Was there something distinctive about American civil society that gave democracy a better chance than in France, as Tocqueville argued? Was the already centralized French state more likely to produce a Napoleon than the decentralized United States? We cannot be sure. But it is not unreasonable to ask how long the US constitution would have lasted if the United States had suffered the same military and economic strains that swept away the French constitution of 1791
Niall Ferguson's exploration of American and French civil society raises critical questions about the strengths of democracy in each nation. Tocqueville suggested that America's decentralized structure afforded its democracy a unique resilience compared to the more centralized French state. This decentralization arguably made it less susceptible to authoritarian figures, such as Napoleon, who rose in response to France's political challenges.
However, the inquiry into the durability of the U.S. Constitution prompts reflection on its potential vulnerability. Had the United States faced the same rigorous military and economic pressures that dismantled the French Constitution of 1791, it is uncertain whether American democracy could have withstood the test. This comparison invites a deeper consideration of the factors that contribute to the robustness of democratic institutions in different historical contexts.
