Tyranny of the majority: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
Khris.soden (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The phrase '''tyranny of the majority''' (also: tyranny of the masses), used in discussing systems of [ | The phrase '''tyranny of the majority''' (also: tyranny of the masses), used in discussing systems of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy democracy] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule majority rule], is a criticism of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scenario scenario] in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissenting dissenting] individual's interest that the individual would be actively oppressed, just like the oppression by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant tyrant]s and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotism despots].<ref>John Stuart Mill. [http://books.google.com/books?id=f14SAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22John+Stuart+Mill%22+%22On+Liberty%22+%22tyranny+of+the+majority%22&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=9QotTKaHO5CTnQetrpS1Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false On Liberty, The Library of Liberal Arts edition, p.7.]</ref> | ||
Limits on the decisions that can be made by such majorities, such as [ | Limits on the decisions that can be made by such majorities, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution constitution]al limits on the powers of parliament and use of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights bill of rights] in a parliamentary system, are common ways of reducing the problem.<ref>A Przeworski, JM Maravall, I NetLibrary ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=EMB-F6Forx8C Democracy and the Rule of Law]'' (2003) p.223</ref> | ||
==Term== | ==Term== | ||
The term used in [ | The term used in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Greece Hellenistic Greece] for corrupted democracy was ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy ochlocracy]'' ("mob rule"), while ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrany tyranny]'' was the term for a corrupt [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy monarchy]. | ||
The phrase "tyranny of the majority" originates with [ | The phrase "tyranny of the majority" originates with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville Alexis de Tocqueville] in his ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_America Democracy in America]'' (1835, 1840)<ref>Earlier, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke Edmund Burke], in ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflections_on_the_Revolution_in_France Reflections on the Revolution in France]'' (1790), said that "The tyranny of a multitude is a multiplied tyranny."</ref> and was further popularized by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill John Stuart Mill], who cites de Tocqueville, in ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty On Liberty]'' (1859); the ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers Federalist Papers]'' frequently refer to the concept, though usually under the name of "the violence of majority faction," particularly in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 ''Federalist'' 10]. | ||
The concept itself was popular with [ | The concept itself was popular with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche Friedrich Nietzsche] and the phrase (in translation) is used at least once in the first sequel to ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human,_All_Too_Human Human, All Too Human]'' (1879).<ref>See for example maxim 89 of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche Friedrich Nietzsche], ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human,_All_Too_Human Human, All Too Human]: First Sequel: Mixed Opinions and Maxims'', 1879</ref> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand Ayn Rand], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) Objectivism (Ayn Rand)|Objectivist] philosopher and novelist, wrote against such tyranny, saying that individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and that the smallest minority on earth is the individual).<ref>Ayn Rand (1961), [http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individualrights.html ''"Collectivized 'Rights,'"''] The Virtue of Selfishness.</ref> Similar arguments are made by a number of other philosophies that support individualism, including the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School Austrian School|Austrian movement], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism libertarian]ism in general. | ||
In 1994, legal scholar [ | In 1994, legal scholar [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lani_Guinier Lani Guinier] used the phrase as the title for a collection of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_review law review] articles <ref>* Lani Guinier, The ''Tyranny of the Majority'' (Free Press: 1994)</ref> | ||
==Public choice theory== | ==Public choice theory== | ||
The notion that, in a democracy, the greatest concern is that the majority will tyrannize and exploit diverse smaller interests, has been criticized by [ | The notion that, in a democracy, the greatest concern is that the majority will tyrannize and exploit diverse smaller interests, has been criticized by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancur_Olson Mancur Olson] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action The Logic of Collective Action], who argues instead that narrow and well organized minorities are more likely to assert their interests over those of the majority. Olson argues that when the benefits of political action (e.g. lobbying) are spread over fewer agents, there is a stronger individual incentive to contribute to that political activity. Narrow groups, especially those who can reward active participation to their group goals, might therefore be able to dominate or distort political process, a process studied in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory public choice theory]. | ||
==Vote trading== | ==Vote trading== | ||
