by the majority.

This majority consists mainly of good citizens who, either by nature or by virtue of their interests, sincerely desire the good of the country. It is they who constantly attract the attention of the parties existing in the country, which seek either to involve them in their ranks, or to rely on them.

ON THE INFLUENCE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY ON ELECTION LAWS

If elections are rare in a country, the state may be subject to serious crises. - If they are frequent, it is always in a state of feverish excitement. - Of these two evils, the Americans chose the second. - Instability of the law. - Opinions of Hamilton, Madison and Jefferson on this issue.

If election campaign is rarely appointed in the country, the state is always exposed to the risk of great upheaval.

All parties are making powerful efforts to seize the fortune that is so rarely given to them. There is no cure for the pain experienced by failed candidates, and one must be wary of actions on their part driven by ambition that has turned to desperation. If, on the contrary, it is known that soon it will be possible to enter into an equal struggle again, the vanquished behave patiently.

When elections are called frequently, it maintains feverish excitement in society and instability in public affairs.

So, on the one hand, the state may experience difficulties, on the other, it may be threatened by revolution. The first system prevents the state from showing good principles, and the second threatens the very existence of the state.

The Americans preferred the first evil to the second. And in this case, they relied on natural instinct, and not on reason; democracy brought the taste for change to passion. The result of this was the particular instability that we encounter in legislation.

Many Americans view the instability of government laws as an inevitable cost of an existing system that is, in essence, beneficial to society. And no one in the United States, I think, will deny the existence of this instability and consider it a great evil.

Hamilton, recognizing the usefulness of the power that could prevent the adoption of bad laws, or at least delay their implementation, adds: “Perhaps it will be objected to me that the power that can prevent the appearance of bad laws can prevent the appearance of good ones.” laws. This objection would not satisfy those who are capable of studying all our misfortunes arising from the inconstancy and variability of the law. The instability of the laws is the greatest defect for which our authorities could be reproached."

“The ease with which laws are changed,” says Madison, “and the excess of legislative power seem to me the most dangerous diseases to which our government may be exposed."

Jefferson himself, the most democratic of all the democrats to emerge from the bosom of American democracy, drew attention to the same dangers. “The instability of our laws is indeed a very serious inconvenience,” he said. “I think we would have to take appropriate action and make a decision that there should be a year between the presentation of the law and the final vote on that law. Then it should be discussed, and then vote for its acceptance, after which it will no longer be possible to change a single word in it, and if circumstances require more quick solution, then the proposal cannot be adopted by a simple majority, but only by two-thirds of the votes of one and the other chamber."

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

UNDER AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

American government officials are no different from other citizens of the country. - They don't wear special clothes. -

All government officials receive a salary. - The political consequences that follow from this. - In America there are no careers related to government activities as such. -

What follows from this?

In the United States, government officials are not distinguished from other citizens of the country; they have no palaces, no guards, no special ceremonial clothing. This simplicity of those associated with government cannot be explained only by the special American way of thinking, but is directly dependent on the principles that underlie the social structure of this country.

In the eyes of democracy, government is not a good thing, it is a necessary evil. Government officials must be given some power, without this power what good are they? However, there is not the slightest need for external signs of power; this does not help matters. On the contrary, conspicuous signs of power irritate people.

The officials themselves government controlled They feel very well that they have achieved the right to rise above others with the help of the acquired power only by adopting the manners of these others and thus becoming equal to them.

I can't imagine anyone acting so calmly, being so accessible to everyone, so attentive to requests, and answering your questions so courteously as American government officials.

I really like this natural behavior of a democratic government. In his inner strength, the source of which is not the position of an official, but the function he performs in the state, not the external signs of his belonging to power, but the man himself, I see true courage, maturity, and this admires me.

As for the impact that a civil servant's clothing and suit can have, I think that the importance of these external attributes in a century like ours is greatly exaggerated. In America, I have more than once witnessed how a public servant was treated with as much attention and respect as his activities and his personal qualities deserved.

Besides this, I very much doubt that special clothing could contribute to the self-respect of these people or their respect for each other if they are not so inclined, since it is impossible to believe that these people treat their clothes with more respect than themselves.

When I see some of our guardians of the law talking rudely to the parties involved in the trial, or practicing wit at their expense, shrugging their shoulders in response to the measures taken by the defense, and smiling condescendingly when listing the charges, I wish that with they were stripped of the vestments assigned to them by their position in order to see if, finding themselves dressed like ordinary citizens, they would not remember the natural dignity of the human race.

None public services in the United States they do not have special form, but all government employees receive a salary.

And this is a consequence of democratic principles to an even greater extent than what was discussed above. A democratic regime can surround its representatives of power, guardians of the law, with pomp, dress them in silk and gold, without directly encroaching on the principle of their existence. These kinds of privileges are temporary, they are associated with a place, not with a person. But to establish free, unpaid positions will already contribute to the emergence of a class of rich and independent civil servants, this will create the core of the aristocracy. If the people still retain the right to choose, the exercise of this right is necessarily limited.

When we see that any democratic republic declares unpaid those public offices for which payment was previously due, we can confidently conclude that it is moving towards a monarchy. And when the monarchy begins to pay for positions that were previously unpaid, this is a sure sign that the monarchy is moving towards an oppressive regime or towards a republic.

The abolition of remuneration for previously paid positions, in my opinion, in itself represents a true revolution.

I regard the complete absence of unpaid public employment in America as one of the most obvious signs of the complete power of democracy. Services provided to society, whatever they may be, are paid for, thus everyone has not only the right, but also the opportunity to provide them.

