In the development of democracy in modern times, circumstances have directed its attacks rather against the aristocratic, than against the monarchical principle. At one time, monarchy, in its struggle with the aristocracy, found its natural allies in the democ racy. The princes, in striving to break the power of the great nobles, which limited their own, often called in the help of the democratic element, partly by conferring privileges on bodies of the people, such as city corporations, and partly by attaching individuals of the non-privileged classes to their personal service. and appointing them to influential positions in the state. The road to power and distinction was, it is true, already open to individuals of the democracy through the church. whose dignities and privileges were not confined to the noble by birth, but were accessible to personal capacity. At a later period, the universities, especially in the faculty of law, formed for the democracy step ping-stones to power, from which they sometimes overtopped the aristocracy of birth. And when the princes—at their head the Louis of France—aiming at absolute author, ity, sought to find a counterpoise to the feudal nobility, by creating a bureaucratic state machinery, and favoring intelligence in every form, the very widest path was opened to the democratic element for attaining influence and distinction. It is true that all this was at the cost of its most essential principle; for the equality created by a leveling absolutism, raising the low and depressing the high, was nothing more than an equality of dependence upon the one absolute master of all.
The relation between democracy and monarchy was different where the ruler came to be limited as the chief officer of the nation. Such a limitation of the power of the monarch, by means of a representative system not confined to the privileged classes, but embracing at least the citizens of towns, was in itself a victory of the democratic princi ple. As the circle of this popular representation widens, and its influence in the state increases, such a monarchy becomes more and more democratic in all its institutions.
In a purely democratical state, the people may exercise their power in either of two ways—directly, or through delegates in the one case, the democracy is said to be lute; in the other, representative. The absolute or direct form prevailed in the repub lics of antiquity; political representation, in fact, seems to be a modern idea. The same is the case with the original Swiss cantons, where almost all public business is discussed in a full assembly of the people. In Switzerland generally, the representative form is now preferred. It is also carried out in the states of North America, and was adopted in the French republic of 1848. The absolute form, in fact, is only adapted for small communities with a population concentrated as to space, and differing little in mode of life or culture. According to some, the representative system is inconsistent with the principle of democracy, as the will of the people is liable to be falsified and crossed by the very organs that are to carry it into execution. It is rather an advan
tage, however, that the first impulse of the public will, sometimes passionate and short sighted, should be tempered and enlightened, by passing through a series of media on its way to action; and the hold which the constituency have upon their representatives, by means of frequent re-election, and in other ways, is sufficient guard against any defeat of a steady, earnest, public conviction.
M. de Tocqueville and Mr. J. S. Mill applied themselves to setting forth the evils and dangers of democracy, which they—the latter especially—both regarded not only as a system that must inevitably extend itself, but as the ideally perfect form of government. Mr. Mill was at great pains to show that self-government by a representative democracy is what develops, in the greatest degree, the good mental qualities, both intellectual and moral, of the governed, and that it is desirable gradually to extend this participation in the acts of government till it include the entire adult population, male and female. On the other hand, there are two sources of evil to which we are liable, more or less, as democracy approaches to the term of universal suffrage, and which are to be provided, against by proper constitutional arrangements. The first of these is the insufficient mental qualifications of the governing body for the highly complicated work of govern ment. Public administration is a profession, like engineering, medicine, or the law, and demands, no less than these, a special training and devotion of mind. In monarchies and aristocracies, the management of affairs is in the hands of a few, who make it the .business of their life, and acquire the requisite skill for doing the work well. In a democ racy, this advantage is lost, except in so far as the details of administration are left to skilled officials; the public assembly merely retaining the power of checking and con trolling those officials, and of determining general rules of policy.
The other danger is the predominance of the laboring class, by virtue of their numbers, over the class made up of employers of labor, and the rich and educated generally. When there are two or more classes in the community with conflicting interests, the desirable arrangement is, that their power should be equally balanced, so that no party could carry a point by political position alone, or without appeal ing to the reason, and sense of justice, of some members of the other parties. But if the suffrage were universal, the laboring-class interest would be the predominant one; and so serious would be the danger of class legislation as a result, that Mr. Mill thought it necessary to provide a remedy in the shape of granting a plurality of votes to certain persons, especially those distinguished by education, so as to restore the balance.—Considerations on Representative Government, chap. viii.