Tocqueville Fellows Blog, Featuring William Stark: “Despotism: Ancient Control, Modern Regulation”

Throughout history, the threat of despotism has appeared in various forms, emerging as a potential risk from a wide range of forms of government. In the case of ancient (often aristocratic) governments, despotism was typically overt and physical, characterized by the forcible control of behavior. In contrast, the modern, more democratic government of the United States faces a somewhat subtler form of despotism, often described as “soft despotism,” through which paternalistic and seemingly well-intentioned bureaucracy shapes not only citizens’ actions but also their deeper thoughts and beliefs. 

This essay (as a response to and expansion on the ideas presented by Dr Sarah Gustafson in her fall 2024 Tocqueville lecture at Furman University) will explore these contrasts between classical and modern examples of despotism through the lens of Alexis de Tocqueville’s analysis in Democracy in America, seeking to highlight the implications of these different forms of despotism on liberty and social order.

Ancient Despotism

To provide an example of ancient (forcible) despotism: in ancient Sparta, the government was a tightly controlled aristocracy, leading to continued despotism over the course of generations. The ruling class, consisting of two hereditary monarchs and five magistrates (ephoroi) maintained a rigid control over the population, utilizing military power to enforce conformity of behavior. A particularly powerful example is the Spartan helots, a class of subjugated serfs/slaves, who were oppressed through enforced mistreatment and servitude. The state dictated their behavior, ensuring that any dissent was swiftly crushed. 

This governmental structure reflects Tocqueville’s observation that in an aristocracy “as the rulers have a great deal to lose, order is to them a first-rate consideration” (Book 1, Chapter 5 Part 3). In this case, in the classic example of Spartan government as ancient “tyrannical” despotism, the government kept order by directly and forcibly controlling the actions of the governed.

In a second, similarly classical example, Julius Caesar’s rise to power provides a striking example of how an aristocratic system can devolve into despotism through military might. In the context of the Roman Republic, aristocracy maintained control over the populace, typically relying on military strength to maintain order. Caesar, despite initially presenting himself as a populist leader, nevertheless quickly centralized authority once he attained power, undermining the republic’s founding principles. His dictatorship, though initially perceived as a necessary means to restore stability, ultimately demonstrated the dangers of concentrated power. 

This series of events reflects Tocqueville’s observation that while superficial forms of independence might arise in a state, the “despotic tendency which has been repelled will, sooner or later, inevitably reappear on the surface” (Book 1, Chapter 5 Part 1). Caesar’s regime exemplified how the very tools that could foster liberty were repurposed into means of oppression, illustrating the potential for despotism within an aristocratic framework.

Modern “Soft” Despotism

In stark contrast, modern America exhibits in many ways a form of soft despotism characterized by paternalistic governance and extensive regulation. Programs initiated during the New Deal (1930s), the War on Poverty (1964), and the Great Society (1960s) sought to alleviate suffering and promote welfare by addressing poverty and other problems. 

However, Tocqueville warned that “to concentrate the whole social force in the hands of the legislative body is the natural tendency of democracies… it is naturally led to monopolize every species of influence. This concentration is at once prejudicial to a well-conducted administration, and favorable to the despotism of the majority” (Book 1, Chapter 8 part 4). The well-intentioned policies that arose from these movements frequently led to increased governmental control over the individual, transforming citizens into dependents rather than active participants in the governance of the nation in which they lived.

The New Deal, for example, was pivotal in establishing a safety net for the American populace during the Great Depression. However, it also initiated a significant shift toward centralized authority, where the state assumed a paternal role in controlling the economy. 

Similarly, the Great Society programs of the 1960s aimed to eradicate poverty and expand civil rights; however, on the contrary, they resulted in a wide-reaching bureaucratic state that regulated a wide range of aspects of life. While these policies attempted to aid citizens, they also subtly reshaped societal norms, leading to a dependency on government assistance rather than fostering the kind of individual initiative that Tocqueville praises in Democracy in America.

Liberty vs. Despotism

Tocqueville noted that “despotism often promises to make amends for a thousand previous ills” (Book 1, Chapter 14 Part 1).  In both ancient and modern contexts, the promise of security and order can push populations towards complacency. Citizens, reliant on the benefits of social programs or the assurance of a strong leader, may become blind to (or unable to resist) the erosion of their freedoms. The citizens of ancient Sparta, bound by their enforced societal roles, and the modern American, dependent in many respects on government assistance and regulation, each illustrate this phenomenon in different ways.

However, Tocqueville reminds us that “liberty… is generally established in the midst of agitation” (Book 1, Chapter 14 Part 1). True liberty often arises from struggle and conflict, fostering a resilience that soft despotism lacks. The ancient systems, though oppressive, offered a clear contrast between freedom and tyranny.

In today’s America, the blurred lines of paternalism complicate our perspective on liberty: citizens must remain independent against the possibility of a government that often promises safety at the expense of our freedoms, maintaining civic associations and other institutions of culture that Tocqueville promotes as protectors against despotism.

Conclusion

The contrast between ancient tyrannical despotism and modern soft despotism emphasizes a critical struggle that has recurred throughout history. While the mechanisms of control have changed over time, the underlying principles remain consistent, and the balance between order and liberty is as precarious as it has ever been. 

As Tocqueville warns, without a robust civic spirit and active participation by citizens, democracies may drift toward a form of despotism that not only affects citizens’ actions but also shapes their very thoughts and values, limiting the ways they utilize their rights and liberties. In light of this, societies must remain vigilant, ensuring that pursuing citizens’ general welfare does not come at the cost of key freedoms.

— William Stark, Furman Student and Tocqueville Center Fellow

September, 2024

Sources:

‌“Ephor | Spartan Magistrate | Britannica.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 2019, www.britannica.com/topic/ephor.

‌Katz, Michael. “The American Welfare State by Michael B. Katz.” Archives.history.ac.uk, 2008, archives.history.ac.uk/history-in-focus/welfare/articles/katzm.html.

‌Suetonius, “The Lives of the Caesars.” Ed. Bill Thayer. Penelope, U Chicago, penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html.

‌“The Project Gutenberg EBook of Democracy in America, Part I. By Alexis de Tocqueville.” Gutenberg.org, 2024, gutenberg.org/files/815/815-h/815-h.htm#link2HCH0038. Accessed 24 Sept. 2024.