What’s The Irish For ‘Vested Interests’?
Sep 27th, 2007 by Donagh
Probably the only thing I knew for sure about Alexis De Tocqueville and his book Democracy in America prior to reading an LRB review of Hugh Brogan’s recently published biography was that he was a French man who traveled through America in the 19th century describing the political process as he saw it and thus, with an outsider’s perspective, managed to produce a text that remains a classic analysis of the relative strengths of American democracy.
However, the review informed me of many things. Mainly about De Tocqueville’s background and why he decided to travel to America, but also something important about the quality of American Democracy. De Tocqueville was a French aristocrat whose family was arrested during the Terror, and who had an aristocrat’s fear and hatred of the principles of democracy as espoused during the French Revolution.
As Colin Kid says in his review:
“The traumatised survivors of the Terror unsurprisingly gravitated towards royalist politics, and Alexis de Tocqueville grew up in a family where legitimism did not arise simply from material self-interest, aristocratic haughtiness or ideological prescription, but drew also on intimate experience of imprisonment and loss.”
With the second expulsion of the Bourbons in 1830, however, De Tocqueville was forced to accept the reality of non-legitimist government. Despite this shifting of allegiances his personal experiences of the French middle class were extremely limited and when he did meet any he found he had little in common with them.
“As a child he had been educated largely by an aged clerical tutor, the beloved Abbé le Sueur, and, though he encountered the children of the bourgeoisie at a lycée in Metz when he was 16, he spent less than two years there. This period of schooling, Brogan reckons, was not long enough for him to become accustomed to the ways of the middle classes, which, to the end of his days, he continued to find alien and crass.”
His reasons for going to America are curious, and were perhaps motivated by his desire to get away from the uncomfortable surroundings of the new Orleanist regime (in order to remain as a juge-auditeur in the law courts and therefore a de facto supporter of the regime he effectively had to turn his back on his Bourbon background). Ostensibly he made the trip to examine the American penitentiary system, and while he did write the report he also produced Democracy in America.
But the realities behind this journey belie the myth of Tocqueville ‘as the acute sociological observer of American egalitarianism’ that he is widely understood to be:
“ His visit took place in a window between elections; he mixed largely with upper-class lawyers and with Federalists, members of an elitist party in long-term decline which had last won a presidential contest in 1796; and he sometimes mangled the significance and representativeness of Federalist attitudes or even stray remarks: the provenance, it appears, of his famous conception of the tyranny of the majority. As Brogan notes, Tocqueville and Beaumont ‘forfeited one of the chief advantages of foreign travel, and of travel to the United States above all, the opportunity to shed the burden and trap of their own social identity’.”
The status of Democracy in America of course has canonized it as an objective study of the realities of American Democracy. To consider that he made most of his observations of a select rather than a representative cross-section of American society would challenge this widely held notion.
There is one aspect of this review that I consider to be particularly revelatory, and it is that despite the Royalist’s perhaps limited (compared to what is commonly understood) perspective he still managed to understand the essential elements of American Democracy. He also realised that there wasn’t much that a Royalist, those defenders of vested interests, had to fear:
“ The reality in America of democracy and republicanism differed strikingly from their pejorative meanings in French royalist demonology: ‘If our royalists could see the domestic progress of a well-ordered republic, its deep respect for vested interests, the power of those interests over the mob, law as a religion, the real and effective liberty which everyone there enjoys . . . they would see that they had been confounding under one label differing systems which have no real likeness.’ Brogan argues that the trip to America had made Tocqueville a republican in principle: the example of American democracy suggested – no more than that – ways of overcoming the deep fissures and geological instabilities introduced into modern French politics at the Revolution.”
The reality is, of course, that Democracy as it is understood now, is very, very different to the ideas proselytized during the French Revolution. In fact, if you read John Dunn’s book, Setting the People Free: The Stories of Democracy, you would argue that it is almost the exact opposite of those ideas and also, contrary to what many people consider to be the freedom of Parliamentary democracy, not really designed to allow voters the opportunity to get a proper look in on how things are really run.
Of course, you may argue, American democracy, as a system is very different to our own proportional representative one. Well true, and Timothy Garton Ash spells out what stymies the political system in the United States rather gravely here.
But what reminded me of Tocqueville observation about Modern Democracy and the role of vested interests within that was something I read on Best of Both Worlds today. P O’Neill, after some clicking around the Web, came across details of the financial affairs of Joe Lewis, a tax exile and currency trader, who appears to have had business connections with some very prominent Irish businessmen.
“an Irish trio comprised of Dermot Desmond, a property magnate and stockbroker; J. P. McManus, a kingpin of the legal bookmaking business, and John Magnier, a horse breeder.”
P.O’Neill trawls further and points out the Mr.Lewis has done business in Ireland with these men. This quote is from Mr. Lewis’ New York Times profile
“In 1991, investigators for the Irish Government began looking into the circumstances surrounding the sale of land to Telecomm Eireann, the state-owned telecommunications concern. The investigation was prompted by concerns that the land — jointly owned by Mr. Lewis, the three Irishmen and others — was sold at a vastly inflated price, a result of the group’s influence with the administration of Charles Haughey, then the Prime Minister.”
