Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
Scarcely two decades have passed since Lord Bryce stated that democracy is universally accepted “as the normal and natural form of government.” What the author of the American Commonwealth regarded at the end of his long life as the result of the modern development had been announced by Alexis de Tocqueville even before Bryce was born. This French historian and political philosopher, who is today classed as one of the most important thinkers of all time, characterized the whole modern political and social trend as an irresistible advance towards democracy. He was afraid that democratic equality would destroy individual liberty. Like John Stuart Mill a generation later, he too was depressed by the fear that the despotism of a brutal majority rule might be a future threat to democracy. But this fear did not change the general trend of his prophecy.
1 Bryce, Lord, Modern Democracies, Volume I, New York: The MacMillan Company, 1921, quoted according to the edition of 1924, page 4Google Scholar.
2 Mayer, J. P., Alexis de Tocqueville, New York: Viking, 1940. Mayer quotes Dilthey who wrote that de Tocqueville “is.… undoubtedly the most illustrious of all political analysts since Aristotle and Machiavelli.” (p. xiv). Mayer's biographical essay has the special merit of offering numerous quotations from the works and letters of De TocquevilleGoogle Scholar.
3 Cf. Jennings, W. Ivor, Parliament, Cambridge, England: At the University Press, 1939, page 451Google Scholar. “Suspicion of governmental powers was a characteristic of the Constition from the opening of the seventeenth century until the close of the nineteenth; and even with a Government which owes its authority only to a majority in Parliament based on a free demonstration of public opinion, it has not wholly disappeared.”
4 Cf. Mcllwain, C. H., Constitutionalism and the Changing World, New York: The MacMillan Company, 1939, Paper on “Sovereignty” where he discusses on page 42Google Scholarff. the fact that the absolute king of France enjoyed a sovereign's power which was “internally” limited. The kings are “responsible to God whose ministers they are: whatever the plenitude of their power, they are bound to exercise it with equity and justice.… it is clear that ‘absolute’ and regulated are terms not mutually exclusive.” This kind of internal limitation is now believed to be insufficient. But does the majority rule alone suffice to limit the government? This question expresses one of the decisive problems for modern democracy. Cf. also the remarkable article of Voegelin, Eric, “Extended Strategy,” The Journal of Politics, 05, 1940, II: 195 ffGoogle Scholar. “The democratic government which desires to keep the country substantially democratic is at a disadvantage because the western pattern of democracy has become formalized.”
5 This assertion is basic for Dostoievski's critique of modern socialism which is especially developed in his novel, The Possessed.
6 Cf. Florinsky, Michael T., Toward an Understanding of the U.S.S.R., New York: The MacMillan Company, 1939, Chapter I, “Imperial Russia.”Google Scholar
7 Cf. Lippincott, B. E., Victorian Critics of Democracy, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1938, page 245Google Scholar. “The anti-democratic and authoritarian ideas of the intellectuals failed to make any impression on their age; that is to say, the antidemocratic and authoritarian ideas of Carlyle and Ruskin failed to make any impression.”
8 Cf.the interesting description of the two criteria of democracy in MacIver, R. M., Leviathan and the People, University, Louisiana: The Louisiana State University Press, 1939, pp. 70 ffGoogle Scholar. “Democracy puts into effect the distinction between the state and the community.… democracy depends on free operation of conflicting opinions.”
9 Cf. Friedrich, C. J. and Mason, E. S., Public Policy, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940Google Scholar, the study of Watkin's, F. M. “Constitutional Dictatorship,” pp. 324 ffGoogle Scholar.
10 Cf. my discussion of the two elements (universal suffrage and individual rights), the combination of which characterizes modern democracy, in Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, Volume XV, issued by the Office of the Secretary of the Association, Washington, D. C, 1939, pp. 51 ffGoogle Scholar. (Article on “The Totalitarian State”).
11 Villard, Osward Garrison, Fighting Years, Memoirs of a Liberal Editor, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1939Google Scholar.
12 Cf. Gurian, Waldemar, The Rise and Decline of Marxism, London: Burns, Oates and Washbourn, 1938, the last chapterGoogle Scholar.
