The Tyranny Of Democracy Of The Majority
Democracy is a system, which stresses the importance of establishing “a social state in which all have equal rights” and that the rule of the majority is always the best. However, constitutions on the other hand, “are codes of rules which aspire to regulate the allocation of powers…among…government”. This conflicts with the concept of democracy as it places restrictions on what the government; elected “by the people, for the people”; can do. Surprisingly, the country that is often perceived as the closest definition to perfect democracy, America, is founded upon a long established constitution. Therefore, in this essay we will assess whether a written constitution is detrimental in a democratic system to protect rights of it’s citizens.
Democracy …show more content…
operates in various ways, however, the most viable form is representative democracy. This is widely practiced amongst democratic countries such as America and Britain, it aims to reach conclusive decisions through the input of everyone, represented by their elected individual or parties. This, in theory, prevents tyranny as the decision of the majority is regarded as one that will best serve everyone as opposed to the oppression of majority interests in a tyrannical rule.
However, Alexis de Tocqueville warns of the ‘Tyranny of the Majority’, this is where the opinions and views of the majority will oppress the views of the minorities; defeating the de facto aim of democracy, to eliminate oppression through tyranny of the individual. As such a democratic system is flawed with the continual possibility of tyranny, with “institutions…necessary to overcome [such] democratic instability”. Subsequently, this leads to the requirement of constitutions, as they provide clear rules of law which have to be strictly abided to by the governmental institutions to protect our rights. Without them, the tyranny of the majority would abuse the rights of the minority and as Alexis de Tocqueville has said, “to whom can he [the minority] apply for redress? If to public opinion…it constitutes the majority; if to legislature, it represents the majority…if to the executive power, it is appointed by the majority”. Therefore, it is essential that a democratic system should have a constitution in place which clearly sets outs the rights of …show more content…
it’s citizens so that the tyranny of the majority can be effectively prevented. This is because embedded rights; rights which are enshrined in law such as those drafted up in the Declaration of Independence 1776; cannot be disregarded simply by a majority vote. The only way to bypass these laws is to amend the constitution, and this is difficult to do so. Taking America as an example, to modify it’s constitution, it would require a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress followed by ratification by gaining at least a three-quarter approval with the legislatures of all the different states. This is the the usual method used and the remaining three methods available to amend the constitution is no easier than the process which I have stated. Due to the arduous process needed to change the constitution, it can be seen as essential to prevent, to the best of our abilities, tyranny of the majority in a system which the majority opinion prevails.
Aside from creating laws which the government has to abide to, the constitution as an instrument can also limit the government’s powers in several other ways. Looking at the American constitution will enable us to see how it “appeared to many to exemplify the turbulence and follies of democracy”. Burns explains that within a democracy, the ‘egalitarian factionalism’ created by the system will “generate a rage for a paper money, for an abolition of debts or for some other improper or wicked project”. This is because the capitalistic views of a ‘strong overbearing majority’ are extremely dangerous, therefore, the Founding Fathers drafted the constitution in order to limit the negative effects of majority prevalence in a democracy by utilising ‘checks and balances’. Jefferson himself; despite being associated strongly with democracy, believed that this was essential and favoured this system “as a way of preventing what he called elective despotism”. Jefferson realises that the “gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department” would not be accepted by the public as they would not accept an authority which has too much central control.
This is solved by the ‘separation of powers’ splitting into three independent political bodies - the legislature, executive and judiciary. This is dispersement of power between three independent bodies ensures, in theory, that no collusion takes place at the cost of public interests. Furthermore, it also serves so that each branch has some power over the actions of another. For example, the Congress enacts laws which can be vetoed by the President, the President will act on the laws but only if the Congress agrees to provide the finances to do so. Whilst the Judiciary has the power to interpret the laws made by Congress as they like it, the Congress can also appoint their judges. Thus, each branch serves to limit the other through a degree of influence exercisable under the rules of the constitution. This system of ‘checks and balances’ is self-evident in how it works and overall attempts to prevent tyranny of the majority; this system is further reinforced by free elections as the voters have the power to vote out an unsuitable candidate, but also because each branch is voted by different people, therefore, reducing the chances of an ‘elective despotism’ and subsequently protecting our rights in a democratic state by making it difficult for a majority to gain control of the government so that tyranny of an individual body can be effectively exercised against society.
However, the instrument of a constitution is much more than a method to limit the powers of the government by imposing laws which even itself finds it binding. As Burns has said, “the constitution is both a positive instrument of government, which enables the governors to control the governed, and a restraint on government which enables the ruled to check the rulers”. This can be seen by the view that the constitution was founded with the wish “to establish a national government within the framework of a federal system and with enough authority to meet the needs of all times”, it is argued that the constitution merely provides a framework to which a stronger national government can be formed. Each branch was given power to contribute more to the constitution and the constant updating of the informal constitution is what keeps the system up to date. For example, congressional elaboration in the Judiciary Act of 1789 laid down the foundations of the national judicial system. This is demonstrating power granted by the constitution to exercise influence over how the constitution is to be shaped - therefore, the entirety of the constitution itself isn’t completely rigid as it can evolve with time, but the changes happen in the informal unwritten constitution, a system similar to that of Britain.
On the other hand, it can be argued that a constitution serves no purpose in protecting the rights of citizens within a democracy.
Finer offers the view that “constitutions are dispensable: if the power holders exercise self-restraint, the written constitution is unnecessary and if they do not then no written constitution will check them”. This is particularly true in that the constitution is simply just a document and can be abused, even ignored. For example, Article 124 of the Stalin Constitution guaranteed freedom of religious worship. However, due to the tyranny of the government, the following act was ignored, and the government acted indifferently to it’s existence. Therefore, a constitution is only as effective as the will of a few selected powerful figures allow it. From this case, it is not detrimental in protecting our rights if the government refuses to honour the document. This can be further illustrated by the American Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech, therefore, surely a legislation which prohibits hate speech is to be found ‘unconstitutional’, no matter how much support it receives from the majority. This is not the case because the will of the majority will still prevail despite the existence of the constitution. Therefore, if the will of the majority is harmful to our rights as citizens of a democratic state, the constitution can do little in protecting
us.
America’s constitution was found with the intention to guarantee the protection of ‘timeless’ and ‘inalienable’ human rights. However, civil war broke out to fight for equal rights for slaves a century later. This shows that no matter how progressive a current constitution draft may seem, it will always be controversial with the evolution of society. A notable example is the seemingly outdated ‘Right to Bear Arms’ within the American constitution, this was created in a period of instability. However, in modern society, is it still needed? Therefore, instead of protecting our rights, a constitution could be insulating rights which proves to be controversial in the future. In this case, freedom to bear arms increases the chances of physical violence against us involving firearms, contradicting the right to be free from the threat of harm. Furthermore, because of the difficulty in amending the constitution, it can be difficult to incorporate new emerging rights which we regard as essential. An example is the Equal Rights Amendment 1972; first drafted in 1923; it aims to guarantee equal rights for women, however, it was never ratified sufficiently. Therefore, controversy surrounds it’s legality. This is a flaw of the constitution system, because of it’s difficulty to be changed it has actually prevent essential rights such as the ERA from being successfully implemented. In an unwritten constitution such as Britain, women gained universal suffrage as early as 1928, five years after it was first proposed in America. Not only does this demonstrate a constitution failing to protect our rights, but also hinder it. This also stresses that a democracy has tyranny of the majority as well because the constitution has clearly failed to control the power of the majority in the ratification of the ERA in 1972, subsequently, allowed the refusal of legitimising women rights.
Lastly, the concepts of democracy and constitutions are incompatible and conflicts with each other. As MacCormick has said, “Democracy says people should be sovereign; constitutionalism denies that any sovereignty should be absolute and free of restraints or limits”. Therefore, the entire concept of a democracy, said by Aristotle, being “the supreme power is lodged in the whole people” focuses on the right to be free from all restrictions whatsoever. But, because a constitution implements restrictions on the model of a democracy, it is actually harming our rights rather than striving to protect it.
In conclusion, a constitution aims to protect our rights by limiting the powers of the majority in a democracy. This is because in a democracy there is a strong stress on equality and that the best decisions are reach by a majority agreement. However, the flaw in this concept is that there is the possibility of tyranny of the majority and this led to the creation of constitutions to limit and remedy this flaw. I find that a written constitution isn’t necessary to protect our rights as Britain is an example of a democracy managing to survive without a written constitution. It is essential however, to distinguish Britain from the constitution as it does have an unmodified constitution as opposed to no constitution. Nevertheless, I still believe that constitutions are unnecessary as it is an old concept - the embodiment of a ‘social contract’ between those who govern and those being governed. It was used because the concept of a democracy was still new and it’s survival depended on it, however, with the concept of democracy firmly rooted in countries such as America and Britain, tyranny of the majority is a threat that is ever decreasing and we do not need such a constitution to protect our rights.
