To Understand the Tyranny of Majority and the Essence of Existing Democracies
Theoretically, Democracy Isn't Just the Majority Rule, but . . .
In short, democracy is the majority rule, right? It's a tyranny by the majority!
You made it too short.
Did I?
There seem to be many Earthians who shorten it as you do, but theoretically, it doesn't seem to be just the majority rule.
Hmm, . . . OK. We will have to learn theories of democracy before we impeach it rashly. This may not be enough, but let's look it up in Wikipedia.
. . . Here is an article. . . .
According to this article, there is no consensus about the definition of democracy. That's a trouble. How should I impeach something whose definition is ambiguous?
Well, we will have to study possible characteristics one by one.
All right.
It says, "citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body." . . . Being said "citizens", who are 'citizens'?
Obviously, a citizen is a person who has citizenship of the country.
I understand that, but 'citizens' isn't a monolith: there aren't uniform citizens, but are various different citizens with incompatible opinions and interests. A scenario as "citizens exercise power" is a fable; in reality, an individual or a group of individuals with certain opinions and interests take power, with the others ruled. It's that individual or group that exercise power, not 'citizens'.
As there are incompatible opinions and interests, which opinions and interests should be adopted is the issue. Just saying "citizens exercise power" isn't any solution.
I can expect their solution: "opinions and interests of the majority should be adopted." But I say, 'the majority' doesn't equal the 'citizens'. Their democracy is "the majority exercise power", not "citizens exercise power." I think, there is a deception there.
We will have to read along to know whether that is really their solution.
All right.
. . .
It says, "Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes." . . . Being said "no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes," the majority is the single force, isn't it?
I interpret it to mean that as the majority is formed on an issue-by-issue basis, there is a ruling force for each issue, not a single fixed ruling force that controls things on all the issues.
But that's just an unrealistic fiction. In reality, as we discussed in the previous article, there is a relatively fixed division between 'the majority' and 'the minority'. Races, congenital conditions, beliefs, etc make someone chronically one of 'the minority'. It isn't that someone becomes in the majority or in the minority at random.
In many cases, there are two or more competing influential forces that alternately take power. In that meaning, that statement isn't particularly false, but certainly that won't be saving or consolation for those chronic minority.
So, there is no single ruling force, but a few influential forces, with 'the minority' just ignored . . .
Is the statement saying that it's the minority's fault that the minority can't take power?
Probably. But as the majority judge for their own interests, it will be a quixotic deed to try to persuade the majority against their interests.
It doesn't seem a practical deed. Do the majority prioritize fairness or truthfulness over their interests? I don't think such an era would come in our life time.
And in a representative democracy, the ruling party, I think that's a single force, controls things, at least for a certain period, several years in most cases.
In that case, the power isn't taken on an issue-by-issue basis.
Several years is a long time, and it can be decades in some countries. . . . So, is representative democracy better from autocracy only in that the ruling force could be replaced once in several years or in decades?
That seems the only merit that statement suggests. However, we will have to read along to see whether there are other merits.
. . .
It says, "all forces struggle repeatedly for the realization of their interests, being the devolution of power from a group of people to a set of rules." . . . What's good about it? After all, those rules are made by the ruling force for the ruling force.
Ruling by rules is meaningful in that no one is persecuted without an advance warning, but certainly, we can't have much hope that the ruling force doesn't make rules solely for their interests.
So, it's just a difference of whether advance warnings are given or not.
It is an important difference, though.
. . .
It says, according to Mr. Larry Diamond, democracy consists of four key elements: "(a) A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; (b) The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; (c) Protection of the human rights of all citizens, and (d) A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens." . . . I guess, "free and fair elections" means that votes aren't coerced, votes are counted without fraud, everyone is given the equal vote, etc, but the majority would vote for their selfish interests without coerced, one vote for each, and the majority will take power without any counting fraud. Is that any consolation for us?
Well, it's better that there is no coercion nor fraud . . .
Being said "participation," the majority decide as they want however minorities 'participate'. That seems to a excuse for the majority: "As we let minorities participate, it's fair", while they have no intention of really listening to minorities.
Or "It's minorities' fault that they don't participate."
They don't participate because there is no point in it: it's predetermined that the majority's interests go through.
You can't say, "there is no point in it." To leave the fact that they have objected is important; otherwise, they will be assumed to have assented to the decisions.
Ah-ha, being assumed to have assented to unfair deeds is unacceptable. We have to be able to say, "I have never assented to such a thing. You are the ones to be blamed, not I!"
Yes. We have to raise objections if only to retain the right to say so.
A grievous thing about Earthians' democracies is that the majority tend to not take all the blame for their decisions. They say, "As it's us all that decided so, all are responsible." . . . That isn't so. The majority decided so for their interests or on their stupidity.
Absurd things shouldn't be demanded. As the minority didn't have any practical means to stop the decision, to make them bear blame is absurd. Bearing all the blame is the price of having one's will go through. Shoving the price, even if part of it, to the minority is too brazen-faced.
Inevitability of adopting the majority rule aside, I want to say, "Please stop the deception as 'citizens are exercising power' and at least admit that the majority are exercising power and make the majority pay the price."
If the minority have to take the indiscriminate share of blame regardless of their having objected, I can't think of any reason why the minority should participate.
Well, "Protection of the human rights of all citizens." . . . I think, that's a key point, maybe the key point for democracy to be valid somehow. The issue is how the human rights of all citizens are really protected.
If this point is realized, the majority can't just decide as they want by the majority rule. This principle must have precedence over the majority rule.
As for "the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens," that's nothing because the laws and procedures themselves are rigged in the majority's favor. Applying unfair laws equally to all citizens doesn't make things fair.
That's not nothing; there is some meaning in giving advance warnings. However, that certainly isn't enough.
- Wikipedia. (2017/08/17). Democracy. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
