Over a century-and-a-half ago, Alexis de Tocqueville stepped back from his observations of American politics in his book Democracy in America to look at the broader threats to democracy. His conclusion rested in an apparent paradox, asserting that despotism lurked in the shadow of democracy. He called this “soft despotism,” or tyranny with the illusion of popular control. Tocqueville foresaw a significant threat to democracy possessing unclear hazard and form. Surprisingly, there is very little written about the dangers of soft despotism in today’s international political environment. Yet, a shift away from democracy can come about quite easily. Rights and freedoms can become diametrically opposed through rampant individual self-interest. Bureaucracy, flush with revenue from commodities and not ultimately beholden to any man, can institute a form of administrative tyranny. We may not readily see these elements in today’s world, but I would argue that they are all round us and offer a crucial warning for today’s democracies.
Despotism in the Shadow of Democracy
Democracy is willed into being by the individual acting in concert with society, and a democratic government is bound to the polity through the principle of consent. State, society, and individual are all tied to a social fabric through the liberal notions of individualism, consent, and liberty. Yet, Tocqueville posited that if these elements failed to act in concert, especially if a longing for individualism and security prevailed over all others, then the social fabric would rend and give way to a tutelary, paternal power that softly bent the individual will. No tyranny of the majority, no brutal dictatorship. This would be a society marked by individual contentment, unaware of the velvet fist quashing the associative, civic, and intellectual capacities of social man. Such is soft despotism. Upon becoming wards of this paternal power, citizens would console themselves with the thought that they had at least elected their new masters. Tocqueville knew that elections were not the ultimate goal for democracy – his vision consisted of the far broader notion of a liberal democracy. Such a democracy depends on the social fabric, or perhaps better termed a civic fabric, that binds citizen to citizen and citizen to government in “a vibrant network of associations.”
What Allows for the Rise of Soft Despotism?
At the heart of the rise of soft despotism lies a combination of collective individualism and limited property rights. Tocqueville first painted a picture of the individual’s place in a civic society being torn asunder by the competing desires to be led and to remain free. Individuals would assume that others, especially those perceived to be elite, know best when it comes to political decisions. Each citizen would be content but individual, choosing to maintain an independent existence from society. When citizens would interact with one another, their conscious calculations for individual advancement would undermine the prerequisites for cooperation, leading to what economists deem suboptimal outcomes. In essence, citizens in such a state are equal but atomized. An almost corrosive individualism erodes the civic fabric and ties the loose ends to the government. The citizen chooses to do this, and so appears to still be independent. Yet, the individual merely becomes dependent upon the only social entity left standing – the state.
Tocqueville also looked at property rights, and in this he began to address the economic foundations for soft despotism. He foresaw that the balance of property would begin to determine the balance of political power in the lead-up to soft despotism. Only limited rights would be accorded to individual private property and the populace would display a general equality of condition. With few rights or terms of private ownership accorded to property, only elites or the government could truly hold power. Aristotle and Montesquieu said much the same thing, recognizing the danger in legal property being dispersed at the discretion of an administrative state. The tendency is that the allocation of property leads to an industrial and financial aristocracy, or oligarchy. The oligarchy then develops mechanisms that underpin its influence and ultimate rule, continuing the form but not the substance of democracy.
What Does a Softly Despotic State Look Like?
In Tocqueville’s description, the softly despotic state first of all provides for most of the citizen’s wishes, but ensures that it is the only source to satisfy. It provides for individual needs, including security. Yet its modus operandi is to divide and rule, inducing passivism at best and fear at worst. The state creates a network of petty regulations, often for corrupt profit or cronyism. Industry is directed and societal decisions are guided, even for good. In essence, soft despotism displays an elected government providing for individual needs (but not social needs), a free press (but only state press), allowing markets (funded by state capital), and offering security (but at the price of liberty).
Ultimately, what people are left with is a distant democracy, where a large space exists between citizens and decision-makers. Civil institutions, which would normally fill this gap, are left out of the circle of public interests. Without individuals even realizing it, decision-making is removed from effective civilian control and civil oversight. Essential powers are united at the top, allowing the state to sway incentives, monitor activities, and choose societal winners, all for the “good” and seemingly at the behest of the people. Once power is centralized and made distant, institutional inertia kicks in, such that devolving power or recreating intermediate civil institutions is nearly impossible.
So What? What Next?
Coups, putsches, and power plays are all too easy to see. A gradual unwinding of the civic fabric is much harder to spot, but just as dangerous to democracy. Nevertheless, the warnings of Tocqueville allow us to at least shine a light on despotic elements lurking in democracy’s shadow. Ian Bremmer recently noted a slouching toward tyranny in the four primary actors of what he termed “state capitalism”: national oil corporations, state-owned enterprises, privately owned national champions, and sovereign wealth funds (SWFs). “One essential feature of state capitalism is the existence of close ties binding together those who govern a country and those who run its enterprises,” meaning that the “domestic instabilities that threaten ruling elites…begin to take on greater importance for businesses.” Niall Ferguson pointed to hidden dangers in the modern social welfare state: “The police state has a natural ally in the nanny state, born in 1945 to replace warfare with welfare. If the former replaces individual freedoms with patriotic duties, the latter offers entitlements in exchange for responsibilities.”
Fortunately, Alexis de Tocqueville also offered a solution together with his warnings. He argued that strengthening the social fabric through the binding power of associations served as the essential counter to soft despotism. “Governments, therefore, should not be the only active powers; associations ought, in democratic nations, to stand in lieu of those powerful private individuals whom the equality of conditions has swept away.” “In democratic countries the science of association is the mother of science; the progress of all the rest depends upon the progress it has made. Among the laws that rule human societies there is one which seems to be more precise and clear than all others.” Building a democracy that delivers through vital political and civic institutions stands as the greatest bulwark against the corrosive threat of soft despotism.
Essential Reading
Helping Build Democracy that Delivers
Promoting Government Accountability and Social Participation
Democracy in America, Chapter VI: What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear
Published Date: June 01, 2009