‘Township democracy’: A comparative analysis of ‘township democracy’ and ‘centralist democracy’ in Tocqueville’s ‘political philosophy’

Why ‘democracy,’ as a philosophical concept, thrives in some societies and not in others, and it has different shapes in different societies? Why, in some societies, ‘democracy’ is ‘from bottom-up,’ and ‘township-based,’ but it is ‘top-down,’ and ‘centralist’ in some other societies? What are the merits and advantages of ‘township democracies’ and disadvantages of ‘centralist democracies?’ This paper tries to answer to these questions by a comparative analysis of these two democracies according to Tocqueville’s political philosophy. Having shown the causes of these two different kinds of democracy, it analyzes their consequences, advantages, and disadvantages and shows that democracy is more a cultural concept as a way of life than a political concept as a way of governing and without ‘cultural democracy’ and ‘democratic culture and mores,’ ‘political democracy’ will itself become a new kind of ‘tyranny’ and ‘centralist democracy’ that neglects the towns and only cares about the capital is incompatible with the ‘philosophical spirit of dempcracy.’