If in a democratic state all citizens have the right to seek a position, a place to serve society, this does not mean that everyone will strive for this. And it is not the title of the nominated candidate, but the number and quality of the nominated candidates that often limit the choice of voters.

Among those peoples for whom the principle of election applies to everything, there is no political career in its pure form. People get into government positions in a sense by chance, and they have no confidence that they will stay there. Especially if elections are held annually. And hence, when the country is calm, government positions are unattractive for ambitious people. In the United States, people of moderate views and desires are flocking to the winding paths of political careers. People of great talent and strong passions tend to step away from power in order to direct their energies to achieving wealth. It often happens that when a person feels unable to successfully manage his own affairs, he takes upon himself the courage to decide the fate of the state.

These reasons, as well as the poor choices made by democracy, explain the fact that government positions are often occupied by ordinary people, ordinary people. I don’t know whether the American people would elect to public office people from the upper strata of society, those who would seek their sympathy; One thing is obvious - they are not achieving this.

ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF LAW OFFICERS

UNDER DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA

Why do guardians of the law have more power under an absolute monarchy and in democratic republics than under a limited monarchy? — The Power of the Law Officer in New England.

There are two types government system, under which a lot of arbitrariness is revealed in the activities of the guardians of the law: under individual rule, absolute; monarchy, and under the omnipotence of democracy.

This is due to certain similarities between these modes. In despotic states, the fate of an individual is not guaranteed, whether he is a government official or a private citizen. The monarch, in whose hands are the lives, well-being, and often the honor of the people whom he keeps in his service, believes that he has nothing to fear from them. Therefore, he gives them greater freedom of action, being confident that they will never use this against him.

In despotic states, the monarch is so passionate about his power that he fears that his own rules will infringe on this power. And he prefers to see that his subordinates act in a certain sense, as they please, this gives him confidence that he will never find opposition to his desires in them.

In democratic states, the majority, which has the opportunity to annually take away power from those to whom it has entrusted it, is also not afraid that this can be used against itself. Having the right at any time to declare its will to the government, it nevertheless considers it best to leave the rulers to themselves and not to bind their activities with strict rules, because by limiting them, it to a certain extent limits himself.

A closer study of these two regimes even leads to the following discovery: under the absolute power of democracy, the arbitrariness of the guardians of the law is even greater than in despotic states.

In these states, the monarch at some point can punish everyone who has violated the law if he discovers it; True, he will not have to congratulate himself on the fact that he has discovered all the crimes that are subject to punishment. In democratic states, on the contrary, the head of state is both omnipotent and, as it were, present everywhere at the same time. Therefore we see that American statesmen act much more freely within the limits outlined by law than statesmen in Europe. Often they are only told the goal towards which they must move; the right to choose the means remains with them.

In New England, for example, the electors of each community are given the power of drawing up a list of jurors, and the only requirement that is required of them is this: that they must choose a juror from among the citizens entitled to vote and of good character.

In France we would consider the life and liberty of man to be in danger if we trusted any public officer, whoever he might be, to exercise such a dangerous right.

And in New England, the same guardians of the law can post lists of drunkards in cabarets and prohibit the sale of wine to them, and in case of violation, impose a fine on the persons who sold the wine.

Such public condemnation would outrage the people in the country of the most absolute monarchy; here the people easily submit to this.

In no regime does the law give such freedom to lawlessness as in a sovereign democracy, because in democratic republics lawlessness does not seem to cause fear. One might even say that the guardian of the law there is becoming freer, as suffrage increasingly makes it possible for representatives of the lowest strata of society to enter this office, and the term of office becomes increasingly limited.

It follows that it is extremely difficult for a democratic republic to develop into a monarchical state. The guardian of the law, ceasing to be elected, usually retains all the rights and habits of the elected person. Thus, a despotic regime sets in.

Only under a limited monarchy does the law, on the one hand, outline the range of activities of government officials, and on the other hand, take upon itself the responsibility of guiding their every step within these limits. The reason for this is easy to explain.

In limited monarchies, power is divided between the people and the monarch. Both are interested in ensuring that the position of the guardians of the law is stable.

The monarch does not want to entrust the fate of his officials to the people for fear that they will harm his power, while the people, for their part, are afraid that if the guardians of the law are absolutely dependent on the monarch, they will infringe on freedom; thus, the guardians of the law are not made completely dependent on either one or the other.

The same reason leads the monarch and the people to the idea of ​​​​the independence of government officials and to the search for guarantees to ensure that this independence cannot be abused - so that it does not turn against the power of the monarch or against the freedom of the people. Both parties come to an agreement that it is necessary to determine in advance the scope of activity and the line of conduct of government officials, and in accordance with the interests of both parties, rules are developed from which officials should not deviate.

THE REAL BENEFITS OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT FOR AMERICAN SOCIETY

At the beginning of this chapter, I consider it necessary to remind the reader of what I have repeatedly said in this book.

The political structure of the United States is a democratic form of government; however, in my opinion, American institutions are neither the best nor the only possible for a people living in a democratic society.

In introducing the reader to the advantages of American democracy, I am far from thinking that such advantages can arise only as a result of the operation of some specific laws.

GENERAL ORIENTATION OF DEMOCRATIC LAWS

AUTHORITIES IN AMERICA AND THE PROPERTIES OF THOSE WHO EXERCISE THEM

The flaws of democracy are glaring. - Its benefits become noticeable only over time. - American democracy does not always work well, but the general thrust of its laws is beneficial to society. - Public servants in an American democratic society do not have interests that are consistently different from the interests of the majority. - What does this lead to?

