ALTHOUGH Alexis de Tocqueville wrote his famous treatise questioning democracy's ability to promote an effective national security policy more than a century ago, the questions that the Frenchman so presciently raised continue to haunt us.

As demonstrated by the continuing public trial of former marine lieutenant colonel Oliver North, the tension between maintaining a democratic rule of law and adequate secrecy for national security purposes remains unresolved.

North, a former National Security Council staffer, stands accused of 12 different charges including lying to Congress, shredding government documents and illegally accepting travelers checks and a home security system.

As his trial unfolds, our governmental system is being stretched to the limit. North should be held accountable if he committed such crimes; no American, whether in government or not, is entitled to stand above the law. Unfortunately, national security concerns have made giving North a fair trial extremely difficult.

North's lawyer, Brendan Sullivan, claims that his client cannot adequately defend himself without relying on certain classified information--information that the intelligence community, represented by Attorney General Richard L. Thornburgh, has been unwilling to divulge.

FEDERAL trial Judge Gerhard A. Gesell has already dismissed the most serious charges because national security would not permit North to use certain evidence deemed essential for his defense. North was originally charged with stealing $14 million in profits from United States arms sales to Iran and conspiring to subvert government processes by funneling the money to the Nicaraguan contras.

Now North and his lawyers may be in a position to get the remaining charges dismissed. Every time the government objects to Sullivan's introducing certain classified documents or information, North's case for dismissal becomes that much stronger.

While it's obviously in North's self-interest to demand the release of classified information that might absolve him, such actions make him look like a first-class hypocrite, not the American hero his supporters have called him. During the 1987 congressional Iran-contra hearings, North argued that his lying to Congress was justified because it prevented predictable leaks which could endanger lives. Now, when the publicizing of such secret information remains equally as risky, North has no qualms calling for its release.

But we must be careful before condemning North for his reversal. The competing interests involved in this case may make it impossible to effectively criticize him. While North's hypocrisy deserves our condemnation, we must remember that he has the same right to a fair trial that all citizens have.

Such realities present us with a dilemma. To deny the legitimacy of North's requests for information would be equivalent to denying him his fourth amendment rights. Such a denial would set a bad precedent that might endanger individual rights in future cases. To express support for our basic rights, we * swallow our indignation at North's actions and support his calls for a fair trial.

BUT we still do not have to agree with Sullivan's arguments for dismissal. Instead, we must call on Gesell to make sure all the information North wants released is truly necessary for a fair trial. And we must pressure Thornburgh and the intelligence community to declassify information so that North can be tried on as many counts as possible.

Already, evidence has arisen that the government is being too protective of its secrets. When Sullivan wanted to introduce a certain memorandum as evidence, prosecutors objected. They said the publicizing of a name in the document would cause irreparable damage.

Gesell initially halted the trial, but was angered when he found that the name and the unedited memorandum had already been made public in another trial eight months ago. Needless to say, he admitted the evidence.

Gesell must guard against such mistakes in the future. In addition, he must carefully delineate between true national security interests and mere anxiety from the intelligence community. A few overzealous government agents unnecessarily concerned with potential embarrassment should not allow Ollie North to escape the law.