Combating Mediocrity and Conformity in Modern Democracies: Mill and Tocqueville.

Historians and philosophers have debated the best way to interpret the French Revolution. Mill and de Tocqueville argue that the growth of democracy undermines the viability of liberal values. This does not imply that their points of view are identical, as the differences are obvious. Both Mill and Tocqueville argue that human freedom is a supreme ideal that has been jeopardized in democratic society. This presentation will demonstrate that Tocqueville’s technique is superior to Mill’s plan for battling mediocrity and conformity in modern democracies (Albrecht, 2012).

John Stuart Mill’s Arguments on Liberty and Individuality

John Stuart Mill has secured a high ranking in the category of political thinkers for his unfathomable opinions during the 19th century. His arguments fall under Liberty and have significantly transformed negative perceptions of liberal hypothesis into positive ones. He covers the existing perennial conflict regarding individuality and attempts to reconcile them and impact the society positively. Mill comprehensively examines society issues including the government’s interference with the life of an individual, liberty, and ensuring equality to all humanity. It is clear that his ideas regarding democracy and liberty have significantly stirred debates for other political philosophers. First, we recognize the fact that Mill campaigned against interfering with the life of an individual in any way. Mill emphasizes that people should be left to take authority over their lives as it helps to promote self-development. To him, liberty does restrain individuals from doing or having anything they want. Mill fears that the society and the government often threaten the liberty of an individual. He believes that the authority of the majority and a society structure that is not organized are more important to individual liberty than the authority or power of the state (Mill, 1863).

Active vs Passive Individuals

Additionally, Mill is advocating for a society whose people are active and not passive. For instance, mill believes that individuals who are active can protect their self-interests. This way the society develops well because the energies of people are collectively engaged. Philosophers such as Adam Smith have seconded this argument affirming that liberty is essential for achieving democracy. Mill emphasizes that giving individuals who understand their self-interests a chance to pursue them are often productive in society. His fundamental argument focuses on the fact that an active individual is much better than a passive individual morally, practically and intellectually. This belief emphasizes Aristotle position that the main objective for human beings is to develop their capabilities fully. In short, Mill is referring to passive people as immoral and less intelligent. I disagree with Mills perception because it is an impersonal observation. It is true that active people are happier than passive people, but this does not justify his actions to blame and condemn passive individuals (Mill, 1863).

Liberty of Action, Thought, and Expression

According to John Stuart Mill, there are only three factors that contribute to individual liberty .i.e. liberty of action, liberty of thought and liberty of expression. On liberty of expression, Mill believes that an opinion that is suppressed may be true, false or a mixture of falsity and truth. He (Mill) tries to convince his audience that it is important to certain that a particular belief is false before we suppress it. He also insists that the same power used to suppress falsity could also be used to suppress the truth and that the consequences of suppressing truth exceed the benefits of suppressing falsity. Even when we are confident that certain information is false, we are not justified in suppressing the expression of that information. Mill cites many examples where the society has made wrong decisions by suppressing other opinions. His scenarios attempt to justify that there are worse consequences when we prefer other alternatives to the liberty of an individual (Albrecht, 2012).

Regulating Freedom of Expression

However, I believe that the society needs to regulate freedom of expression as it could harm others legitimately. If you deeply analyze Mill’s Harm Principle, you will realize that it offers limits to this kind of liberty. For instance, we all are confident that racism is bad; the society needs to suppress the expression of racism. Again we should not allow unethical expressions even if we fear we might be wrong. An individual must act on what he/she believes is true. According to Mill, an opinion is truth because no one has proved it is wrong regardless of what we believe in. Other philosophers argue that individual liberty may be misused. Imagine a society where individuals are allowed to publish instructions or procedures on how to manufacture nuclear bombs among other weapons (Albrecht, 2012).

Alexis de Tocqueville on Democracy

Alexis de Tocqueville, an aristocrat, is renowned for the fight for democracy. In his book ’Democracy in America, he predicts the future prospects of democracy. According to Tocqueville, when there is too much democratic equality, the result is individualistic isolation. Often, people begin to retreat from societies into small groups whose interests align. I agree that the consequences of individualism are bad. These consequences include egoism, all society virtues are suppressed, and state politics retreat to the tyranny of numbers. These conclusions were observed in the American and French kinds of democracy. In his view, Tocqueville believes that America made a wise decision to avoid individualism which had begun to arise from the campaigns for liberty instead of equality. Evidently, equality and not individual liberty is must be the primary foundation for social relations (Tocqueville, 2004).

Importance of Institutions in Democracy

When Americans thought it was difficult to achieve democracy and preserve national religion at the same time, Tocqueville stood firm in his fight for democracy and religion. His focus was institutions that would help to ensure freedom and democracy, such as a well-structured government and an organized religion. He argued or rather affirms that there was a need for vibrant religious life to ensure democracy in the country. Materialism and religious fanaticism were the biggest threats to democracy. Only a religion that is organized would counterweight these threats. For instance, in a democratic set up where no individual achieved wealth birth, then most people would be lost in the search for materialism. Besides, materialistic individuals were reluctant to sacrifice the much they had for the sake of the well-being of the society. According to Tocqueville, this attitude is termed as individualism. He highlighted that the barriers to democracy were excess power in the legislative branch of the government, abuse of freedom, inequality, materialism, and individualism. Tocqueville argues that when much power is given to the legislature, it will soon become tyrannical as it will weaken the executive branch. He believes that a judiciary that influential and independent and a stable executive branch would help to combat these barriers. He also campaigns for religion and freedom (Kahan, 2015).

Challenges of Excessive Push for Equality

Although it seems an overriding issue, I agree with Tocqueville that the excessive push for equality will render leadership useless because no one will have the right to rule over the other. The society will be run based on the decisions of the majority which could result in despotism. Subsequently, the minority will become helpless and unable to resist. Materialism and individualism also contribute to despotism as Tocqueville suggests. Equality makes people begin focusing on themselves since there are no community or societal issues that link individuals together and make them realize that they depend on each other. Citizens will fail to fulfill their civic duties. Tocqueville also states that the jury system is most effective in offering popular education. In order to preserve liberty, we must allow administrative decentralization that promotes local self-governance. Lack of local liberties in the French Revolution denied citizens their right to freedom. Tocqueville also recommends that the right of association helps to combat the issue of individualism. There is no better form of association than religion. According to him, religion recognizes the right to freedom but also teaches citizens how to exercise their freedom without interfering with others. The government and the constitution do not offer absolute standards on how to exercise your freedom. Therefore it is the role of religion to provide the missing moral boundaries. It is evident that most of the divergent debates on American Democracy arise when freedom is compared to equality (Tocqueville, 2004).

Conclusion

In conclusion, I affirm that Tocqueville’s strategy for combating mediocrity and conformity in modern democracies is better than Mill’s strategy as it promotes cohesion and morality. Unlike Mill, Tocqueville focuses on many issues that threaten democracy. Mill believes that liberty, specifically individualism, will help to promote self-development. While this is true, am afraid that it will result in a nation that lacks national cohesion and moral values. Although Tocqueville strategy also pushes for liberty and freedom of expression, he also recognizes the need to limit this authority through institutions such as religion, local self-governance, and the executive branch (Tocqueville, 2004).

References

Albrecht, J. M. (2012). Reconstructing Individualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kahan, A. S. (2015). Tocqueville, Democracy, and Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mill, J. S. (1863). On Liberty. Cambridge: H.O Houghton.

Tocqueville, A. d. (2004). Democracy in America. New York: Library of America.