The vices and weaknesses of the democratic form of government lie on the surface; obvious facts can be cited to prove them. At the same time, the beneficial effects of this form of government occur unnoticed, one might even say, hidden. Its shortcomings are striking at first sight, and its advantages are revealed only over time.

American laws are often poorly worded and incomplete. It happens that they do not take into account existing rights or encourage those that may pose a danger. While they are good in themselves, their big disadvantage is their frequent replacement. All this is visible to the naked eye.

Why, then, do the American republics live and prosper? Speaking about laws, one must carefully distinguish, on the one hand, the goal they pursue, and on the other, the means of achieving this goal, that is, their absolute and relative goodness.

Let us assume that the legislator seeks to protect the interests of a small number of people to the detriment of the majority. He draws up the provisions of the law in such a way as to achieve the desired result as quickly as possible. short time and with the least effort. The law will be good, but the goal will be bad. Moreover, the better it can be implemented, the greater the danger it will pose.

Democratic laws generally seek to ensure the benefit of the majority. After all, they come from the majority of citizens, who may make mistakes, but cannot express interests contrary to their own.

Aristocratic laws, on the contrary, tend to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a small group of people, since the aristocracy by its nature is always a minority.

In general, it can be said that democratic lawmaking brings more benefits to humanity than aristocratic lawmaking.

However, this is its only advantage.

An aristocracy uses legislation much more skillfully than a democracy. She has good self-control, she is unfamiliar with fleeting hobbies, she carefully nurtures her plans and knows how to wait for a favorable opportunity to implement them. She acts competently and knows how, at a certain moment, to masterfully direct the combined force of her laws to a single goal.

This cannot be said about democracy: its laws are almost always imperfect or untimely.

Consequently, the means used by democracy are less perfect than those used by the aristocracy, and it often acts against its will to its detriment, but its goals are noble.

Imagine a society whose nature and structure are such as to enable it to endure the temporary operation of unsuccessful laws, a society which can safely await the beneficial results of the general direction of the laws, and you will agree that the prosperity of such a society is most conducive to a democratic form of government , despite all her vices.

This is exactly the case in the United States. I will repeat here what I already said above: the huge advantage of the Americans is that they can afford to make correctable mistakes.

Almost the same can be said about civil servants.

It is easy to see that American democracy often makes mistakes in choosing the people to whom it entrusts power. However, it is not at all easy to answer the question of why the state ruled by these people is prospering.

It should be noted that although the rulers of a democratic state are not always quite honest and reasonable, its citizens are enlightened and conscientious.

The peoples of democratic states, constantly occupied with their own affairs and jealously guarding their rights, do not allow their representatives to deviate from a certain general line dictated by their interests.

We should also not forget that in democratic states, officials who perform their duties worse than officials in other states do not remain in power for very long.

But there is another reason, more general and deeper. Of course, the public good requires virtues and talents from rulers. But to an even greater extent it requires a commonality of interests between citizens and rulers. Otherwise, virtues may become useless and talents may become dangerous.

It is important that rulers and the masses of citizens are not divided by opposing or different interests. But this does not mean that everyone’s interests should coincide completely. This never happens.

No political system has yet been found which would equally favor the development and prosperity of all the classes composing society. Classes are a kind of separate nations within one people, and experience shows that it is as dangerous to give any one of them into the hands of another as to allow one people to determine the destiny of another. When only the rich are in power, the interests of the poor are always in danger. If the poor dictate their will, the interests of the rich are jeopardized. What are the advantages of democracy? The real point is not that democracy, as some say, guarantees prosperity for all, but that it promotes prosperity for the many.

The men who direct the affairs of society in the United States often do not possess the same talents and moral character as those brought to power by the aristocracy. But their interests are mixed and merged with the interests of the majority of their fellow citizens. They may commit dishonesty or serious blunders, but they will never systematically pursue policies hostile to the majority, nor will their rule be characterized by dangerous intolerance.

In a democratic society bad job official is just a separate fact that has an influence only during the performance of his duties. Corruption and incompetence are not common interests that can unite people for long.

A corrupt and incapable official will not act together with another official just because he is also stupid and corrupt. They will not work together to allow corruption and incompetence to flourish. After all, the lust for power and machinations of one can lead to the exposure of another. In democratic states, the vices of officials are usually individual.

In a state ruled by an aristocracy, public figures have class interests. Sometimes, however, they can come close to the interests of the majority, but more often they differ from them. From them grow long-term ties that unite all public figures, encouraging them to unite and coordinate actions, the goal of which is not always the benefit of the majority. Moreover, the rulers are connected not only with each other, but also with a considerable number of citizens, those representatives of the aristocratic class who do not hold any government positions.

Thus, an official in an aristocratic state constantly feels support from both society and the government.

Not only do officials in an aristocratic state have common interests and goals with a certain part of their contemporaries, but they also have close interests of future generations, whom they can be said to serve. They work not only for the present, but also for the future. Everything leads these officials to a single goal: the passions of citizens, their own passions, and even the interests of their descendants.

Is it possible to resist such pressure? Therefore, often in aristocratic societies, class interests enslave even honest people, and they, without noticing it themselves, gradually change society, in accordance only with their interests, and also do everything to ensure a reliable future for their descendants.

I don’t know if there is another liberal aristocracy in the world like the English one, which would constantly provide so many worthy and enlightened people to govern the country.

However, it must be admitted that English laws often sacrifice the welfare of the poor for the benefit of the rich, and the rights of the many for the privilege of a few. That is why today's England is a country of extremes, in which there are no less misfortunes than power and glory.

In the United States, where civil servants do not protect class interests, the continuous process of government is generally beneficial, although the rulers are often incompetent and even contemptible.

