DEMOCRACY IS MAJORITY RULE:
An Analysis of the Misconception
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Democracy: A definition
A. Majority rule
B. Minority Rights
C. Rule of Law
III. The Democratic Government
A. Democracy as a Procedure: Forming the Majority
B. Democracy as a Result: Preventing Forced Conformity
IV. Tyranny of the Majority: an analysis
V. Conclusion
VI. References
I. Introduction
Possibly one of the most influential and seemingly prevailing principles in the modern world is the concept of democracy. The term has been thrown nowadays unabashedly using different contexts and different connotations. The most common use of the term democracy is as an equivalent of freedom and the rule of the people. However, there is a lingering misconception of the term as a rule of the people is that democracy runs only with the desires of the majority. This paper will be going against that misconception and provide arguments maintaining that democracy is far greater than being the rule of the majority. To do this, the discussion is divided into three parts. The first part will be discussing the definition of democracy and the roots of the misconception. Moreover, specific elements that constitute a genuine democracy will also be discussed aside from the majority rule like minority rights and rule of law. The second part of the paper will be covering the norms held in a democratic government. Particularly, discussions pertaining to the formation of a majority and the aversion of forced conformity will be taken into consideration. The third part will be looking on the issue of majority rule used as a tool for unscrupulous manoeuvrings and other undemocratic activities. More importantly, this part will provide the analysis on the arguments provided in the prior discussions. Subsequent to the three parts, a conclusion will be made regarding the observations on the topic. Academic journals and scholarly articles will be used to support the arguments and observations given in this study.
II. Democracy: A definition
As implied in the introduction of this paper, the term democracy has been used incessantly in headlines and legislation all over the world. It is often used as a term to incarnate a panacea for all the social wrongs in a particular state. As stated in the work of (1996, 3), there has been a lot of things that could connote the term. Sometimes it is confused with “liberalism or constitutionalism or social equality or national independence; it may be taken to mean majority rule or minority rights.” In addition to this myriad of subtexts, the meaning of the term frequently depends on the circumstances surrounding a particular locale or state.
In the process of seeking an exact definition for this term, academics and theorists have encountered specific kinds of democracy. However, this paper will not be taking these subcategories of democracy into detail. Instead, the discussion will stick on Joseph Schumpeter’s uncomplicated definition of democracy. Basically, he defined the term as a procedure and as a result. The former implies the majority rule as shown in popular elections while the latter represents the state of society presented freedom and equality. (2001,) The following discussions will present the said context by presenting the specific factors that bring about the realisation of democracy. Specifically, discussions on the definition of majority rule, minority rights, and the rule of law will be provided.
A. Majority rule
During the growth of knowledge and philosophy in the Greek period, the term democracy is equated as the perverse counterpart of polity. This claim is indicated by no less than Aristotle who defined democracy as the rule of many. This possibly is the earliest account of the term being used to equate to the majority rule. However, as the social sciences developed in the succeeding centuries, the modern view of democracy and the majority rule has transformed as well. In this area, two of the most cited authors have been J
work focused on the state of republican representative democracy that was implemented in the US in mid part of the 1890s. However, the most notable claims of Tocqueville are represented by his concern regarding the pitfalls of democracy. ( 2003) These issues include the vulnerability of a democratic society to succumb to soft despotism and the perpetual possibility of tyranny of the majority taking place. ( 2003, ) Basically, soft despotism represents the illusion of the public that they are indeed in a democratic society whereas reality manifest that they don’t have actual control on the government. On the other hand, tyranny of the majority shows a situation where the interests of the majority is placed at a higher esteem and fundamentally overrides the interests of the minority.
In essence, indicates that the presence of democracy inevitably establishes these pitfalls, specifically tyranny of the majority. This claim is opposed by J. In his work , indicates that this pitfall could be addressed on the individual level with special reference on freedom and autonomy from the state. (2002,) Basically, Mills is acclaimed on his statement indicating that every individual is entitled to do anything they desire provided that it does not “harm” the interests of any other individual. (1999) Essentially, this claim somewhat provided the premise of the succeeding part: rights of the minority.
B. Minority Rights
The concept of minority rights has been infused in the contemporary definition of democracy. Numerous studies on nation building and democratic theory has used the term incessantly and discussed its importance in maintaining a democratic state. Normally, this concept is tied closely to the concept of majority rule. Normally, the minorities are classified as those belonging to the marginalised part of the population. Most of the time, these distinctions are characterised in terms of, but not limited to, ethnicity and race.
In the study of (2000, 183), he categorised the typologies of ethnocultural minorities. These include the national minorities, immigrants, and metics. The national minorities are those that constitute a complete and functioning society in a “historic homeland.” This means that these minorities are “incorporated” into a much larger state. The immigrants are those that constitute a group of individuals who have decided to “leave their original homeland” and situate themselves into a new society. Metics, on the other hand, are quite similar to immigrants. However, metics are distinguished from the said group by the legality of their entry into a particular territory. Normally, these include tourists or students who have overstayed in a country regardless of an expired visa. In any case, this principle of democracy counteracts the majority rule. This means that this ensures that equality is instilled in any legislation or act of the state. It adheres to a utilitarian sense, maintaining the desire to attend to the welfare of the public devoid of harming the welfare of other individuals.
C. Rule of Law
Another factor that constitutes a democratic society is the presence of the rule of law. This democratic principle indicates that no individual, regardless of whether he/she is a part of the minority or the majority, is above the law. In a democratic society, the law is expressed and ratified as a representation of the will of the people. Such representation is embodied in constitutions of states. It is an established norm that all that is included in this collection of legislation adds up to the legal framework of a nation.
