The American democracy germinated in an era where rule by the people was thought to lead

to disorder and disruption, as Tocqueville put it, The poor man retains the prejudices of his

forefathers without their faith, and their ignorance without their virtues; he has adopted the

doctrine of self-interest, without understanding the science which controls it Thus

intriguingly, how did democracy in America came to be as it is today? And What do we need

to know in order to understand the vitality behind this long-established democracy. Instead of

ascribing the democratic success in America to a mere leap of faith, Im inclined to see it as

small victories here and there.

Just as branches boom from a robust root, the American democracy accumulated its nutrients

from the general equality of conditions that the first colonizers staunchly upheld. Nevertheless,

when equality is promised amongst a group of individuals, contrasting ideas tend to clash more

fiercely as no one is anyones inferior. In such situations, especially in early colonial

townships to change anything, a consensus must be reached by the majority of all voters at

any given town meeting a tacit agreement to accommodate conflicting views is established.

This is of particular importance, as no one person has the final say over any subject and every

individual is encouraged to engage in governing areas directly related to their spheres of

interest. Similarly, Tocqueville claims that, In New England, no tradition exists of a

distinction of ranks; no portion of the community is tempted to oppress the remainder Local

practices of self-government not only instilled a sense of civic duty in early New Englanders,

but also implied that authority is not at the whims of any one entity, but rather shared amongst

all eligible citizens propelling those in charge to negotiate with their equals when views

diverge. The underlying purpose of accommodating conflicting views, in a broader sense, is to

channel popular passions and interests so that the will of the people does not become the

preferences of the mob. The need to accommodate conflicting views per se is an important
ideology that would later evolve and would be incorporatedin a different formatinto the

countrys Constitution.

With that being said, what happens when divergent views occur in the central, rather than the

local government. Debates were intense on this subject during the drafting of the Constitution.

As Rice mentioned, the Founders tackled the challenge by settling on divided government,

id est, the separation of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches. A scheme of checks

and balances grants powers to each of the three coequal realmsand each is responsible to

keep the government from getting too powerful in one branch. Rice believes such a debate was

a proxy for a much larger issue yet to be addressedwhat happens when divergent views occur

between the central and the local government? Is the role of central authority in this new

country always greater than that of local authority in all fields? If yes, could the president easily

become King? The Founding Fathers differed greatly on this issue. Nonethelessas I

mentioned before, when power is split amongst eligible citizens, they tend to negotiate when

views conflicteda series of compromises came to a conclusion: The authorities of the central

government would only be given enumerated powers, that is, powers explicitly spelled out

in writing. And therefore, all powers not mentioned would be reserved for the local

governments (states). Moreover, such a federalist system made local governments both more

accountable and more effective, as they are closer to the peoplea democracy, in essence,

should a country ruled by the people.

In conclusion, in understanding American democracy, whether in colonial era or in the New

Nation, there leaves little doubt that one should start by delving into the heart of its democratic

traditionsand to me, that heart lies on the need to accommodate conflicting views.