It may be concluded that democratic institutions contain within themselves the power by which individuals, in spite of their vices and errors, contribute to the general prosperity, while in aristocratic institutions there is something by virtue of which the activities of talented and virtuous men lead to suffering. their fellow citizens. Thus, it happens that in aristocratic states public figures do evil without wanting it, but in democratic states they do good without noticing it.

PUBLIC MOOD IN THE UNITED STATES

Innate love for the homeland. - Rational patriotism. - The difference between them. - If the first disappears, peoples should do everything to acquire the second. - What efforts did the Americans make for this? - Close connection between the interests of the country and individual citizens.

There is a love for the homeland, which is nourished by unconscious, selfless and elusive feelings, a love that fills a person’s soul with attachment to the place of his birth. Such instinctive love is also mixed with adherence to ancient customs, respect for ancestors, memory of the past, and people love their country as much as their father’s home. They value the calm that reigns in it, the peaceful habits acquired there, the memories that it brings back to them. They even find it sweet to live there in captivity. Such love for the homeland is often fueled by religious feelings, and then it is capable of working miracles. However, it itself is like religion: the person experiencing it does not reason, he believes, feels and acts. There are known peoples who, one might say, personified their homeland, identifying it with the sovereign. They transferred part of their patriotic feelings to him, were proud of his victories and his omnipotence. Before the French Revolution, there was a time when the French with some joy accepted the boundless arbitrariness of the monarch and proudly said: “We have the most powerful king on earth.”

Like any unconscious feeling, such love for one’s homeland can rather motivate one to undertake large, but short-term deeds than to make constant efforts. She will save the state in a moment of danger and can leave it to the mercy of fate in peacetime.

This instinctive love for the homeland reigns when morals are simple and faith is strong, when a long-standing social order reigns supreme, the justice of which no one disputes.

There is another love for the homeland, a more rational one. She is perhaps less generous and passionate, but more fruitful and stable. This love arises as a result of enlightenment, develops with the help of laws, grows with the enjoyment of rights, and ultimately merges with the personal interests of man. People begin to see the connection between the country's well-being and their own well-being, and realize that the law allows them to create it. They become interested in the prosperity of the country, first as something that benefits them, and then as something of their own creation.

However, periods sometimes come in the life of peoples when ancient morals and customs are destroyed, faith is shaken, respect for the past is forgotten, and at the same time, enlightenment has not yet spread, and political rights are still limited and unreliable. At such moments, the homeland appears to people as something vague and untrue. They do not connect the idea of ​​it either with the territory, which in their eyes turns into a soulless land, or with the customs of their ancestors, which they are already accustomed to looking at as a yoke, or with religion, which they doubt, or with the laws, the creation of which they are not allowed near the legislators, whom they fear and despise. Having lost both the image of their homeland and everything that personified it, they become isolated in narrow and ignorant egoism. At such moments, people are devoid of prejudices, but they do not recognize the power of reason. They have neither the instinctive patriotism characteristic of a monarchy, nor the rational one characteristic of a republic; they have stopped in the middle between one and the other and live in turmoil and helplessness.

What to do in such cases? We should go back. But just as people cannot return to the innocent joys of youth, so nations cannot regain the lost feelings of their youth. Even if they regret them, they cannot revive them. Since selfless love for the homeland is irretrievably gone, we must move forward and do everything to unite personal interests and the interests of the country in the people’s minds.

I do not at all want to say that in order to achieve this goal, it is necessary to immediately grant political rights to all citizens. Nevertheless, we have only one powerful means that can interest people in the fate of their country: we must involve them in governing it. Nowadays civic sentiments are inseparable from political rights, and in the future the number of true citizens will depend on the expansion or contraction of the political rights granted to them.

Alexis-Charles-Henri Clerel de Tocqueville – French political figure, a 19th-century thinker and historian best known for his two-volume Democracy in America and his book The Ancien Regime and Revolution. In both works, Tocqueville analyzed the improvement in living standards and social conditions, as well as attitudes towards the market and the state in Western societies. Democracy in America was published after Tocqueville traveled to the United States and is considered today one of the first works of sociology and political science.

He was active in French politics, both during the July Monarchy and the Second Republic, but left political life after the coup of December 2, 1851, which resulted in President Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte becoming Emperor, and devoted his last years work on the "Old Regime" and other works.

Tocqueville argued that the significance of the French Revolution was that it continued the process of modernization and centralization of the French state that had begun under King Louis XIV. The collapse of the revolution, in his opinion, stemmed from the inexperience of the deputies, who were too devoted to the abstract ideals of the Enlightenment. Tocqueville was a classical liberal who advocated a parliamentary form of government but was skeptical of the extremes of democracy.

Tocqueville belonged to the Roman Catholic Church. He believed that religion was fully compatible with equality and the triumph of individualism, and believed that its position would be strengthened if religion was separated from politics.

Alexis de Tocqueville, a descendant of an old Norman aristocratic family, was born on July 29, 1805. His ancestors had fought at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. His monarchist parents, the Count and Countess de Tocqueville, narrowly escaped the guillotine thanks to the fall of Robespierre in 1794. Alas, many of their relatives were not so lucky. After living in exile in England, they returned to their homeland during the reign of Napoleon, and at the Bourbon Restoration, Alexis's father became a peer of France and prefect.

Alexis was the third most youngest child in family. He studied at the Jesuit Lyceum in Metz, graduating in 1823 and receiving a degree in law. While working as a forensic auditor at the Versailles Tribunal, Tocqueville met Gustave de Beaumont, with whom he subsequently traveled overseas. Disdaining the July Monarchy, Tocqueville began his political career in 1830 and from then until 1851 served as deputy for the Manche department in Lower Normandy. In parliament, he defended abolitionist views and supported free trade and the colonization of Algeria. In 1842, Tocqueville was elected councilor in Manches and headed the general council of the department from 1849 to 1851. In addition, from June 3 to October 31, 1849, he was French Foreign Minister. After this, he ended his political career because he did not trust either the left or the right wing and was looking for a reason to leave France.

