Are We Sleepwalking Towards Soft Despotism?

by Henry Day

Soft Despotism was originally presented by Alexis DeTocqueville in the 19th century, and presented the idea that many Western, Capitalist societies were becoming despotic without the people realising. He suggested that the government would develop an almost tuteletery, as due to our lack of genuine political engagement and self centred morals, the governments could pass any legislation without public protest, as long as they protected the comfortable lives of their people. This was built upon by Charles Taylor in 1991, as he believed Soft Despotism was a major problem that had developed in our ‘deviant and degraded’ society. He and Tocqueville believed this problem should be combatted through a dramatic shift in the nature of these state’s political culture. They believed that vigorous political debate and genuine political engagement should underpin our society, forcing governments to act in accordance with their principles, creating a genuinely democratic system that returns power to the people.

The culture Taylor believes can combat Soft Despotism can be seen in Britain, as the vigorous political debate surrounding Britain’s exit from the European Union, has led to a culture focused on the issues, meaning politicians responsible for the outcomes must have the nation’s interests at heart, giving power back to the people. This is demonstrated through repeated protests in response to the situation, indicating an actively, politically engaged, society who show genuine care for the issue. This suggests the conditions Tocqueville calls for, in order to refute the implications of Soft Despotism, are beginning to be somewhat implicated. Furthermore, this shows that although Soft Despotism had emerged, in the modern discourse, it is beginning to experience resistance. This example may, however, be due to the potential implications to individuals, as the ambiguous results of Brexit suggests the British people’s lifestyles, commodities and jobs could be dramatically affected. Although this suggests that people's self centred interests are responsible for the resistance, it does not negate the fact that a genuine rejection of Soft Despotism is occuring. Furthermore, it demonstrates the people’s power, as by awakening to their condition, they are fighting the potentially tuteltery nature of the government’s control. Although they may not have forced an end to Brexit, or ensured Britain leaves on October 31st, they have reaffirmed the people’s power in politics. In this case the state has created a situation so radical it breaks its own despotic regime, forcing a revolt through political engagement, suggesting Soft Despotism defeated itself. This may, however, only be due to the sole issue, and after it, political engagement may again decline. This suggests Taylor’s assessment was effective, as he acknowledged that politics would have to directly interfere with people’s personal lives, in order to be recognised and rejected, indicating we are still slaves to Soft Despotism.

This, however, seemingly rejects the dramatic rise in the political engagement of the younger generations. Stimulated by the significant issues of Brexit and the Climate struggle, the culture of vigorous political debate and engagement that Tocqueville and Taylor call for may be emerging in the youngest generations. This is evidenced by the March for our Lives, organised by survivors of the Parkland shooting in February 2018. Besides being entirely organised and partaken by under eighteens, it demonstrated a mass political response to the issue of gun control, again demonstrating a politically engaged culture emerging from generation Z. Although it could be argued that this also arose due to the direct threat to the victims lives, many other similarly tragic events occurred without a comparably dramatic response, demonstrating both Soft Despotism’s remaining strength, and this new wave rejection of it. It showed a rejection of the spectacular, false engagement of Soft Despotism, rejecting people’s ‘Thoughts and Prayers’ as meaningless and without value. This seemingly shows a rejection as they promoted the necessity of genuine action and engagement, rather than the false natured response of predominantly, the older generations, whom have been totally absorbed by the Soft Despotism ideology. It is also, however, flawed, as although they are beginning to actively reject the mold, little action has actually occurred to combat the second amendment. This will come, as political engagement and social dedication rise, action will follow, as governments realise they must appeal to the democratic system.

Taylor’s representation of Soft Despotism is somewhat flawed in the modern era, due to its consistent resistance from active protest and forced democratic implementation, it appears the contemporary society is becoming closer to that which rejects it. It is still, however, an issue of our times as political ignorance still allows corruption and injustice to occur. The evidence of Soft Despotism’s control over the US political system is shown through the electoral college systems inability to clearly show the true view of the people. In five of the six last US elections the democratic party has won the popular vote, yet they have only won the election three times. This alone would suggest that the system, designed to appease slave states, should have been abolished as it is unfaithful to the true beliefs of the American people. The lack of genuine resistance to this shows how, although the democratic system is flawed, Soft despotism is still apparent, as the people, in reality, do not have the power to decide their leaders. This suggests the government does have power beyond the will of the people, and since the people have no genuine interest in this issue, they do not feel the need to resist, meaning the system retains its control. The extent of Soft Despotism is shown through the democratic nomination process during the 2016 election. Socialist candidate, Bernie Sanders, won all 55 counties in the West Virginia Democratic primary, yet lost overall because 8 unpledged delegate votes went to Hillary Clinton, meaning the delegation voted for her over Saunders. This was repeated in numerous states, as these unpledged ‘superdelegates’ voted him out in favor of the safer Clinton. This explicitly shows how the so called democratic system was flawed, and that the candidate of these party elites was almost guaranteed to win their nomination. Since, therefore, they have tuletery control over the potential leader, the people have less power. Despite this restriction, there is no active resistance, as since this does not dramatically affect people's comfortable lives, they have no need, nor desire to resist it. If, however, there was a culture of genuine political interest this flawed system would have been protested and removed. 

Soft Despotism is, therefore, still rampant in contemporary society, as the majority of society has no interest as long it their comfortable lives are protected. If, however, the younger generations are inspired to genuinely and actively engage with their political systems, as they have done due to Brexit and climate change, it may be countered and through Taylor’s engaged society, give political freedom back to the people.