Excellent, however, as these objections are in theory, in practice they lose all force, as will be admitted if the invincible strength be remembered of ideas transformed into dogmas.The dogma of the sovereignty of crowds is as little defensible, from the philosophical point of view, as the religious dogmas of the Middle Ages, but it enjoys at present the same absolute power they formerly enjoyed.It is as unattackable in consequence as in the past were our religious ideas.Imagine a modern freethinker miraculously transported into the midst of the Middle Ages.Do you suppose that, after having ascertained the sovereign power of the religious ideas that were then in force, he would have been tempted to attack them? Having fallen into the hands of a judge disposed to send him to the stake, under the imputation of having concluded a pact with the devil, or of having been present at the witches sabbath, would it have occurred to him to call in question the existence of the devil or of the sabbath? It were as wise to oppose cyclones with discussion as the beliefs of crowds.The dogma of universal suffrage possesses to-day the power the Christian dogmas formerly possessed.Orators and writers allude to it with a respect and adulation that never fell to the share of Louis XIV.In consequence the same position must be taken up with regard to it as with regard to all religious dogmas.Time alone can act upon them.
Besides, it would be the more useless to attempt to undermine this dogma, inasmuch as it has an appearance of reasonableness in its favour."In an era of equality," Tocqueville justly remarks, "men have no faith in each other on account of their being all alike; yet this same similitude gives them an almost limitless confidence in the judgment of the public, the reason being that it does not appear probable that, all men being equally enlightened, truth and numerical superiority should not go hand in hand."Must it be believed that with a restricted suffrage--a suffrage restricted to those intellectually capable if it be desired--an improvement would be effected in the votes of crowds? I cannot admit for a moment that this would be the case, and that for the reasons I have already given touching the mental inferiority of all collectivities, whatever their composition.In a crowd men always tend to the same level, and, on general questions, a vote, recorded by forty academicians is no better than that of forty water-carriers.I do not in the least believe that any of the votes for which universal suffrage is blamed--the re-establishment of the Empire, for instance-- would have fallen out differently had the voters been exclusively recruited among learned and liberally educated men.It does not follow because an individual knows Greek or mathematics, is an architect, a veterinary surgeon, a doctor, or a barrister, that he is endowed with a special intelligence of social questions.All our political economists are highly educated, being for the most part professors or academicians, yet is there a single general question--protection, bimetallism, &c.--on which they have succeeded in agreeing? The explanation is that their science is only a very attenuated form of our universal ignorance.With regard to social problems, owing to the number of unknown quantities they offer, men are substantially, equally ignorant.
In consequence, were the electorate solely composed of persons stuffed with sciences their votes would be no better than those emitted at present.They would be guided in the main by their sentiments and by party spirit.We should be spared none of the difficulties we now have to contend with, and we should certainly be subjected to the oppressive tyranny of castes.
Whether the suffrage of crowds be restricted or general, whether it be exercised under a republic or a monarchy, in France, in Belgium, in Greece, in Portugal, or in Spain, it is everywhere identical; and, when all is said and done, it is the expression of the unconscious aspirations and needs of the race.In each country the average opinions of those elected represent the genius of the race, and they will be found not to alter sensibly from one generation to another.
It is seen, then, that we are confronted once more by the fundamental notion of race, which we have come across so often, and on this other notion, which is the outcome of the first, that institutions and governments play but a small part in the life of a people.Peoples are guided in the main by the genius of their race, that is, by that inherited residue of qualities of which the genius is the sum total.Race and the slavery of our daily necessities are the mysterious master-causes that rule our destiny.