Having long suffered from tuberculosis, Tocqueville lost his battle with the disease and died on April 16, 1859. He is buried in the family cemetery in Normandy.

His most important and most famous work, Democracy in America, which has been called both “the best book about America” and “the best book about democracy,” appeared as a result of the travel of Tocqueville and Gustave de Beaumont in the United States. The young people went overseas in 1831, ostensibly to study the American penal system, and indeed, in the States they visited a number of correctional institutions, but in addition, Tocqueville traveled extensively throughout America and recorded his observations and thoughts about the structure of the American state. He returned to France almost two years later and published a report on the penal system, but the real result of his journey was Democartia in America, the first volume of which appeared in 1835 and the second in 1840. In addition to the United States, Tocqueville visited and studied life and the structure of England, Ireland and Algeria.

(1805-1859) Alexis de Tocqueville - French jurist and political scientist - was born into an aristocratic family, but from the age of five he was raised in a Catholic college. At the age of twenty, he graduated from the Sorbonne Faculty of Law and served for several years as a judge-auditor at Versailles. In 1831 he went to America to see with his own eyes what democracy and the republican system give to individuals, society and the state. The result of this trip was the famous study “Democracy in America” (1835), which glorified de Tocqueville in the New and Old Worlds. The pinnacle of his political career was the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs in the cabinet formed as a result of the election victory of Louis Bonaparte. Political Views de Tocqueville can be characterized as a liberal republican, because after Louis Bonaparte proclaimed the empire, he immediately resigned. Tocqueville returned to scientific activity. He took up his second “big” book, “The Old Regime and the Revolution,” which death prevented him from finishing. Democracy in America Chapter VIII. What checks the tyranny of the majority in the United States? Lack of administrative centralization? What checks the tyranny of the majority in the United States? Lack of administrative centralization? Most people can't do everything themselves. His sovereign will in communities and districts is carried out by officials. Earlier, I identified two types of centralization: governmental and administrative. In America, only the first exists; the second is unusual for this country. If the American state power had at its disposal both types of government and added to its right to command everything the ability and habit of doing everything itself; if, by installing general principles rule, she began to delve into the details of its implementation in life and, having determined the main needs of the country, would go so far as to limit individual interests, then freedom would soon be expelled from the New World. But in the United States the majority, who often have the tastes and inclinations of a despot, do not yet possess the most perfect means of tyranny. American government always dealt with only a small number of those internal problems of his republics, the significance of which attracted his attention. It never tried to interfere in the secondary affairs of its states. He didn't even have such an intention. The majority, having become almost absolute, did not increase the functions of the central government; it only made it omnipotent within the scope of its assigned sphere of activity. Despotism can be extremely severe, but it cannot apply to everyone. No matter how captivated the majority in the state is by its own passions, no matter how eagerly it throws itself into the implementation of its own projects, it will not be able to achieve that everywhere at the same time and in the same way all the inhabitants of the country submit to its desires. In issuing orders, the central government, reflecting its will, is forced to rely on executors who are often independent of it and whose activities it cannot constantly direct. Municipalities and district administrations, like pitfalls, restrain and cut through the wave of popular will. If the law is oppressive, freedom will find its way out in the very execution of the law, and the majority will not be able to penetrate into the details and, I dare say, into the stupidities of administrative tyranny. It does not even imagine that it can do this, since it does not have a holistic idea of ​​​​the extent of its power. He knows only his natural powers and does not know to what extent skill can develop them. The following thought deserves attention: if ever a democratic republic similar to the United States appears in a country where absolute power has already established, legitimized and made administrative centralization habitual, I will frankly say that in such a republic despotism will be much more intolerable than in any absolute one. monarchies of Europe. Only in Asia can you find something like this. About the rule of law in the United States and how it serves as a counterweight to democracy When you get acquainted with American society and study its laws, you see that the power given here to lawyers, their influence on the government today serves as the most powerful barrier to violations of democracy. This, in my opinion, is the consequence of some general cause, which it is useful to consider, for it may appear again in some other place. There is virtually no political issue in the United States that does not sooner or later become a judicial issue. This is where political parties need to use both ideas and language borrowed from legal scholars in their daily polemics. Most statesmen are current or former jurists, and they bring their own customs and way of thinking into their work. The existence of the jury brings all classes into this. Legal terminology, becoming familiar, enters colloquial speech. The spirit of legality, born in educational institutions and courts, gradually goes beyond these limits, penetrates into all layers of society, down to the lowest, and as a result, the entire people completely assimilates the habits and tastes of judges. In the United States, lawyers are not a feared force, they are hardly noticed, they have no banner of their own, they easily adapt to the demands of the time, without resistance, they submit to all changes social structure countries. Meanwhile, they penetrate into all layers of society, envelop it completely, work from within, and influence it against its will. And it all ends with them molding this society in accordance with their intentions. The Jury in the United States as a Political Institution The jury, which seems to limit the rights of judicial officials, is in fact the basis of their dominance. Judges have the greatest power in those countries where part of their rights belongs to the people. It is through the trial by jury that the American judiciary has been able to spread what I call the spirit of legality to the broadest sections of society. Thus, trial by jury, being the surest means of exercising the power of the people, at the same time the best way teaches people to use their power. Published by: Tocqueville Alexis de. Democracy in America. M., 1992. S, 204, 205, 209, 213.

