The two-party system 57from the point of view of the machinery of government, that direct participa-
tion is conceivable in small societies, but not in large ones. It does not neces-
sarily follow, however, either that a small society will be democratic or that,
if the wishes of the majority prevail, social equality and social democracy will
follow on from political equality. Sometimes small communities are much
more intolerant of deviant or eccentric behaviour than large ones. Thus we
have to tread warily when relating generalisations about the nature and ex-
tent of ‘democracy’ to the size of a community, or even simply to the degree
of majority rule in a community.
However, the closeness of local government to the people provides the
opportunity, at least, of greater participation, and from this point of view the
most democratic political institutions in America are the New England towns.
When the first settlers landed in New England they divided up their new ter-
ritory into ‘towns’. A map of 1755 shows a projected line of these towns to
be established in the Province of New Hampshire as a frontier against the
native Americans. However, the towns were not urban areas. They were large
tracts of virgin territory, at the centre of which a village or hamlet would be
built. The whole area of New England was eventually divided up in this way,
and the towns still exist as the basic unit of government in the New England
states and in the state of New York. The system of government adopted for
these towns was extremely democratic in form, all the major business being
conducted in a town meeting at which all the citizens attended and voted.
They might have voted in the seventeenth century for measures that we to-
day would consider harsh and unjust, but that was the spirit of the age.
A few New England towns in rural areas still operate this system of direct
democracy. In western Massachusetts, for example, one may find towns with
a population of less than a thousand people still running their local affairs
at an annual town meeting that fixes tax rates, sets the budget for the com-
ing year, and elects the town officers – the selectmen, the constable, the fire
chief and others. The town meeting may be an all-day affair, with the citizens
coming and going, listening to the discussion, casting their votes and enjoy-
ing the New England dishes prepared by the townsfolk. The views of the
selectmen who carry out the town’s decisions and prepare the budget are
listened to with respect, but they are not always accepted. The arguments
about whether or not to construct a new bridge, or about the amount of salt
and grit to be used on the roads in winter, end in a vote that the citizens may
well soon regret, but at least they will have decided it themselves. However,
direct democracy has its disadvantages and limitations. Decisions on techni-
cal matters may be swayed by the eloquence of the ill-informed, and the
town’s votes may leave the programme presented by the selectmen in disar-
ray. Such direct democracy is possible, however, only in the small rural towns.
With growth, and with the increasing complexity of government business,
many towns have been forced to adopt a representative town meeting, and
to supplement the activities of part-time selectmen with the services of a
professional town manager.