Majority V Minority Rule
Another way to protect oneself from the tyranny of the majority, it is argued [ by whom?], is to guarantee certain rights. Inalienable rights, including the right to vote, which cannot be violated by a majority, may be decided in advance as a separate act[8], by charter or constitution. According to that provision, any decision which unfairly targets the right of a minority could be qualified as a majority, but would not be a legitimate example of majority voting, since it would violate the requirement of equality. In response, proponents of unfettered majority rule argue that because the process that privileges constitutional rights is usually some kind of super-major rule, this solution inherits all the problems that that rule would have. First, constitutional rights, which are words on paper, cannot provide protection on their own. Second, in certain circumstances, a person`s rights cannot be guaranteed without imposing a tax on someone else; As Anthony McGann wrote, “one man`s right to property in the South before the war was the enslavement of another man.” Finally, as Amartya Sen noted in presenting the liberal paradox, the spread of rights can worsen everyone`s situation. [9] Majority rule is a means of organizing government and deciding public affairs; it is not another path to oppression. Just as no self-proclaimed group has the right to oppress others, no majority in a democracy should take away the fundamental rights and freedoms of a minority or an individual. The British political philosopher John Stuart Mill pursued this principle. In his essay on freedom, he wrote: “The only purpose for which power can be lawfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to avoid harming others.” Mill`s “principle of non-harm” was intended to prevent the government from becoming a vehicle for the “tyranny of the majority,” which it saw not only as a political but also a social tyranny, stifled minority voices and enforced the regulation of thought and values. Mill`s views became the basis of much of liberal political philosophy, whether economic liberalism or social liberalism. Super-majority rules are often used in binary decisions where a positive decision is more important than a negative one. According to the standard definition of special majority decision-making, a positive decision is only made if a substantial portion of the votes support that decision, that is, two-thirds or three-quarters.B.
[Citation needed] For example, decisions by U.S. jurors require the support of at least 10 out of 12 jurors or even unanimous support. This super-major concept stems directly from the presumption of innocence on which the American legal system is based. Rousseau advocated the use of super-majority voting in important decisions when he said, “The more important and serious the deliberations, the closer the opinion it carries should be to unanimity.” [15] The American founders – anti-federalists and federalists – regarded majority rule as a disturbing mystery. Majority rule was necessary to express the will of the people and the basis for the establishment of the republic. Since someone must disagree on all issues, consensus cannot be the basis for political or legislative decisions. And by definition, the rule of minorities is opposed to democracy. On the other hand, the founders feared that the majority would abuse their power to oppress a minority as easily as a king. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warn in their letters of the dangers of the tyranny of the legislative and executive branches.
Madison, alluding to slavery, went even further, writing: “It is of great importance in a republic not only to protect society from the oppression of its rulers, but also to protect one part of society from the injustice of the other party. Nevertheless, majority rule cannot be the only expression of the “highest power” in a democracy. If so, as Tocqueville notes above, the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority, just as a single leader is inclined to do. Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the will of the people through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must ensure that the majority does not abuse its power to violate the fundamental and inalienable rights of the minority. On the one hand, a defining feature of democracy is the right of the people to change the majority – and the policies of the government – through elections. This right is the supreme authority of the people. The minority must therefore have the right to become the majority and have all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections – speech, assembly, association, petition – otherwise there would be eternal rule and the majority would become a dictatorship. For the majority, guaranteeing the rights of the minority is a matter of future self-interest, because it must use the same rights when it is part of the minority that wants to become a majority again. This also applies to a multi-party parliamentary democracy in which no party wins a majority, as a government has yet to be formed in a coalition with a majority of MPs. In Europe, Muslim minority communities in the former colonies of North Africa, the Middle East and South-West Asia have struggled with widespread discrimination and the denial of equal opportunities in education, work and housing (see, for example, National Study of France). Majority indigenous groups in several other Latin American countries have long been treated as “the minority” for most of their countries` constitutional histories (see National Studies of Bolivia and Guatemala).
Indeed, minority issues seeking greater freedom, equality, autonomy and protection from discrimination and unequal treatment remain at the heart of politics, protests and conflicts in many parts of the world. Usually, they are fought through non-violent means such as elections, demonstrations, laws, courts, indigenous protection, education, and other efforts that grant regional autonomy or specific rights and privileges. In some cases, minorities have taken up arms to achieve their goals, but this strategy tends to be less effective. Twice in the past 20 years, their presidential candidate has received more votes, but lost the election. And now that the redistribution cycle begins in 2022, Republicans in many states will be able to get fewer votes, but will end up with a majority of seats. How do majority rule and the protection of minority rights work in practice? It is clear that the two can easily collide when the assertion of Madison`s rights and millian liberalism faces an immutable democratic majority. This is achieved in part through consensual respect for the rights of the individual: between elections and during political campaigns, minority views are fairly played out in legislation, the media and in the public square. However, another fundamental protection of the minority is the regularity of elections and the principles of the separation of powers and the enormous separation of powers, which make it difficult for majorities to obtain absolute power (see “Constitutional borders”). In the Senate, many Democrats argue that a system designed to protect the rights of small states has turned into a partisan minority government.
According to the constitution, each state – whether it has 1 million or 30 million inhabitants – has two senators. The American political tradition enshrines majority rule with minority rights. But some question whether the U.S. is sliding toward a minority government. These list the rights that must not be violated by the government and theoretically protect against the tyranny of the majority. Today, these rights are considered the essential element of any liberal democracy and are enshrined in international human rights conventions. “It doesn`t take a majority to win. but rather an angry and tireless minority eager to put bushfires of freedom in people`s minds. Samuel Adams There is ample evidence that full equality remains elusive. .