We know of course, that despite a critical report, no charges were brought against anyone for this. More details at Best of Both Worlds of course, but in light of Bertie’s current woes, I think that P. O’Neill makes a very important point when he says:
“…if there’s a lot of head-scratching as to why exactly Bertie Ahern might have been dealing in large amounts of foreign currency in the early 1990s, or might have had grateful friends so doing — it’s less mysterious when you look at Bertie’s job description during that period and the not very hard to find links between him and the Lewis circle.”
I recently read “De la Democratie en Amerique” and Bernard Henry Levy’s “American Vertigo: Travels in the footsteps of Toqueville“. BHL was commissioned by Atlantic Monthly to travel around the US and do a kind of modern Tocqueville. While BHL’s book is interesting in parts it comes nowhere close to capturing the essence of the US political culture today in the way Tocqueville did in the 1830s. BHL provides a nuanced look at America but too many of his takes are already cliches. And Levy’s style is quite annoying. Very overworked and huge rambling phrases that last a page or more! Tocqueville writes in beautifully clear crisp french.
Notwithstanding the reservations pointed out in LRB I think Tocqueville provides a penetrating examination of how the American colonial society with both entrepreneurial and puritanical were key to the structure of the democracy that emerged. And in Tome II how the feedback loop is completed in the way the structure of democracy can in turn shape values and the way society operates.
The other wee footnote I’d add is that the Timing of Tocqueville’s was significant from the US perspective too. The Frenchman made his visit in the jacksonian era (was this mentioned in the LRB review, it’s been a while since I read it). Anway Jackson’s tenure saw the ‘rise of the common man’. Property qualifications for voting were being removed and Jackson saw himself more aligned with the views of the ordinary man than any President hitherto in the young republic.
Anyhow, great post! Bonne continuation!
Hey great. I was going to pick up Levy’s book a while ago. Now I don’t have to. One reason I didn’t was because I hadn’t read Democracy in America, which is still on my to read list.
The LRB review doesn’t mention the US context or the Jacksonian Rise of the Common Man. Instead it focus’ on Tocqueville’s Royalist brand of Republicanism and Liberalism.
Thanks for the informative comment.
On the subject of vested interests, Donagh, I wonder did you read Jenkins’s piece - and one solutional stone, as it were - in the LRB on both campaign finance reform and public apathy? Runs thus: cutting corporate donations, minimising state funding and making parties to run the money they make on membership fees would encourage parties to find more members. Might throw the cycle of corruption back a few years, but wouldn’t party’s eventually just raise their membership fees to the point that they’d actually have less members with more money, so they’d be shouting once more at an apathetic electorate?
And Alexis, I think, sits always in the near future of everybody’s reading list. Fair play to Tomaltach, not only to have read it, but to have read it in French. That’s an ambition of mine, sans doute.
Yes, thanks Kevin, I read it. The article, of course, was in the context of British politics, where a number of recent legislative changes involving union contribution to Labour and the fallout from the Cash for Honours scandal has encouraged parties to look for funding from the state. I thought he was suggesting that parties should go back to a form of local patronage - effectively dismantled under the centralizing sweep of Thatcher - where political parties would provide a quid quo pro (cash for not necessarily corrupt favours) with people at a local level. Once constituents felt they have a stake in the party they are more likely to be engaged in the political process.
Contributions doesn’t necessarily mean membership fees, as far as I am aware, but whatever it is a cap would have to be in place. Otherwise you’d be back in the same boat.
But Jenkins main point, about the need for such corruption to be dealt with in order to bolster democracy, which remains the political system ‘most likely to deliver peace, stability and prosperity’ and that the best way to achieve this is by building up a party’s base, is important in an Irish context. Not only to ensure that certain successful individuals don’t have undue influence over our politicians, but also as an instruction to the Labour party. If its to succeed at all it has to figure out how it can engage with more people and bring them in to the process.
I didn’t catch Jenkins’ piece. I think there is a severe disillusionment with the political system in Ireland. Definitely true elsewhere as well - I was going to write ‘chronic disillusionment’ but on second thoughts, we aren’t quite at the bottom of the ratings. I think places like Italy (sticking to developed nations for now) are far worse. Nevertheless, we have serious problems. I think part of it is that our political institutions, including the parties, have not come close to adapting to the challenges of a new age. An age of extreme fragmentation of interests, an age of celebrity culture, an age where a plethora of interests compete for people’s time, and so on, you know the story.
New Labour - for all its flaws - at least made an attempt at constitutional reform. Perhaps it was hamfisted, especially in relation to Lords reform, but it was a start. They devolved government (did they light a fire which they cannot contain!) and took public sector reform seriously (perhaps the obsession with targets was overdone but they at least made clear that delivery has to be important) . Paradoxically their giving decision-making to regions ran in parallel with an obsessive centralisation.