More on the topic of Alexis de Tocqueville:

1. I.T. Fingerless. State law of the Russian Federation. Tutorial. Part 1. Samara University Publishing House. Samara, 2004. 140 S., 2004

Biography

Performance evaluation

It is worth noting that Alexis Tocqueville's view of democracy in America is somewhat idealized. He, in particular, writes that “since in the United States there is no common center in which everything must inevitably be brought together, there are no huge capital cities, no enormous fortunes, no deep poverty, no sudden revolutions.” If you follow the logic of the French thinker, then the American state was to a certain extent insured against such shocks. In 1831, when Tocqueville visited America, it might indeed have seemed so. However, in the process of historical development The United States was destined to go through the horrors of the Civil War of 1861-1865. , and fully experience the consequences of the enormous gulf separating the most prosperous representatives of the so-called WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) from the ordinary inhabitants of Harlem, and experience a series of social upheavals (it is enough to mention the series of “well-fed” riots that began in the 1960s Hippies put it down in the 1990s). On the other hand, one can only marvel at Tocqueville’s perspicacity, his ability to see a historical perspective, which is confirmed, in particular, by his following judgment:

“No one is more able than me to appreciate all the advantages of the federal system of the state. I see in it the surest guarantee of the prosperity and freedom of mankind. I envy the fate of those countries that were able to introduce this system. But at the same time, I refuse to believe that peoples living in a federation could wage a struggle for a long time, provided there were equal forces on both sides, against a state whose government power is centralized" (A. Tocqueville. Democracy in America. M., 2000. P. 142).

This once again demonstrates that Tocqueville is, first of all, a realist, a practitioner, building his hypotheses on the basis of a rich historical material and facts of modern reality. And it was precisely this quality of his, combined with a deep and comprehensive analysis of the phenomena under study, that brought him worldwide recognition.

Memory

A number of scientific and public awards are named after Tocqueville, including the Alexis de Tocqueville Prize for Humanism (France) and the Alexis de Tocqueville Prize for Public Administration (Netherlands).

see also

• American exceptionalism

Links

Categories:

• Personalities in alphabetical order
• Born on July 29
• Born in 1805
• Deaths on April 16
• Died in 1859
• French Foreign Ministers
• Historians of France
• Members of the French Academy
• Historians by alphabet

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

• Chkalovskaya (metro station, St. Petersburg)
• Levin, Kurt

See what “Tocqueville, Alexis” is in other dictionaries:

Tocqueville, Alexis de- Alexis de Tocqueville Alexis Charles Henri Clérel de Tocqueville Alexis de Tocqueville Occupation: historian, politician Date of birth ... Wikipedia

TOCVILLE ALEXIS DE- (Tocqueville, Alexis de) (1805–59) French sociologist and prominent political figure, one of the first researchers of socio-political life in the USA. His books to this day remain among the richest in empirical material and... ... Political science. Dictionary.

Tocqueville Alexis- (Tocqueville) Tocqueville, Alexis Charles Henry Clerel de Tocqueville (1805 1859) French historian, sociologist, political figure. He was the leader of the conservative Party of Order. 1849 Minister of Foreign Affairs. Among… … Consolidated encyclopedia of aphorisms

TOCVILLE Alexis- Tocqueville Alexis (Alexi) (1805 59), French historian, sociologist and political figure, leader of the conservative (see CONSERVATISM) Party of Order, Minister of Foreign Affairs (1849). In the essays “On Democracy in America” (1835), “Old ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Tocqueville Alexis- Tocqueville Alexis (29/7/1805, Verneuil, now Verneuil-sur-Seine, Yvelines department, 16/4/1859, Cannes), French sociologist, historian and political activist. Born into an aristocratic family. In 1831 1832 in the USA he studied penitentiary (prison... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Tocqueville, Alexis- Tocqueville Alexis (Alexie) (1805 59), French historian, sociologist and politician, leader of the conservative Party of Order, Minister of Foreign Affairs (1849). In the essays “On Democracy in America” (1835), “ Old order And… … Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary

TOCVILLE Alexis de- (TOCQUEVILLE, Alexis de) (1805 1859) French aristocrat, engaged comparative analysis political systems. In 1831 1832 Tocqueville visited the United States to study the prison system in that country. Tocqueville's views on negative... Sociological Dictionary

Tocqueville Alexis

Alexis de Tocqueville

Genus. 29.7.1805, Paris, son of Hervé-Bonaventure Clerel de Tocqueville (Norman family), Louise Le Peletier de Rosenbault, granddaughter of Malherbe, sister-in-law of Chateaubriand. Brothers (elder) Ippolit and Edward. Mind. 16.4.1859 in Cannes. He was buried in Tocqueville in Normandy. Studied in Metz, law in Paris, assistant judge (trainee, without salary) in Versailles. Lived on the street. Anjou. In December 1826 he visited Italy with his brother Edward (Rome, Naples, Sicily, wrote “Travel to Sicily”). 1835 married Englishman Mary Motley. I met her in Versailles. There were no children. Democracy in America - 1840, Ancient Order - 1856, Recollections - 1893. Tocqueville's great-great-great-niece Marie-Henriette Tocqueville died in 1994. Her husband is alive, this is Count Guy d'Herouville, he has two sons, one of whom is Alexis.

Tocqueville's friend from Versailles times, his co-author, Beaumont, married in 1836 to Clementine de Lafayette, granddaughter of the marquis.

On July 23, 1839, Tocqueville, as a rapporteur of the slave ownership committee, advocated the immediate emancipation of slaves in all French possessions. The report was issued as a pamphlet by the Society for the Abolition of Slavery.

