To Understand the Tyranny of Majority and the Essence of Existing Democracies
Does Democracy Contrast with Dictatorship or Tyranny?
. . .
It says, "Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution." . . . Again, 'the majority' is equated with 'the people'. Certainly, the majority can oust their representatives, at least once in several years, but the minority can't.
Probably, the supposition is that as everyone has equal votes, everyone has equal opportunities.
That's a fantasy. The majority vote for their selfish interests; the minority don't have any practical opportunity to check the majority's wills. Democracy doesn't contrast with dictatorship or tyranny, but is a type of tyranny.
'The majority' isn't particularly a monolith, and some influential factions have some, if not equal, opportunities to take power.
So, it's a difference between that there is a single invincible king and that there are several legions fighting each other. Either way, the minority don't have any practical opportunity.
I am afraid that things tend to be so.
Equality Before the Law? What Does That Mean?
. . .
It says of "legal equality", but that means that laws made by the majority for the majority's interests are applied equally to everyone, isn't it?
There is a link to an article on 'equality before the law'. We should look at it.
OK.
. . .
Well, I don't understand well. Why are these descriptions so vague?
How are they vague?
I'm seeking an unequivocal answer to a clear yes-or-no question, but I can't get the answer, reading the descriptions.
What is the question?
"Does 'equality before the law' mean that contents of laws must be fair?"
Hmm, . . . I can't determine which, based on the article.
It cites a statement by Anatole France, "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread," but is that majestic? . . . A poor is forced to sleep under a bridge because he or she doesn't have a mansion as a rich has. Why don't they enact a law that forbids sleeping in mansions? As some rich people have built unnecessarily big mansions, some poor people are being deprived of sleeping under roofs. Why don't they enact a law that forbids monopolizing land?
I can't determine whether that statement is cited as a good description of 'equality before the law' or as an example of problematic interpretations of 'equality before the law'.
I understand that a law as "Rich people, but not poor people, are allowed to sleep under bridges" is recognized as against 'equality before the law', but just removing words like 'rich' or 'poor' doesn't make the law fair.
Of course.
For example, is a law as "No one is allowed to eat fish" fair because rich and poor are alike forbidden to eat fish? There are some people who depend on fish to live while there are some people who depend on beef cattle to live.
Just refraining from explicitly targeting a specific group in a law doesn't make the law fair.
It is too simplistic to say that a law has majestic equality just because everyone is forbidden something alike.
It may be a kind of equality, but equality is different from fairness.
On the other hand, the article claims, "The principle of equality before the law is incompatible and ceases to exist with legal systems such as slavery, servitude, colonialism, monarchy, theocracy, quotaism or any kind of affirmative action." . . . Why?
I don't see why. That seems an abrupt statement, which doesn't seem to be logically derived from the previous descriptions.
Hmm, after all, I don't understand well what 'equality before the law' means.
Probably, the article isn't the one to be blamed: there is no consensus about the concept itself.
Such a phrase as "All are equal before the law" seems to be prevalent and proudly proclaimed while the meaning of the phrase is left not clarified.
. . . That isn't a particularly rare phenomenon on the Bias planet.
As far as there is no consensus, the power, the majority, will adopt an interpretation that is convenient for their interests.
That will be a realistic expectation.
- Wikipedia. (2017/08/17). Democracy. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
- Wikipedia. (2017/08/20). Equality before the law. Retrieved from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_before_the_law