But I want to talk about Ireland. Our body politic seems at best indifferent towrards, at worst utterly resistant to reform. The Seanad is one example. Local government, including town mayors is another. The sham of stunts like the BMW Regional Assembly is another. Not to mention the operation of the Dáil. (Actually I applaud FG’s attempt to have committees appointed based on the d’Hondt system as apposed to dominated by government). The appointment of heads of state agencies on the basis of political patronage is a disgrace etc. At the party political level I always get the feeling they could do far more to make it interesting, especially for young people.
The irony is that Irish people are passionate about politics - people love to discuss issues from health to economy to Enda and so on. But mention the parties and people just sigh and roll their eyes.
I think there’s a need for creativity and courage. But our system is particularly afflicated by the clique syndrome. When you get on the inside you don’t want to open things up, it makes your own position less secure and erodes the little sniff of superiority that wafts off the notion of being part of something slightly exclusive.
As an after-thought, Benjamin Freidman’s Moral Consequences of Economic Growth came to mind. While Freidman has perhaps too benign a view of the benefits of growth alone, one point he makes is salient here. He argues that times of plenty, i.e periods of sustained economic growth, provide the best opportunity for progressive reform. In a time of hardship people close ranks, fear change, blame others for their insecurity, and often drift to the extremes. When times are good people are more willing to give up a little, to surrender entrenched positions, to embrace change without fear. If there is any truth in Freidman’s thesis, The Celtic Tiger provided a perfect opportunity to achieve substantial reform. But clearly, that opportunity wasn’t seized.
Thanks Tomaltach, many excellent points here. I think I’ll turn my main reply to this into a post as there’s a lot of ground to cover. I think you’re right about the fragmentation of interests and that political parties don’t reflect this. It could be why the Irish Labour Party for example are complaining that no one understands what it is they stand for anymore. The concerns of the electorate consist of a series of distinct issues, such as health, eduction and so on and much of our political discussions are simply squabbling over the details.
It is strange though that the Irish are passionate about politics but that voter turn out is falling. I think this is a problem generally with modern democracy in all developed countries, where the majority think that everything is going grand so why bother.
I have to agree completely with your point about Benjamin Freidman and the missed opportunity to bring through reform in time of plenty. What amazes me is how those who have been in Government for the last 10 years can talk up the changes they envisage but manage to do absolutely nothing. This morning I was reading an article cut out from the Irish Times which someone in my daughter’s Primary School had pinned to the notice board. It was about Education and mentioned how, according to a recent OECD report, Ireland is near the end of the league table when it comes to Education spending. Mary Hannifan, the article said, looked on the positives in the OECD report and pointed out how much the spending has increased since the 80s.
I think that is one of the few things that the FF lead Governments can say. If there’s a problem they can chuck money at it. If people say that’s not enough they’ll say ‘compared to what we used to spend this is a phenomenal amount of money’. But reform, structural changes, planning, forward thinking, real investment in Education, nah, can’t be bothered with that.
I’m sure some of the clever people in FF (advisors, hacks, organisers) know that our political system is desperately lame. But the guys with the power are deeply conservative, intellectually shallow, and driven by sheer thirst for influence regardless of results. They don’t think in terms of legacy or the kind of country the next generation will inherit - they live for the next meeting with a senior european or american counterpart. The Blair team - above all Blair himself - really wanted change. (I’m no an apologist for Blair by the way). But our guys just want to muddle through. As you say, as long as they are dishing out extra funds they are great fellas.
I think it’s interesting about the setting up of Cowen as the heir to Bertie. I don’t think that its motivated by Ahern’s current difficulties (nor for that matter do I believe that Blair’s signalling that he’d pass the paton to Brown was because of his trouble with Iraq) rather its to emphasis continuity and stability, that the policies in place now will continue and continuity and stability wins votes.
Of course, what this political hegemony means in reality is F-all chances of reform. As usual, FF are not interested in what is best for Ireland, but rather what is needed to keep them in power.
I’m sure some of the clever people in FF (advisors, hacks, organisers) know that our political system is desperately lame. But the guys with the power are deeply conservative, intellectually shallow, and driven by sheer thirst for influence regardless of results.
I’ve just come to the end of Garvin’s Preventing the Future, so perhaps thoughts of Dev et al sit still disproportionately on my mind, but if I were to reopen Garvin on any random page, I don’t think it particularly unlikely that I’d come across a sentence like the above. In fact, if I hadn’t seen the rest of what you’ve put down online, I’d have you down as a plagiarist. But, Tomaltach, if you’ve seen the rest of what I’ve put down online, perhaps the accusation of that sort coming from me would be taken with handfulls of salt.
Interesting how this thread has developed. Bring on that next post, Donagh.
I haven’t read Garvin’s book, though it lies somewhere on my ever shifting to-read list! But I have read several books on 20th century Ireland. And I think that anyone who sifts through it would come to a similar conclusion!