It is this principle that establishes the checks and balance in a state. For the creation of the laws, the legislative part of the government presides over this process. In the case of UK, it is the Parliament that creates the statutes that supports the common laws of the land. On the other hand, the task of interpreting of these laws is given to the judiciary. They determine if the laws ratified are constitutional or not. In the case of UK, the judiciary determines as to whether the laws effectively reflect what has been established in legal precedents and case laws regarding a particular legal issue.
All in all, the presence of the democratic principle of the rule of law ensures that every part of the government is doing its job without compromising the interest of the public. In the same regard, it is the intent of the rule of law is to protect the public from abuse from those in powerful and influential positions in the government.
III. The Democratic Government
The following discussions will be providing arguments and observations pertaining to the definition of democracy as a procedure and as a result and relate it with the initial claim that democracy is majority rule. Basically, the said discussions will cover the context of popular elections and the principles of liberty and equality.
A. Democracy as a Procedure: Forming the Majority
Possibly one of the most obvious proof of democracy at work is the practice of the individual right of suffrage of the public. Popular elections vary from state to state in terms of procedures. In the case of UK, the Westminster system of government allows the public to choose their representatives in the parliament. (1996) The majority rule is often seen in the process of choosing Members of Parliaments (MP). Basically, the use of the plurality voting system makes this a possibility for countries like UK. In this case, candidates for MP take on the first past the post principle which essentially constitute the winner having the most number of votes from the voting public. (1999, )
Consequently, it is these chosen representatives in the UK parliament that eventually chooses the head of government, the prime minister. It is important to point out that UK has been characterised to have strong party politics that considerably affect the outcome of the decision making processes in the said region. (1996,) To begin with, the chosen Prime Minister will essentially be coming from the party that constitute the majority of the parliament. It is thus expected that the consequent laws and legislations that are to be ratified by a particular parliament would lean towards the principles adhered to by the dominant party. Would this amount to what Aristotle characterised as the perverse from of polity? Some would attest that it is, but one must realise that it is the public that has chosen their representatives and essentially trusted these individuals and their judgements. In a way, the actions of the parliament reflect the desires of the public.
B. Democracy as a Result: Preventing Forced Conformity
The work of (1996, 152) maintained that the United Kingdom constitute three pillars of its liberty. These include the Parliament, Courts, and Public Opinion. All these three contribute to the prevention of forced conformity and abuse of the public. Essentially, the first two pillars have been discussed in the earlier parts of this paper. In the context of public opinion, UK’s culture of liberty provides a strong voice among the citizen of UK regarding certain laws, legislation, and government policies. The people themselves could serve as the barometer on whether their liberties are encroached or whether their welfare is being compromised. At a certain extent, this manifests another form of majority rule. Nevertheless, this constitutes a constructive representation that brings about what has been described as democracy as a result. It must also be pointed out that public opinion is merely a singular pillar of the liberties experienced in UK. It has to take on the help of the parliament and courts to ensure that these liberties are secure.
IV. Tyranny of the Majority: an analysis
The discussions above have indicated the theories that constitute the essence of democracy. However, the claim indicating that democracy is rule of the majority manifest an actual flaw of the principle. This is presented clearly in the work of . With his utilitarian leanings, his discussions coined the term “tyranny of the majority” as an element far worse than the tyranny posed by the state. Basically, as shown in his essay , he mentioned that the minority could not be protected from the prevailing opinions and feelings in a particular society. Essentially, this emphasises why majority rule is considered perverse at times, mostly because the decision of the majority is not always the right decision.
What’s more alarming is that studies have indicated that this display of tyranny does happen. To boot, this happen in sensitive areas in the government, for instance (2006, ) mentioned in his work that even in judicial reviews, tyranny of the majority is possible. However, he also emphasised that it is something that the public should not worry about since its repeatability is not “endemic.” This is similarly true in the case of the parliamentary setting especially in the ratification of legislation proposed by a particular party. As stated earlier, the desires of the majority does not often equate to what is right, just or appropriate. In the case of UK parliament, articles have been noted claiming the inability of the said government branch to police itself from this scenario. (1996, ) In this regard, elements like the rights of the minority and the rule of law is taken into account. For instance, the principle of checks and balance allows the state to guard itself from any irregularities that could take place in its watch.
V. Conclusion
Democracy is far greater than being equated to mere majority rule. This is what the discussions above have indicated. Majority rule alone could not, and will not, entirely define the general principles of democracy. Though it is a significant part of it, basing running of a state to such an attribute which is utterly vulnerable for perverse intentions will essentially defeat the purpose of democracy. Ultimately, if that actually takes place, democracy is diminished to how Aristotle initially defined the term, mob rule. This is basically what the paper is trying to say with the help of numerous articles that has been cited above. As indicated in the introduction of this paper, the term democracy has been thrown around more frequently nowadays. Hopefully, those who do will keep in mind the actual meaning of the term, along with the principles and its innate values that has made it the preferred social structure of the modern world. In the same regard, it is at this point that democratic states all over the world should continue protecting the values of democracy in their respective realms. The institutions, the legal framework, and the ideals that constitute what is collectively recognised as democracy should constantly be upheld. To this end, this initiative should also veer away from any situation that would compromise the desires of the majority, the individual and minority rights, and the rule of law.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment