Democracy Vs Minority Rights

Democracy vs. Minority Known as the “Father of the Constitution”, James Madison helped to lay the framework for one of the most valuable pieces of documentation in our country’s history. The three basic branches of our government include the legislative, judicial, and executive branch. The Constitution of the United States promises to protect the rights of all citizens whether they are part of the majority or minority. In an ideal world, during elections and in the legislature, the majority has had the numbers on their side to build a system that they favor. In an optimal democratic state, the minority would be protected by the judiciary and their rights would be upheld by the constitution. In reality the majority and minority is never consistent
and is always changing. It is purely a game of numbers and who can obtain the most support. Being in the minority is not a disadvantage itself but the expense of minorities losing their rights is the real price paid. The larger crowd with the bigger voice will always get its way. The most ideal system of government would be one where the needs and wants of both parties can be satisfied to some extent. In a Democratic society it is the responsibility of the government to protect the rights of the minorities from the tyranny of the majority. During the Constitutional Convention, the framers had the difficult task of getting the Federalists and Anti-Federalists to agree on many issues.
Federalists were in favor of separation of powers with a strong national government and weak state governments. The Anti-Federalists craved a strong state government in fear that a more powerful national government would become a power hungry tyrannical monster. The debate between the two parties over the majority rule versus minority rights had to be handled with care in order to prevent a disruption in the balance of the Constitutional Convention. Madison encouraged pluralism as a solution to the majority rule versus minority rights, meaning that if enough groups had a connection to the political system there would not be one group that had dominant rule. A majority that was only interested in their rights could potentially steam roll the minority party’s rights. If there were too many small groups trying to obtain protection from the government for their own rights any power the democracy had would be
undermined. Madison analyzed in detail the majority rule v. majority minority rights in his Federalist Essay Number 10. He explained how the small and diverse groups within the one central government called factions would negotiate and compromise in order to arrive at a solution; they would respect the rights of the minority and prevent any chance of a tyrannical government. The sheer size of the country alone would make it nearly impossible for one group to take complete power over another. While not all political groups or parties are factions, he points out that factions are groups of citizens with interests that differ from the rights and interests of the community as a whole. This idea to form these groups or factions is within our human nature. Everyone is born with different abilities both mental and physical, thus they have different wants, needs, and ideas. This is what makes the human race amazing; no two people are the same. Madison suggests that the only two ways to remove the groups would be to destroy the liberty for everyone to have their own opinion or give everyone the same opinion, interests, and passion. The first suggestion is worse than the problem at hand and the second would make for an extremely boring nation aside from it being impossible to make everyone believe the same thing. Madison states, “The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States.” (pg. 79) The difference between a liberty and a right has always been hazy.
Both words appear in the Declaration of Independence as well as the Bill of Rights and today they are used in the same context yet they refer to different types of protection. Civil liberties protect the people from government actions, while civil rights are positive actions the government takes to create equality. Most of the nation thinks that civil rights and liberties are the fundamental protection of freedom at all times however, legitimately most civil liberties are actually competing rights. For example, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was created after September 11th in order to protect the nation from terrorist attacks as well as reduce the vulnerability, minimize damage, and assist in recovery for attacks that may occur. This new act came with a large number of new services, offices, and even a scale to gage the risk of a terror. While the government is doing what they feel is best they have compromised some of the nation’s privacy. Under the act there are two subtitle acts the Critical Infrastructure Information Act and the Cyber Security Enhancement Act. The Cyber Security Enhancement Act amended the US Patriot Act and loosened restrictions on when, and whom internet providers can voluntarily release information about their subscribers. This puts users at a risk for personal privacy to be breached and it is also a poor security strategy, more importantly the law does not provide judicial
oversight of the procedures. This is a perfect example of the government trying to protect us yet at the same time leaving us completely vulnerable. Madison’s solution to the issues at hand was a republican form of government. This type of government would appoint representatives to clarify and broaden their public view. A republic could also be larger than a classic democracy making it more difficult for a majority faction to develop and would also make it less likely that one particular group would be able to misappropriate power. A larger republic would not only be more economically diverse but is also more difficult to tyrannize or overthrow than a small one. With so many opinions it would prove to be difficult for one group to take over another and would allow for short-lived and loosely supported majorities allowing everyone to have a voice. Madison did his best to ensure that every citizen had a voice and that their voice was heard so that they felt protected and validated, all things a fair and just government should provide.