Critics of public choice theory point out that [ | Critics of public choice theory point out that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_trading vote trading], also known as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logrolling logrolling], can protect minority interests from majorities in representative democratic bodies such as legislatures. Direct democracy, such as statewide propositions on ballots, does not offer such protections. | ||
==Concurrent majority== | ==Concurrent majority== | ||
American political theorist [ | American political theorist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Calhoun John C. Calhoun] developed the theory of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_majority Concurrent majority] to deal with the tyranny of the majority. It states that great decisions are not merely a matter of numerical majorities, but require agreement or acceptance by the major interest in society, each of which had the power to block federal laws that it feared would seriously infringe on their rights. That is, it is illegitimate for a temporary coalition that had a majority to gang up on and hurt a significant minority. The doctrine is one of limitations on democracy to prevent the tyranny.<ref>Lacy K. Ford Jr., "Inventing the Concurrent Majority: Madison, Calhoun, and the Problem of Majoritarianism in American Political Thought," ''The Journal of Southern History,'' Vol. 60, No. 1 (Feb., 1994), pp. 19–58 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4642%28199402%2960%3A1%3C19%3AITCMMC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D in JSTOR] </ref> | ||
==Examples== | ==Examples== | ||
<!--Please do not add examples without sources verifying the label. Unverified examples may be removed.--> | <!--Please do not add examples without sources verifying the label. Unverified examples may be removed.--> | ||
* [ | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage Same-Sex Civil Marriage] (specifically [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prop_8 California Prop 8] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Maine Maine Question 1])<ref>{{Cite news | ||
| title = Direct democracy: The tyranny of the majority | | title = Direct democracy: The tyranny of the majority | ||
| newspaper = The Economist | | newspaper = The Economist | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| url = http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15127600 | | url = http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15127600 | ||
| accessdate = 17 Dec 2009}}</ref><ref> {{Citation|url=http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/South_Poverty_Law_Ctr_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf |title=Amicus curiae brief by the Southern Poverty Law Center |page=12 |quote=Indeed, the danger to the liberty of same-sex couples in California rises to the level of that warned by philosopher John Stuart Mill, who opined that in a representative democracy, safeguards are required against unfettered control by the 'tyranny of the majority.' (John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, The Library of Liberal Arts Edition, p.7.) Nowhere is this tyranny of the majority more evident than when the electorate of California approved Proposition 22 or the Governor vetoed contrary legislation 'out of respect for the will of the People.' |accessdate=2009-12-14 }}</ref> | | accessdate = 17 Dec 2009}}</ref><ref> {{Citation|url=http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/South_Poverty_Law_Ctr_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf |title=Amicus curiae brief by the Southern Poverty Law Center |page=12 |quote=Indeed, the danger to the liberty of same-sex couples in California rises to the level of that warned by philosopher John Stuart Mill, who opined that in a representative democracy, safeguards are required against unfettered control by the 'tyranny of the majority.' (John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, The Library of Liberal Arts Edition, p.7.) Nowhere is this tyranny of the majority more evident than when the electorate of California approved Proposition 22 or the Governor vetoed contrary legislation 'out of respect for the will of the People.' |accessdate=2009-12-14 }}</ref> | ||
* [ | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland Minaret controversy in Switzerland]<ref>{{Cite news | ||
| last = Jacoby | | last = Jacoby | ||
| first = Susan | | first = Susan | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
* [ | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Argumentum ad populum] | ||
* [[Consensus]] | * [[Consensus]] | ||
* [ | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat Dictatorship of the proletariat] | ||
* [ | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_dictatorship Elective dictatorship] | ||
* [ | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_will General will] | ||
* [ | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_anarchism Individual anarchism] | ||
* [[Majoritarianism]] | * [[Majoritarianism]] | ||
* [[Minority rights]] | * [[Minority rights]] | ||
* [[Ochlocracy]] (mob rule) | * [[Ochlocracy]] (mob rule) | ||
* [[Social anarchism]] | * [[Social anarchism]] | ||
* [ | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consociationalism Consociationalism] | ||
* [[Minoritarianism]] | * [[Minoritarianism]] | ||
* [[Utilitarianism]] | * [[Utilitarianism]] | ||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
[[Category:Democracy]] | [[Category:Democracy]] | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:Politics]] | ||
Latest revision as of 15:37, 28 January 2012
The phrase tyranny of the majority (also: tyranny of the masses), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a dissenting individual's interest that the individual would be actively oppressed, just like the oppression by tyrants and despots.[1]
Limits on the decisions that can be made by such majorities, such as constitutional limits on the powers of parliament and use of a bill of rights in a parliamentary system, are common ways of reducing the problem.[2]
Term
The term used in Hellenistic Greece for corrupted democracy was ochlocracy ("mob rule"), while tyranny was the term for a corrupt monarchy.