There is a portrait of him by Theodore Chasseriau.

Since March 1850 he was ill with tuberculosis.

According to Americans, a surge of interest in “Democracy...” occurred precisely at the end of the 20th century. at universities and colleges.

Article by V. Butenko from the Brockhaus and Efron dictionary, 19th century.

*********************************************************************

Tocqueville (Alexis-Charles-Henri-Clerel de Tocqueville, 1805-1859) famous Frenchman. writer and statesman. Studied law in Paris. After traveling through Italy and Sicily in 1827, he was appointed to a judicial position (juge auditeur) at Versailles, here he entered into a close friendship with his colleague Gustave de Beaumont. Brought up in an era of passion for political freedom, T. was indignant at the reactionary policies of Polignac, but the July Revolution was nevertheless a blow to his legitimistic sympathies. He, however, recognized the July Monarchy, since he considered it the only possible constitutional form of government. In 1831, he received, together with Beaumont, a business trip to United. States, to study the penitentiary system adopted there. The main goal T. was studied using the example of Soedin. States, a true democracy that has put into practice the principles of freedom and equality. The result of the journey of T. and Beaumont was the book: “Du systeme penitentiare aux Etats-Uais et de son application en France” (P., 1832), in which the authors took the side of the solitary confinement system. Returning to France, T. signed up as a lawyer. In 1835, the first two parts of his "Democratie en Amerique" were published. The success of the book was extraordinary both in France and throughout Europe; it was soon translated into several foreign languages. The abundance of collected material, the impartial attitude to the subject, the depth and insight of the author, the breadth of his horizon - all this immediately placed T. among the outstanding political theorists. In the same year, T. went to England, where “Democracy” made a particularly strong impression, and met the most enthusiastic reception here. In 1840, the last two parts of his book were published, and in 1841 T. was elected a member of the French. academy. In 1837, he stood as a candidate for deputy, but failed, refusing to support the government. At the election of 1839 he was elected. In the House he did not occupy a prominent position, despite his rare political intelligence. He was not fit to be a parliamentary leader, since he was a man of thought, not action. He worked mainly in commissions and rarely appeared on the podium. He usually voted with the constitutional left against the Guizot ministry, but in essence did not belong to any party. Political foresight and an aristocratic character pushed him away from the petty, everyday interests of the then parties, which represented only the bourgeoisie and ignored the whole of France, which was outside the “pays legal”. T. more than once pointed out the inevitability of a democratic revolution if the government does not change its narrow bourgeois policy (his speech on January 27, 1848 is especially remarkable in this regard). He considered a constitutional monarchy the best form of government for France, but after the February Revolution he recognized the republic as the last means of preserving freedom. Elected to the constituent assembly, he joined the right and entered into the fight against socialism. In the attacks of socialists on the right of property, he saw an undermining of the foundations of society, in public organization labor - a restriction of freedom of industry, an expansion of the functions of the state and, consequently, an encroachment on the great principle of individual freedom. Economic relations in general were T.'s weak side; not understanding the true meaning of the February revolution, he now defended the very bourgeoisie with which he had fought until now. Fearing that the democratic flow would not lead to despotism, T. insisted in the commission that drafted the constitution on precautionary measures: two chambers, limiting the power of the president and his two-stage election. His proposals were not accepted. After the June days, T. was the representative of France at the congress in Brussels to settle the Italians. affairs; Having returned, he supported Cavaignac’s candidacy for president of the republic. In 1849 he was elected to the legislative assembly and then became minister of foreign affairs. affairs in the office of Odilon Barrot. In this position, T. sought to support French influence in Italy, without depriving the pope of independence, and to achieve the necessary internal reforms for the papal region. The President's letter to Ney (October 31) caused the resignation of Barrot's cabinet. The “Souvenirs” of T., which serve as an important source for the study of the February Revolution, date back to 1850; they were published only recently, since the author did not want to publish them. "Souvenirs" presents T. in a new light: from a sublime political thinker, he turns here into a subtle, observant satirist. In the House he continued to fight the policies of the President and in 1851 presented a report on the revision of the Constitution; but the revision did not take place. The subsequent coup on December 2 once again justified T.'s conviction that the establishment of equality among a people not accustomed to enjoying political freedom leads to military despotism. T. took part in the last legal attempt at resistance in the mayor's office of the Xth arrondissement and was imprisoned in Vincennes prison, but soon received freedom. Isolated from political activity, he devoted himself exclusively to the study of the great revolution. He made his first attempt in this area back in 1836 in his remaining unfinished article: “Etat social et politique de la France avant et depuis 1789.” The coup of December 2, reminiscent of the 18th Brumaire, revived his interest in the work he had begun. After several years of archival studies in different places France and even Germany, he published the 1st volume of "L"ancien regime et la revolution" in 1856. He planned this work in 3 volumes, but death overtook him while working on the second volume. - The main point of T.'s worldview. is personal freedom. Belonging, on this side, to the school of liberals and even sharing its belief in the salutary principle of laissez faire, laissez passer in economic relations T. sees, however, its other shortcomings and understands that in ensuring freedom the main role is played by the centuries-old education of the people, that constitutional institutions alone, modeled on the English ones, are still insufficient for this purpose. In his first book, he indicated those means that could strengthen and ensure freedom in state system. Since the Middle Ages, European society has been experiencing a deep and continuous democratic revolution. The aristocracy falls, class inequalities are smoothed out, classes are equalized. This democratic flow goes on uncontrollably, ever intensifying; Having already overthrown the aristocracy and the king, he obviously will not stop before the bourgeoisie. Peoples strive for freedom and equality; the full implementation of both principles is the ideal of democracy. But, loving freedom, democratic peoples better understand and value more highly the delights of equality. Therefore, they are sometimes willing to sacrifice freedom to