Democracy …show more content…
operates in various ways, however, the most viable form is representative democracy. This is widely practiced amongst democratic countries such as America and Britain, it aims to reach conclusive decisions through the input of everyone, represented by their elected individual or parties. This, in theory, prevents tyranny as the decision of the majority is regarded as one that will best serve everyone as opposed to the oppression of majority interests in a tyrannical rule.
However, Alexis de Tocqueville warns of the ‘Tyranny of the Majority’, this is where the opinions and views of the majority will oppress the views of the minorities; defeating the de facto aim of democracy, to eliminate oppression through tyranny of the individual. As such a democratic system is flawed with the continual possibility of tyranny, with “institutions…necessary to overcome [such] democratic instability”. Subsequently, this leads to the requirement of constitutions, as they provide clear rules of law which have to be strictly abided to by the governmental institutions to protect our rights. Without them, the tyranny of the majority would abuse the rights of the minority and as Alexis de Tocqueville has said, “to whom can he [the minority] apply for redress? If to public opinion…it constitutes the majority; if to legislature, it represents the majority…if to the executive power, it is appointed by the majority”. Therefore, it is essential that a democratic system should have a constitution in place which clearly sets outs the rights of …show more content…
it’s citizens so that the tyranny of the majority can be effectively prevented. This is because embedded rights; rights which are enshrined in law such as those drafted up in the Declaration of Independence 1776; cannot be disregarded simply by a majority vote. The only way to bypass these laws is to amend the constitution, and this is difficult to do so. Taking America as an example, to modify it’s constitution, it would require a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress followed by ratification by gaining at least a three-quarter approval with the legislatures of all the different states. This is the the usual method used and the remaining three methods available to amend the constitution is no easier than the process which I have stated. Due to the arduous process needed to change the constitution, it can be seen as essential to prevent, to the best of our abilities, tyranny of the majority in a system which the majority opinion prevails.
Aside from creating laws which the government has to abide to, the constitution as an instrument can also limit the government’s powers in several other ways. Looking at the American constitution will enable us to see how it “appeared to many to exemplify the turbulence and follies of democracy”. Burns explains that within a democracy, the ‘egalitarian factionalism’ created by the system will “generate a rage for a paper money, for an abolition of debts or for some other improper or wicked project”. This is because the capitalistic views of a ‘strong overbearing majority’ are extremely dangerous, therefore, the Founding Fathers drafted the constitution in order to limit the negative effects of majority prevalence in a democracy by utilising ‘checks and balances’. Jefferson himself; despite being associated strongly with democracy, believed that this was essential and favoured this system “as a way of preventing what he called elective despotism”. Jefferson realises that the “gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department” would not be accepted by the public as they would not accept an authority which has too much central control.
This is solved by the ‘separation of powers’ splitting into three independent political bodies - the legislature, executive and judiciary. This is dispersement of power between three independent bodies ensures, in theory, that no collusion takes place at the cost of public interests. Furthermore, it also serves so that each branch has some power over the actions of another. For example, the Congress enacts laws which can be vetoed by the President, the President will act on the laws but only if the Congress agrees to provide the finances to do so. Whilst the Judiciary has the power to interpret the laws made by Congress as they like it, the Congress can also appoint their judges. Thus, each branch serves to limit the other through a degree of influence exercisable under the rules of the constitution. This system of ‘checks and balances’ is self-evident in how it works and overall attempts to prevent tyranny of the majority; this system is further reinforced by free elections as the voters have the power to vote out an unsuitable candidate, but also because each branch is voted by different people, therefore, reducing the chances of an ‘elective despotism’ and subsequently protecting our rights in a democratic state by making it difficult for a majority to gain control of the government so that tyranny of an individual body can be effectively exercised against society.
