THE ONLY alternative to majoritarian democracy, it is sometimes forgotten, is some form of rule by a minority. Where a majority is not allowed to decide its own affairs through popular self-government, either a minority must prevail in the political process, or no government may exist at all, in which case every man is a law unto himself and the fate of an individual is at the whim of another. Yet in a nation where citizens have long valued abstract claims of "rights" over a political process where the interests of the majority may prevail over one's own interests, it is often fashionable to condemn majoritarian democracy as somehow unfair and illegitimate, or at the very least as a system which is in tension with notions of popular liberty and equality. We should reject this formulation of the question, however.
What such critics fail to grasp is the nature of minority rule as it has existed throughout history, the nature of rights and the inherent dignity and equality of individuals fostered by majority rule. Democracy is the only system that can preserve the rights of its citizens, and we should rightfully celebrate it as the only system compatible with popular sovereignty and equality.
"Minority rule," in today's America, is often associated in the abstract with pleasant notions of multiculturalism and protection of minority interests from an oppressive majority. This is not how the concept has operated in historical practice, however. In America, "minority rule" has been most powerful as a force preventing positive change and entrenching inequality. "Minority rule" in America has meant southern Senators blocking enactment of anti-lynching laws on the floor of the Senate, with support of but a third of that body, by reading recipes for potlicker out of a cookbook. "Minority rule" in America has been exemplified by a Supreme Court packed with corporate attorneys and unaccountable to anyone, protecting the interests of an entrenched corporate elite against the rights of workers under the doctrine of "liberty of contract." Because minorities cannot gain ascendance or remain in government without some sort of coercive leverage over the majority, be it wealth, property or political clout, "minority rule" throughout history has meant rule by a powerful governing clique who protect their own interests at the expense of the interests of the majority.
The problem of "minority rule" is exacerbated by the inherent instability and subjectivity of claims of rights. Proponents of some form of "minority rule," for example, envision some system where a minority is able to protect its own rights through the political process against majority oppression. Yet, in a society in which rights are formulated in vague terms like "liberty" and "equality," almost every interest can be defended as a matter of constitutional rights. Thus, John C. Calhoun spoke of protecting "equal treatment" of states and claims of property when he spoke in defense of slavery. The Supreme Court justices mentioned earlier justified their claims that the Constitution protected their vision of corporate power with a reference to individual rights in the Constitution -- an individual's right to negotiate their own contracts without state interference. All of these actors were preserving their notions of rights, which they believed justified, against a political process which would not value them.
The criticism of "democracy" fails on an even more basic level, however. Majority rule and democratic self-government, where the voices of all citizens are valued and counted, presuppose some notion of individual equality and liberty. Systems of minority rule, which would weight the views of a minority differently than the views of other citizens, would deny those values. It is no accident, then, that despotic governments, be they Southern state governments before the Civil Rights Era or the fascist powers of Europe, have felt a need to short-circuit the voice of the people and subvert majority rule. Governments that deny individual rights cannot exist where the majority is allowed to determine its own affairs, which is the reason that when people talk of bringing democracy and human rights to foreign nations, they are talking about two sides of the same coin. Democratic self-government cannot compensate for human flaws, but acknowledging majority rule can channel popular energies in the only direction consistent with human equality and the good of society, and for that it should be celebrated.
Noah Peters is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s ressponse falls short
By Carly Burstein | 9 hours agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | YesterdayAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | YesterdayWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
