Tocqueville on Egypt
The leaders of the state have never thought of making an preparation by anticipation for [democracy]. The progress has been against their will or without their knowledge. The most powerful, intelligent, and moral classes of the nation have never sought to gain control of it in order to direct it. Hence democracy has been left to its wild instincts [...]. As a result the democratic revolution has taken place in the body of a society without those changes in laws, ideas, customs, and mores which were needed to make that revolution profitable.
As you might have guessed, he was actually speaking of France. But one wonders. Tocqueville warns throughout Democracy in America that political foundings -- no matter how most sweeping, how brilliant, or how well-intentioned -- will, without social mores and religious beliefs capable of bearing the weight of their claims, fail.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: Tocqueville on Egypt
I like the view held by 18th-century playwriter and writer Mercy Otis Warren to the effect of: true liberty can only be the result of a virtuous citizenry and cannot be managed or maintained through purely institutional manipulation (paraphrase of text in Warren's bio in Oxford University Press's American National Biography). Certainly religious belief is a route that many responsible citizens take, but it is necessary?
Re: Tocqueville on Egypt
James, I'm going to put forth an argument I don't necessarily endorse, in response to an argument I'm not sure you actually made.
Got that?
So: Egypt doesn't have a long democratic tradition. But in this connected, globalizationed, interneted age democratic mores can, maybe, suddenly flourish without the attendant political institutions. I mean, this whole uprising started on Facebook -- that most demotic and liberal of all communities. That is, on a medium on which young people are free to construct new identities, and comment on other young people's comments, all without regard to status hierarchies. So maybe they've become quickly conditioned to free speech, pluralism, etc.
Incidentally, I'm curious -- and I mean this as a literal question, not a rhetorical question -- what evidence do we have that Islam is uniquely incompatible with democracy? Surely it's not today as democratic as, say, American protestantism. But Roman Catholicism is a hierarchical religion that has produced good liberal democrats. And even American protestantism wasn't as democratic at our founding as it was today -- my (admittedly unqualified) impression is that much of evangelicalism's democratic ethos came with revivalism.
Oct '10
Re: Tocqueville on Egypt
Speaking as a troglodyte evangelical Christian, I would say that this post, by the inestimable James Poulos is, perhaps, the most insightful reference to the founding principles of this country , the US of A as I have ever read. Thank you for reminding us of the genius of the Founders, and our heritage in the Creator God. We can argue governing principles and religious doctrine, but when it is distilled down to "how can we people be so greatly blessed", there is only one answer. We have given our hearts to our Creator, and seek Him as our true Leader, and then we seek men who embody His will.
Oct '10
Re: Tocqueville on Egypt
Gosh... what can anyone who has a modicum of knowledge of Islam say? Perhaps it is the quaint idea that all but the followers of Allah are to be oppressed and ultimately, once their usefulness is fulfilled, eliminated. Maybe it is the idea that the Mullahs define the will of Allah, and any contradiction is infidelity, or that infidels must die. Or that the idea of placing explosives on your child's body and sending them into an Israeli pizza restaurant to kill everyone within range, including your own child.
Could it be that Islam has much to teach us democrats (note the small "d") in the West. Who are you kidding ?????
Oct '10
Re: Tocqueville on Egypt
RAYCON
Gosh... what can anyone who has a modicum of knowledge of Islam say? Perhaps it is the quaint idea that all but the followers of Allah are to be oppressed and ultimately, once their usefulness is fulfilled, eliminated. Maybe it is the idea that the Mullahs define the will of Allah, and any contradiction is infidelity, and that infidels must die. Or that the idea of placing explosives on your child's body and sending them into an Israeli pizza restaurant to kill everyone within range, including your own child, takes them to paradise.
What could it be that Islam has to teach us democrats (note the small "d") in the West?
Who are you kidding ????? · Feb 5 at 3:58pm
Oct '10
Re: Tocqueville on Egypt
RAYCON
Gosh... what can anyone who has a modicum of knowledge of Islam say? Perhaps it is the quaint idea that all but the followers of Allah are to be oppressed and ultimately, once their usefulness is fulfilled, eliminated. Maybe it is the idea that the Mullahs define the will of Allah, and any contradiction is infidelity, and that infidels must die. Or that the idea of placing explosives on your child's body and sending them into an Israeli pizza restaurant to kill everyone within range, including your own child, takes them to paradise.
