The Archive of Free Thinking

“Agitation and mutability are inherent in the nature of democratic republics, just as stagnation and sleepiness are the law of absolute monarchies.”

Alexis de Tocqueville

---

Tocqueville observed that ‘agitation and mutability’ are features of societies responsive to the political needs of their people. This essay examines the fundamental forces that drive this change: injustice, knowledge and hope. It also argues that on their own, these forces are insufficient because the energy required to create change is often dissipated over time or lost through factional disagreements. As a result, there is a need for organising frameworks which maximise energy to ensure a functional democracy. They need to encourage collective action, reward involvement, drive focused effort and ensure continuous action. The analysis also reminds us that preserving democracy is an ongoing and demanding process, as Dwight Eisenhower stated, “History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.” 

Alexis de Tocqueville, in defining qualities of ‘agitation’ and ‘stagnation’, conceives politics in the language of physics, as an energy system. Democratic republics generate and thrive on energy and movement. Autocratic states drain energy and focus on control. George Orwell captures this in ‘1984’, as the state uses ‘Two Minutes Hate’, where all citizens are required to loudly voice their hatred of the enemy, to vent the energy of the people, thus depleting their ability to direct their attention against Big Brother. 

In this view of politics as an energy system, injustice, knowledge and hope can be conceived as the emotional and rational factors which together generate the power necessary to create change. William Faulkner captures the sense of energy generated by injustice: “Some things you must always be unable to bear. Some things you must never stop refusing to bear. Injustice and outrage and dishonour and shame”. This energy is intensified and, crucially, directed through informed debate. As John Adams wrote in 1765, “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right … and a desire to know.”  James Madison held a similar view “a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.” But the process of political change is often hard with many setbacks, a reality understood by Martin Luther King who wrote, “We must accept finite disappointment but never lose infinite hope”. This idea of the importance of hope underpinned his most famous speech, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream… “ This need for hope and belief is central to political change, as Saul Alinsky states, “If people don’t think they have the power to solve their problems, they won’t even think about how to solve them”. 

However, the powerful combination of a sense of injustice, knowledge and hope is often not enough to create meaningful change. The energy these ideas generate is often very localised, sometimes unfocused and prone to dissipation. Small groups led by charismatic individuals emerge around these ideas, but they often lack the scale and resilience to maintain pressure over the time necessary to change opinions. As the US civil rights leader John Lewis argues, “change often takes time. It rarely happens all at once. In the movement, we didn’t know how history would play itself out.” More problematically, when individuals driven by a sense of injustice meet those motivated by knowledge or hope, conflicts can occur over how to drive change, reducing and dissipating the energy necessary to influence opinions. John Adams was aware of this risk: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself”. 

Addressing these issues requires an energised political system based on a reinforcing process of ideas, debate, innovation and practical actions. This needs organisation, as well as passion, thoughtfulness and belief. There is value in bringing people together around a common cause to create a mass of energy. As Lewis stated, “As long as we stand together, we will be able to overcome the forces of hatred, the forces of violence, the forces of injustice”. Emilie Phillips Smith noted that this practice has become embedded in both the social actions and political organisation of African-Americans to this day through “their espousal of collectivistic values emphasising family closeness, community bonding and solidarity”. By emphasising the unity of purpose, rather than a unity of ideology, the group is more able to deploy effective tactics, as well as keeping the members together as it grows in scale. It is critical to build programmes which energise participants rather than always demanding sacrifice, as Saul Alinsky highlights, “a tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag”. The most critical element is the emphasis on action, again as Alinsky emphasises, “Democracy is alive, and like any other living thing it either flourishes and grows or withers and dies. There is no in-between”. Lewis reinforces this view when he states it was “not enough to come and listen to a great sermon or message every Sunday….You had to get out and do something”. He is emphasising action as a precursor to ideology, not the other way round. The goal is to be consequential, measuring success solely by the execution of practical actions that actually benefit the group. Finally, with energy as the central dimension of politics, it is possible to use a single, simple metric for anticipating effectiveness: does the policy or action result in increased mobilisation or not?  By implementing these principles, it is possible to create change and galvanise others to participate, which in turn generates further energy and more change. As both Lewis and Alinsky understood, the most important aspect of their political work was the doing, not the planning, thinking, or theorising. Tactics can be changed, discarded or ramped up as needed, but it is vital to continually ensure the individuals and groups are motivated and energised to keep going. 

This analysis suggests that generating political change requires specific focus on creating energy and mobilisation, which is as important as defining the messages for change. When the process and content are combined, when the messages both energise and guide participants, then the probability for change is at its greatest. This central role of energy in politics is exemplified by Jefferson Smith’s filibuster speech on the floor of the Senate in the film Mr Smith Goes to Washington, where he argues non-stop for 25 hours to postpone an appropriations bill and prove his innocence. 

Lost Causes – Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (8/8) Movie CLIP (1939) HDMovieclips