13 The attitude of the different totalitarian regimes towards property is analyzed in its essential features by Hoover, Calvin B., Dictatorship and Democracies, New York: The MacMillan Company, 1937Google Scholar.
14 Cf. Gurian, Waldemar, The Future of Bolshevism, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1936Google Scholar.
15 Hitler is for world peace if this peace is identical with the world domination by the best group, the German people. Only then true order will be maintained. Cf. Mein Kampf, New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939, page 394Google Scholar.
16 Cf. Esmein, A. and Nézard, Henry, Eléments de Droit comtitutionnel français el comparé, 8 ed., Volume I, Paris: Recueil Sirey, 1927, pp. 28 ffGoogle Scholar. “Ce qui fait la vertu protectrice de la loi c'est sa conception même. Elle peut, en effet, être dennie: Une règie impérative ou prohibitive posée par le souverain, qui statue non dans un intérêel particulier, mais dans l' intérêt commun, non à l'égard d'un individu isolé, mais a l'égard de tous, pour l'avenir et à toujours.” (my own italics)
17 Cf. Fraenkel, Ernst, The Dual State, A Contribution to the Theory of Dictatorship, New York: Oxford University Press, 1940Google Scholar, and Loewenstein, Karl, Hitler's Germany, New York; The MacMillan Company, 1939Google Scholar.
18 Cf. Sturro, Luigi, Italy and Fascismo, London: Faber and Gwyer, 1926, chapter VIII, “Aventine and Reaction,” pp. 187Google Scholar pp., and Steiner, H. A., Government in Fascist Italy, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1938, p. 74Google Scholar.
19 Cf. Cate, James L. and Anderson, Eugene N., Ed., Medieval and Hisioriographical Essays in Honor of James Westfall Thompson, the article of Padover, S. K., “Kautsky and the Materialistic Interpretation of History,” pp. 447 ffGoogle Scholar.
20 Cf. Huber, Ernst R., Verfassung, Hamburg: Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, 1937, pp. 90 ffGoogle Scholar., where the National Socialist jurist asserts that the true will of the people is not necessarily expressed by the result of an election, whereas it is necessarily expressed by the will of the leader.
21 The Middle Class does not accept proletarian socialism and prefers to support totalitarian movements against regimes which apparently favor in a one-sided manner the workers and which are under the influence of trade unions, etc. Cf. Briefs, Goetz, The Proletariat, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1937Google Scholar.
22 Cf. Barth, Hans, “Reality and Ideology of the Totalitarian State,” Review of Politics, 07, 1939, I: 275–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 Cf. Adler, Mortimer, “Parties and the Common Good,” Review of Politics. 01, 1939, I: 51–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 Cf. Maclver, , loc. cii., who points out that in the long run totalitarian propaganda loses its efficiency and emphasizes “Dictatorship must make crisis permanent, lest the qualities of human nature that it suppresses should break through.” (p. 47)Google Scholar.
25 Cf. Friedrich, C. J., Constitutional Government and Politics, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1937, page 293Google Scholar. “The real difference is that the dirty laundry of popular regimes is washed in public, whereas under authoritarian rule it is washed behind the scenes or not at all.”
26 Cf. Schmitt, Carl, Die geistesgeschichtlichen Grundlagen des Parlamentarismus, München: Duncker und Humblot, 1923Google Scholar. Schmitt characterizes the parliamentary regimes of today as regimes by discussion which are unable to make decisions.
27 They do not believe in a final victory of their cause in the future. The expression of such a belief is the “myth” of G. Sorel. No victory is possible without violence and battles. Cf. Sorel, Georges, Reflections on Violence, New York: Viking Press, 1914.Google Scholar For excepts see Wagner, Donald O., Social Reformers, New York; The MacMillan Company, 1937Google Scholar.
28 Cf. Rauschning, Herman, Revolution of Nihilism, New York: Alliance Book Corporation, 1939Google Scholar, and The Voice of Destruction, New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1940Google Scholar.