What could it be that Islam has to teach us democrats (note the small "d") in the West?
Who are you kidding ????? · Feb 5 at 3:58pm
Feb 5 at 4:04pm
Jul '10
Re: Tocqueville on Egypt
Well, I don't tweet or engage in facebookery, so I may be way off base here. But its participants only engage when & with whom they want, no?
That type of setup doesn't seem like it would develop an appreciation for pluralism to me. It seems like it would more likely facilitate plural instances of group-think, though I don't think it has to work out like that.
As for the lack of hierarchies, (though I suspect they exist) that seems problematic also. Liberal democracies aren't hierarchy-free zones, they contain: parents, employers, teachers, police, etc.
Construction of new identities seems particularly unhelpful, as it insulates participants from accountability.
And that's the point: Facebook & Twitter don't require any more responsibility than does serfdom. Though I'm sure they are much more fun.
Re: Tocqueville on Egypt
Matthew Shaffer, Guest Contributor: [1] this whole uprising started on Facebook -- that most demotic and liberal of all communities. That is, on a medium on which young people are free to construct new identities, and comment on other young people's comments, all without regard to status hierarchies. So maybe they've become quickly conditioned to free speech, pluralism, etc.
[2] what evidence do we have that Islam is uniquely incompatible with democracy? Surely it's not today as democratic as, say, American protestantism. But Roman Catholicism is a hierarchical religion that has produced good liberal democrats. And even American protestantism wasn't as democratic at our founding as it was today.
1. Facebook cannot supply the habit of being drawn out of ourselves into the risky environment of unscripted face-to-face encounters. Maybe it can help connect people who are ready to risk it. But Facebook hasn't shaped the character of the people in Egypt. 2. Christianity, Catholic or Protestant, is inherently democratic in its pronouncement that all are equal under God. Alas not even that saved Europe from brutal wars of political democratization. The disenchantment of aristocratic life is bloody.
Sep '10
Re: Tocqueville on Egypt
Leslie, outside of the state, developing individual virtue used to be the overwhelming preoccupation of Protestants and Catholics in America at that time. Today, you would be fortunate if you could find 10 out 100 Christians who either use the word virtue, or know what it means. Other than civic institutions, churches are really the only other area of life that Christians can freely associate and develop those virtues apart from their work and family life
Edited on Feb 5, 2011 at 8:58pmSep '10
Re: Tocqueville on Egypt
I think Tocqueville is correct. There are always a Jacobin group lying in the grass, ready to pounce when the time is right. The revolutionaries must have the knowledge, will, habit, custom, institutions, and mores to stop such exploitation.
I fear the Muslim Brotherhood will win the day, like the Mullahs in Iran in 1070. Unlike 18th century Catholicism and Protestantism, I don't think they have a concept of free will, or that converts are to be won by patience, long suffering, and love unfeigned. In order to form a true republic, I think it is necessary to accept pluralism to some degree. I don't think their belief system allows for that.
Oct '10
Re: Tocqueville on Egypt
Isn't revolution, democratic or otherwise, almost always grounded "in the body of a society?" And yet, one could certainly argue that the religious beliefs of Islam support the claims of despotic rule in Iran. It seems democracies succeed where the line between religion and secular governance is clearly drawn, where political power is not vested in individuals by virtue of their religious standing. The abundance of religious institutions which impressed de Tocqueville (and which continues to this day) owes much to the religious freedom established at our founding. As a result, those institutions contributed to the social mores underpinning our democratic success.
The author of this website makes an interesting observation:
I take this as an historical, not qualitative, distinction. Reason and faith are not mutually exclusive, but the French ultimately arrived at democracy by a different path, no?
Re: Tocqueville on Egypt
JM Hanes: [...] The abundance of religious institutions which impressed de Tocqueville (and which continues to this day) owes much to the religious freedom established at our founding. As a result, those institutions contributed to the social mores underpinning our democratic success.
