The possibility of a “tyranny of the majority” is emphasized in the de Tocqueville reading and also in Madison’s Federalist Paper #10. When comparing and contrasting both author’s thoughts on tyranny of the majority, you come across de Tocqueville’s feelings towards a democracy and Madison’s feelings towards a democracy too, both authors seem to follow the same goals but instinctively it really falls on the author that feels the majority is overbearing. De Tocqueville felt that a society that was comprised of equal citizens shouldn’t just depend on the majority being right, since they were all supposed to be equal; this majority rule seemed to cancel it out. Madison also felt that the “public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority (Madison, 95).” De Tocqueville felt that in a democracy a majority of equals could abuse its power and thus become a “tyranny of the majority.” Madison also felt that way and stated that “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity (Madison, 96)” which will lead to a “tyranny of the majority” as well—a biased one at that!
De Tocqueville did not claim that “tyranny of the majority” was prominent in America but did hint at it developing in the North with voter discrimination. The majority in America being whites and the minority being the blacks who could vote but were scared to, the scare tactics also worked and the majority kept their candidates. De Tocqueville begins to question whether a democratic “tyranny of the majority” resulting from the different social and political ideas will compromise their individual rights or if equality was the outcome (De Tocqueville, 89). Madison discusses “When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens (Madison, 97),” and that also coincides with de Tocqueville’s feelings toward the majority.
In the Federalist Paper #10, Madison also comes up with ways to avoid getting into a “tyranny of majority” by planning that “the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be renderedunable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression (Madison, 97).” He also argues that a “pure democracy” can “admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction (Madison, 97).” Most of his arguments seem to focus on limiting the power to the majority because people would no longer be equal and become oppressed by those who were the majority. De Tocqueville seems to be focusing on the formation of groups and how holding a party or going to church can are all congregating and forming associations. De Tocqueville goes on to say that if America ever lost their freedom it would be because the “majority” is “driving minorities to desperation” especially if they monitor the forming of groups and associations. While both Madison and De Tocqueville have different methods of investigation, they do share similar points throughout the readings.
Works Cited
De Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America.
Madison, James. Federalist Papers #10.
