The phrase tyranny of the majority, 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 minority's interest as to be comparable in cruelty to "tyrannical" 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 democracy, are commonly meant to reduce the problem.[2]
The idea goes back at least as far as Plato's Republic, while the phrase itself originated with Alexis de Tocqueville in his Democracy in America (1835, 1840) 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).[3]
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's doctrine of the General Will culminates in a kind of tyranny of the majority. By proposing that individuals alienate their rights to the General Will, they are thereby 'forced to be free'.
In 1994, legal scholar Lani Guinier used the phrase as the title for a collection of law review articles.
The notion that, in a democracy, the greatest concern is that the majority will tyrannize and exploit diverse smaller interests, has been criticised by Mancur Olson in the The Logic of Collective Action, who argues instead that narrow and well organised minorities are more likely to assert their interests over those of the majority. Olson argues that when the benefit 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 similar argument is made against the very term "Tyranny of the majority". According to this argument the majority was never at power in any system of government excluding Athenian Direct Democracy. If this is the case then the majority has never proven itself as a tyranny in any situation and the entire concept mis-named. The correct term should therefore be "Tyranny of a minority acting as if in the interests of the majority". This view is popular amongst adherents of Direct democracy who claim that this term is meant to scare people away from Direct Democracy and subdue them to minority rule of representatives or other systems of government.
See also
References
- ^ John Stuart Mill. On Liberty, The Library of Liberal Arts edition, p.7. http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm
- ^ A Przeworski, JM Maravall, I NetLibrary Democracy and the Rule of Law (2003) p.223
- ^ See for example maxim 89 of Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human: First Sequel: Mixed Opinions and Maxims, 1879, translated by Kaufmann W, Hollingdale RJ, Cohn PV, (Gersimon) at http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/mom.htm.
- Lani Guinier, The Tyranny of the Majority (Free Press: 1994)
- Mancur Olson, The Logic Of Collective Action
|