maintain equality. Meanwhile, equality, without directly contradicting freedom, develops tendencies in society that threaten the establishment of despotism. By separating people from each other, equality develops particularism and selfishness in them. The passion for profit increases, people are indifferent to public interests and, moving away from public life, grant all new rights to the government, as long as it ensures order and tranquility. State power is expanding and penetrating deeper into the life of society; the individual becomes increasingly dependent. Local self-government is destroyed and replaced by administrative centralization. An omnipotent, absolute tyranny of the popular majority is established. This process goes even faster if democracy has to fight wars, which are especially dangerous for freedom, since they require the concentration of all the forces of the state. And from the tyranny of the majority to individual despotism there is only one step. A talented commander can always, with the help of the army, seize power, and the people, accustomed to obeying the central government, will willingly refuse to participate in the government, if only their new master would ensure order and patronize enrichment. In this way equality can lead to despotism. The only means that can prevent such an outcome is freedom itself: it separates people from material interests, connects and brings them closer, and weakens their selfishness. Religion, acting in the same direction, can provide significant assistance to it. But a constitutional structure alone, combined with bureaucratic centralization, is more than enough; it is only “attaching the head of freedom to the body of a slave.” Wide decentralization of power is necessary, while preserving the minimum necessary rights for the central government. For a large state, therefore, best form- federation. Bureaucratic tutelage must be replaced by local self-government, this school for the political education of the people. Full independence of the courts and jurisdiction of officials before ordinary courts are necessary as a guarantee against the arbitrariness of the administration. The guarantee against arbitrariness of legislation is the right of the court to declare a law contrary to the constitution. There is also a need for a jury trial, which develops a sense of justice and a sense of legality among the people. Finally, complete freedom of the press and freedom of association is the best remedy fight against the tyranny of the majority. Of course, the main condition for maintaining freedom is not institutions, but habits and mores; but institutions in their turn influence the development of corresponding morals and customs, and the use of these means may paralyze the evil tendencies of democracy and promote the strengthening of freedom. - The “Old Order” is closely related to “Democracy” in its task. If there T. wanted to find out the conditions under which a democratic system based on freedom and equality is possible, then here he tries to answer the question of why France, while striving for both freedom and equality during the great revolution, managed to acquire only the latter. The democratization of society since the Middle Ages led France to the collapse of the political side of feudalism and to the strengthening of royal power. By the 18th century The “old order” was established, a combination of royal absolutism with the feudal class system. The upper classes retained all their previous privileges, which were difficult for the peasants, and even added new ones to them. Society was divided into a number of class groups, which jealously guarded their isolation; the government helped this division of classes, seeing in it the guarantee of its strength. But the democratization of society continued. The upper classes became poorer and fell, land ownership was fragmented, the bourgeoisie rose and became richer, the classes moved closer to each other. Before the revolution, French society was a homogeneous mass and a classless system could be established easily and quickly. Meanwhile, society has long lost the habit of political freedom; the Estates General have not met since the beginning of the 17th century. Destroying feudal institutions, kings replaced them with bureaucratic centralization. Local government was almost destroyed, government agents were removed from the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. Religion aroused hatred towards itself due to the alliance of the clergy with the kings. The government divided the classes, carefully suppressed any spirit of public initiative and kept society under shy tutelage. If the spirit of independence still remained, manifested, for example, in the struggle of parliaments with kings, then it was sufficient only for the overthrow of despotism, but not for the peaceful enjoyment of freedom. In 1789, the French destroyed the “old order” and, inspired by the ideals of 18th-century philosophy, created a new system based on civil equality and political freedom. But the love of freedom, which flared up shortly before the revolution, soon cooled down amid the anarchy and storms of the revolution. The particularism generated by equality, the passion for enrichment, the need to concentrate power due to continuous wars and the fear of the restoration of the class system led to the establishment of despotism. Napoleon consolidated the classless system, but at the same time restored the bureaucratic centralization of the “old order”. After the fall of Napoleon, the French flared up the passion for freedom several times, but the cause of freedom was always fundamentally undermined by the continuation of Napoleonic centralization and bureaucratic tutelage. While organizing the central government in the spirit of freedom, the French did not use other means to strengthen this spirit. Thus representing the completion political doctrine T., "The Old Order" has, in addition, a meaning of first importance in the historiography of the French Revolution, where he began new era. T. was the first to bridge the gap that, in the minds of former historians, separated post-revolutionary France from pre-revolutionary France. He applied an evolutionary point of view to the study of revolution and proved that the revolution was not a sharp break with the past, that its explanation must be sought in the “old order” from which it naturally flows. On the other hand, The Ancien Regime is the first work on the French Revolution written in the interests of strict truth, and not to justify one or another political program. Despite its small size, The Old Order is distinguished by an amazing wealth of content and is the result of a painstaking and careful analysis of a huge amount of archival materials. T.'s work determined the further direction of development of this era; Later works on the revolution, for the most part, only develop, supplement and substantiate the views expressed by T.. The complete works of T. were published in Paris in 9 volumes, in 1860-65, and have since gone through several editions. In I, II and III vols. consists of "De la democratie en Amerique" (there are two Russian translations), in IV - "L" ancien regime et la revolution" (there are two Russian translations), volumes V, VI and VII are busy with correspondence. Vol. , VIII and IX volumes - small articles, reports, speeches, unfinished works.In addition, his “Souvenirs” (there is a Russian translation) were published in 1893.