However, the instrument of a constitution is much more than a method to limit the powers of the government by imposing laws which even itself finds it binding. As Burns has said, “the constitution is both a positive instrument of government, which enables the governors to control the governed, and a restraint on government which enables the ruled to check the rulers”. This can be seen by the view that the constitution was founded with the wish “to establish a national government within the framework of a federal system and with enough authority to meet the needs of all times”, it is argued that the constitution merely provides a framework to which a stronger national government can be formed. Each branch was given power to contribute more to the constitution and the constant updating of the informal constitution is what keeps the system up to date. For example, congressional elaboration in the Judiciary Act of 1789 laid down the foundations of the national judicial system. This is demonstrating power granted by the constitution to exercise influence over how the constitution is to be shaped - therefore, the entirety of the constitution itself isn’t completely rigid as it can evolve with time, but the changes happen in the informal unwritten constitution, a system similar to that of Britain.
On the other hand, it can be argued that a constitution serves no purpose in protecting the rights of citizens within a democracy.
Finer offers the view that “constitutions are dispensable: if the power holders exercise self-restraint, the written constitution is unnecessary and if they do not then no written constitution will check them”. This is particularly true in that the constitution is simply just a document and can be abused, even ignored. For example, Article 124 of the Stalin Constitution guaranteed freedom of religious worship. However, due to the tyranny of the government, the following act was ignored, and the government acted indifferently to it’s existence. Therefore, a constitution is only as effective as the will of a few selected powerful figures allow it. From this case, it is not detrimental in protecting our rights if the government refuses to honour the document. This can be further illustrated by the American Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech, therefore, surely a legislation which prohibits hate speech is to be found ‘unconstitutional’, no matter how much support it receives from the majority. This is not the case because the will of the majority will still prevail despite the existence of the constitution. Therefore, if the will of the majority is harmful to our rights as citizens of a democratic state, the constitution can do little in protecting
us.
America’s constitution was found with the intention to guarantee the protection of ‘timeless’ and ‘inalienable’ human rights. However, civil war broke out to fight for equal rights for slaves a century later. This shows that no matter how progressive a current constitution draft may seem, it will always be controversial with the evolution of society. A notable example is the seemingly outdated ‘Right to Bear Arms’ within the American constitution, this was created in a period of instability. However, in modern society, is it still needed? Therefore, instead of protecting our rights, a constitution could be insulating rights which proves to be controversial in the future. In this case, freedom to bear arms increases the chances of physical violence against us involving firearms, contradicting the right to be free from the threat of harm. Furthermore, because of the difficulty in amending the constitution, it can be difficult to incorporate new emerging rights which we regard as essential. An example is the Equal Rights Amendment 1972; first drafted in 1923; it aims to guarantee equal rights for women, however, it was never ratified sufficiently. Therefore, controversy surrounds it’s legality. This is a flaw of the constitution system, because of it’s difficulty to be changed it has actually prevent essential rights such as the ERA from being successfully implemented. In an unwritten constitution such as Britain, women gained universal suffrage as early as 1928, five years after it was first proposed in America. Not only does this demonstrate a constitution failing to protect our rights, but also hinder it. This also stresses that a democracy has tyranny of the majority as well because the constitution has clearly failed to control the power of the majority in the ratification of the ERA in 1972, subsequently, allowed the refusal of legitimising women rights.
Lastly, the concepts of democracy and constitutions are incompatible and conflicts with each other. As MacCormick has said, “Democracy says people should be sovereign; constitutionalism denies that any sovereignty should be absolute and free of restraints or limits”. Therefore, the entire concept of a democracy, said by Aristotle, being “the supreme power is lodged in the whole people” focuses on the right to be free from all restrictions whatsoever. But, because a constitution implements restrictions on the model of a democracy, it is actually harming our rights rather than striving to protect it.
In conclusion, a constitution aims to protect our rights by limiting the powers of the majority in a democracy. This is because in a democracy there is a strong stress on equality and that the best decisions are reach by a majority agreement. However, the flaw in this concept is that there is the possibility of tyranny of the majority and this led to the creation of constitutions to limit and remedy this flaw. I find that a written constitution isn’t necessary to protect our rights as Britain is an example of a democracy managing to survive without a written constitution. It is essential however, to distinguish Britain from the constitution as it does have an unmodified constitution as opposed to no constitution. Nevertheless, I still believe that constitutions are unnecessary as it is an old concept - the embodiment of a ‘social contract’ between those who govern and those being governed. It was used because the concept of a democracy was still new and it’s survival depended on it, however, with the concept of democracy firmly rooted in countries such as America and Britain, tyranny of the majority is a threat that is ever decreasing and we do not need such a constitution to protect our rights.