The phrase "tyranny of the majority" originates with Alexis de Tocqueville in his Democracy in America (1835, 1840)[3] and was further popularized by John Stuart Mill, who cites de Tocqueville, in On Liberty (1859); the Federalist Papers frequently refer to the concept, though usually under the name of "the violence of majority faction," particularly in Federalist 10.
The concept itself was popular with Friedrich Nietzsche and the phrase (in translation) is used at least once in the first sequel to Human, All Too Human (1879).[4] Ayn Rand, Objectivism (Ayn Rand)|Objectivist philosopher and novelist, wrote against such tyranny, saying that individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and that the smallest minority on earth is the individual).[5] Similar arguments are made by a number of other philosophies that support individualism, including the Austrian School|Austrian movement, and libertarianism in general.
In 1994, legal scholar Lani Guinier used the phrase as the title for a collection of law review articles [6]
Public choice theory
The notion that, in a democracy, the greatest concern is that the majority will tyrannize and exploit diverse smaller interests, has been criticized by Mancur Olson in The Logic of Collective Action, who argues instead that narrow and well organized minorities are more likely to assert their interests over those of the majority. Olson argues that when the benefits of political action (e.g. lobbying) are spread over fewer agents, there is a stronger individual incentive to contribute to that political activity. Narrow groups, especially those who can reward active participation to their group goals, might therefore be able to dominate or distort political process, a process studied in public choice theory.
Vote trading
Critics of public choice theory point out that vote trading, also known as logrolling, can protect minority interests from majorities in representative democratic bodies such as legislatures. Direct democracy, such as statewide propositions on ballots, does not offer such protections.
Concurrent majority
American political theorist John C. Calhoun developed the theory of Concurrent majority to deal with the tyranny of the majority. It states that great decisions are not merely a matter of numerical majorities, but require agreement or acceptance by the major interest in society, each of which had the power to block federal laws that it feared would seriously infringe on their rights. That is, it is illegitimate for a temporary coalition that had a majority to gang up on and hurt a significant minority. The doctrine is one of limitations on democracy to prevent the tyranny.[7]
Examples
- Same-Sex Civil Marriage (specifically California Prop 8 and Maine Question 1)[8][9]
- Minaret controversy in Switzerland[10][11]
See also
- Argumentum ad populum
- Consensus
- Dictatorship of the proletariat
- Elective dictatorship
- General will
- Individual anarchism
- Majoritarianism
- Minority rights
- Ochlocracy (mob rule)
- Social anarchism
- Consociationalism
- Minoritarianism
- Utilitarianism
References
- ↑ John Stuart Mill. On Liberty, The Library of Liberal Arts edition, p.7.
- ↑ A Przeworski, JM Maravall, I NetLibrary Democracy and the Rule of Law (2003) p.223
- ↑ Earlier, Edmund Burke, in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), said that "The tyranny of a multitude is a multiplied tyranny."
- ↑ See for example maxim 89 of Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human: First Sequel: Mixed Opinions and Maxims, 1879
- ↑ Ayn Rand (1961), "Collectivized 'Rights,'" The Virtue of Selfishness.
- ↑ * Lani Guinier, The Tyranny of the Majority (Free Press: 1994)
- ↑ Lacy K. Ford Jr., "Inventing the Concurrent Majority: Madison, Calhoun, and the Problem of Majoritarianism in American Political Thought," The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Feb., 1994), pp. 19–58 in JSTOR
- ↑ "Direct democracy: The tyranny of the majority". The Economist. 17 Dec 2009. http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15127600. Retrieved 17 Dec 2009.
- ↑ Template:Citation
- ↑ Jacoby, Susan (1 Dec 2009). "Muslims, not minarets, were targeted by the Swiss". The Washington Post (Washington, D.C.). http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_jacoby/2009/12/muslims_not_minarets_were_targeted_by_the_swiss.html. Retrieved 14 Dec 2009.
- ↑ "Swiss Mess". The Harvard Crimson (Cambridge, MA). 1 Dec 2009. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2009/12/1/minarets-muslim-swiss-religious/. Retrieved 2009-12-14.