[...]
Reason and faith are not mutually exclusive, but the French ultimately arrived at democracy by a different path, no?
Tocqueville was more impressed by the way Puritan religion conditioned Americans for freedom than by the scope of religious freedom in America. For Tocqueville, the real founding was the colonization of America by the Puritans; the political founding of the United States of America registered for him as the codification in law and speech of the order that had already been conceived and established, through religion, in American mores.
And yes: the French "ultimately" arrived at democracy -- by a path different from ours primarily in the extent of its bloody disorder. According to Tocqueville, that's attributable to the profoundly different origins of the French and American peoples. Democracy grew here organically. In France it was an idea-bomb.
Oct '10
Re: Tocqueville on Egypt
James Poulos, Ed.
For Tocqueville, the real founding was the colonization of America by the Puritans; the political founding of the United States of America registered for him as the codification in law and speech of the order that had already been conceived and established, through religion, in American mores.
Without minimizing our very substantial Puritan legacy -- or the general acuity of de Tocqueville -- that codification included a far more expansive complex of social mores, English common law, Greek philosophy, humanism, and enlightenment principles, among other things (not all of which are mutually exclusive, of course) -- and de facto religious freedom. I would find it hard to argue that Tories were less religious than their Revolutionary peers, wouldn't you?
Democracy may have grown here more "organically" than elsewhere, but I suspect we also owe a great deal to our geographic isolation, and the natural independence of those who left the comforts of home to stake their claims, both religious and economic, in a brave new world. New Englanders first came together in their churches. Virginians rallied round the courthouse. Our own devastatingly bloody Civil War suggests that there was nothing inherently peaceful about the evolution of Democracy in America.
Oct '10
Re: Tocqueville on Egypt
That should have been "nothing inherently more peaceful" (i.e. less bloody).
Jan '11
Re: Tocqueville on Egypt
When I hear the Egyptian demonstrators start talking about the sanctity of private property - not "democracy" or "freedom" - I'll believe that this so-called revolution is actually going to end in increased liberty.
It doesn't matter if they're Muslim, Catholic, Hindu or Jain - as long as they think that what is mine really belongs to them or to the institution of their choice, liberty is just a word. True liberty-lovers understand and proclaim that private property is the foundation of freedom
Until then Cairo is just more of the same old Left-wing claptrap - utopian chaos awaiting the arrival of the most ruthless element in the society to put it down.
Remember: Proudhon was wrong. Socialism is theft.
Edited on Feb 6, 2011 at 8:01pmRe: Tocqueville on Egypt
Tocqueville's take on this -- leaving mine aside for now -- is that nature certainly furnished our founding immigrants with an unparalleled good chance at successfully organically growing equality in freedom. He also described slavery as the massively aristocratic (unequal) institution in America. He did not foresee the Civil War but his thinking does indicate that slavery would not disappear peacefully -- and that the memory of slavery would stubbornly and violently persist long after it did.
Dec '10
Re: Tocqueville on Egypt
James Poulos, Ed.
in his own words:
« Chez la plupart des nations européennes, l’existence politique a commencé dans les régions supérieures de la société et s’est communiquée peu à peu, et toujours d’une manière incomplète, aux diverses parties du corps social.
En Amérique, au contraire, on peut dire que la commune a été organisée avant le comté, le comté avant l’Etat, l’Etat avant l’Union. »
And_ his_prescient_description_of_our_current_demise:
« J’ai_distingué_précédemment_deux_espèces_de centralisations ; j’ai_appelé_l’une gouvernementale, et_l’autre_administrative.
La_première_seule_existe_en_Amérique ; la_seconde_y_est_à_peu_près_inconnue.
Si le pouvoir qui dirige les sociétés américaines trouvait à sa disposition ces deux moyens de gouvernement, et joignait au droit de tout commander la faculté et l’habitude de tout exécuter par lui-même ; si, après avoir établi les principes généraux du gouvernement, il pénétrait dans les détails de l’application, et qu’après avoir réglé les grands intérêts du pays il pût descendre jusqu’à la limite des intérêts individuels, la liberté serait bientôt bannie du nouveau monde. »