Patrick Marvin Bernal

Sir Joem Co

PS1231

American Politics and Government

Prelim Paper

The American structure stands as the cradle of present day democracies however to
further understand democracy and its nature we must start from its grassroots. The Social
contract theorists further broaden the system of democracy. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and
Jean Jacques Rousseau all contributed their ideas and teachings but the most famous ones
were the teachings of John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. John Locke became famous
for his teachings of limited government in which the government may not hold all the power he
also intends that we should surrender ones right to judge in our own case but retain the 3
inalienable rights the right to life, liberty and property he also establishes a government that
would stand as a judge and is grounded for the protection of the peoples inalienable right
(Deustch & Fornieri, 2009). Jean Jacques Rousseau on the other hand proposed the term
General Will which in fact can regulate the inalienable right to property because for him there
is no inalienable right to property and in which particular wll must all conform into general will
and as lastly obedience to a law one prescribes for oneself (Deustch & Fornieri, 2009).

There are also other political thinkers that contributed in the debate on democracy.
Alexis de Tocqueville known as the father of American democracy, he analyses the structure of
American democracy and comparing it with the ancient form of democracy. He gave a detailed
description of American democracy, his works mainly focused on the middle class and the
tyranny of the majority in which I hearing do not underestimate the ability of stupid people in
great numbers (Co, 2014) and in fact true. Then the question arises, Are we really free? Or we
are just forced to accept those that are being set in front of us? Equality is not the invention of
neither French nor American but it mainly originated within Europe when the process of levelling
and equalizing are present during their era .American democracy completely abolished the use
of primogeniture because in the first place it triggers inequality but by abolishing primogeniture it
gave equal opportunity to other families to gain or to hold a title of land however it continues to
exist in other ideologies. American democracy is not like of those semi-aristocratic like the
ancient democracy, here everybody is considered a part of the middle class and everybody
needed to work for them to be able to survive unlike the ancient democracy slave primarily work
and their masters dont in which equality cease to exist. Tocqueville also added that politics is
just an extension of economics because its just a clash of interest that might be reconciled
(Deustch & Fornieri, 2009). American Revolution for Tocqueville is just a part of the world
revolution and just as the French revolution and it was considered as a continuous process. He
also added that democracy is an overwhelming force because it attracts people in the sense
that the masses hold the power, power is within the capital and it is a new system for the people

to embrace. However in the verge of democracy we cannot avoid the existence of those who
are individually reliable to their selves, thus reconciling individuality with equality cannot happen
you need to sacrifice one in able to achieve the other so if you are going to equality you would
sacrifice individuality creating Individuality as the greatest threat to democracy (Eberstein W. &
Eberstein A., 1988). Tocqueville also preferred the manufacturing elites than those of the
territorial aristocrats because these elites are bounded by law or sometimes in fact bounded by
their usage by itself making them unable to adopt or somehow develop their ideas in
understanding more about their intellectual capacity, yes they might improve in a certain
direction of work but they become degraded in a way that he did not own his own life it now
belongs to the career he has chose however the manufacturing elites impoverishes and
somehow degrades those who they serve and which abandons them to be supported by the
people itself thus making not a single association between the two.

Montesquieu, Hayek and Keynes also contributed on the scope and intent of equality in
the verge of democratic measures primarily welfare state and laws and the separation of powers
mainly because some of them didnt want government intervention within economic matters.
Montesquieu argued that separation of powers must took place because if left alone a free
government cannot be maintained if itself cannot be subjected to its own laws thus democracy
creating contradictions within itself that will later generate to its collapse. The general nature of
law is human reason however those under political and civil law are only subjected to where
human reason is particularly applied. Montesquieu as a liberal created England as his
framework in determining the use of the balanced constitution he the reveals the secret why
England became successful in attaining freedom, combining different features within the
government monarchy to stand as the executive, aristocracy in the house of lords and
democracy in the house of commons (Eberstein W. & Eberstein A., 1988). He then introduced
liberty, that liberty is the right of doing whatever the law allows us to do and if it allows them to
do those things where they are forbidden to they lose their liberty because all other citizen may
hold the capability to do the same democratic states in reality is not really free, liberty could only
be found on moderate governments but even in these kinds of government liberty sometimes
cease to exist. Hayek prefers privatization over government control for the reason that it holds
more opportunities and much better services. He also distinguish the difference between
material equality and equality before the law in which material equality creates competition in
where in order to be equal you need to disempower someone while in the equality before the
law you are all equal in the face of the law and you need not to remove or deprive someone in
order to achieve equality. Keynes have acquired a different approach than those of Hayek, he
said that classical liberalism or what we say individualism is the best safeguard for personal
liberty in which in fact gives emphasis mainly on the rational actors. He also added that pump
priming could be the solution to stabilize the market because the market itself is not self
correcting and thus it is prone to bubble burst, and will later on translate in having the anti-trust
law which will make the market concentrated to elites that could destroy monopolies. However
in the sense that people are rational and they needed choice. Laissez faire mainly means one
must govern less that would result into failure because of predatory competition. As I said
socialism maybe set as an alternative to democracy but can we really achieve socialism, people

are rational enough to take or make their own choices in life in which in that explanation it
eliminates the sense of socialism. Hayeks perspective is somehow close to Darwinism in which
it establishes natural selection and eliminates those institutions that basically do not fit. Hayek
was not fond of the term welfare state because for him welfare state was selfish for the part of
the people who need not want to pay for it, and from this welfare state could also be selfish on
the side that other individuals gain from it. For Hayek socialism is a mistake as an alternative to
democracy, first this could be the greatest threat to freedom in which we are all rational people
we think different from each other, second it could be the beginning of authoritarianism which in
fact happened during the French revolution, and lastly Democracy further expound the
structures of individual freedom while on the other hand socialism restricts it. Socialism could
also be a form of slavery in which is it punishing. Socialism is unproductive economically in a
way that it is impossible for it to exist within a world full of rational people. Within a socialist
economy there could be no choice and no development, thus whoever controls the economy
controls all which will lead to the means to our ends by means of great depression to create a
centralized form of state to level the playing field but it would sacrifice individual liberty
(Eberstein W. & Eberstein A., 1988). So the questions arise does equality exist in the verge of
democracy? The answer to that is, is there equality or is it just equity that prevails? Equity in
means of fairness and equality as everybody should approximately or exactly equal (Sodaro,
2001). Democracy is an unstoppable force which no one could predict when or where it ends
but one thing is for sure democracy today is considered as the default systems of the state.

Bibliography
Deutsch & Fornieri (2009). An Invitation to Political Thought. Belmont: Wadsworth
Publishing.
Eberstein W. & Eberstein A. (1988) Great Political Thinkers Plato to Present
Sodaro (2001) Comparative Politics a Global Introduction