1

DEMOCRACY: TYRANNY OF
MAJORITY
(Project Report)

Submitted to:

Dr. Anita Samal

Faculty Member in Political Science

By:

Ghanshyam Meena
B.A.LL.B. (Hons) Student
Semester – I, Section B, Roll No.59.

Hidayatullah National Law

University
Uparwara Post, Abhanpur, NayaRapiur – 493661 (C.G.)
 i

Declaration

I hereby declare that this research work titled ‘Democracy: Tyranny of the Majority’ is my

own work and represents my own ideas and where others’ ideas or words have been included,

I have adequately cited and referenced the original sources. I also declare that I have adhered

to all principles of academic honesty and integrity and have not misrepresented or fabricated

or falsified any idea/data/fact/source in my submission.

(Ghanshyam Meena)
 ii

Acknowledgments

The practical realization of this project has obligated the assistance of many persons. I
express my deepest regard and gratitude for Dr. Anita Samal Mam. Her consistent
supervision, constant inspiration and invaluable guidance have been of immense help in
understanding and carrying out the nuances of the project report.

I would like to thank my family and friends without their support and encouragement, this
project would not have been completed.

I take this opportunity to also thank the university and the vice chancellor for providing
extensive database resources in the library and through internet. I would be grateful to receive
comments and suggestions to further improve this project.

I feel highly elated to work on the topic “Concept of Human Rights”.

Ghanshyam Meena

Roll Number 59

Semester 1

Section B
 iii

Table of Contents

 Introduction……………………………………………………1

 Objectives…………………………….………………………

 What Is A Democracy………………………………………2

 The American Revolution…………………………………3

 What Is A Tyranny of Majority…………………………..5

 Gay Marriage in New Jersy………………………………7

 Tyranny of Majority A Paradox in Democracies………….9

 Where Did The Concept Of “Majority Rule” Come From?..12

 Conclusion………………………………………………..14
 1

Introduction
Democracy means people-power or rule by the people. The idea came from the ancient
Greeks who combined the words demos (people) and kraits (rule) to create the term. The
term was coined during a period in Greek history when the city of Athens experimented
with a form of government in which all citizens, rather than one king or a small group of

wealthy men, made the laws of their state. whereas tyranny of majority means A situation

in which a government or other authority democratically supported by a majority of its

subjects makes policies or takes actions benefiting that majority, without regard for the rights
or welfare of the rest of its subjects.The phrase "tyranny of the majority" was used
by JohnAdams in 1788. The phrase gained prominence after its appearance in 1835 in
Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville, where it is the title of a section. It was
further popularised by John Stuart Mill, who cites Tocqueville, in On Liberty (1859). In those
early days democracy had shortcomings and opponents: one of biggest opponents was Greek
philosopher Socrates (469–399 BC), who considered the politics of his time bad for two
reasons. First reason was the fact that all important decisions were made based on the votes
of a majority that had no time or intellectual capacity to grasp the issues at hand. The second
reason was the fact that political leaders depended on the election support of the majority,
which they often acquired not through knowledge and abilities, but by making impression on
people. In every type of democracy, for any action to take place it must be supported by the
majority of the votes, ensuring that the majority of the people support the action. However
this also creates a problem that the minority may be tyrannised by the majority (tyranny of
the majority).
 2

 What is a democracy?

Democracy is a system in which people decide matters as a group. The term is typically
used in the context of a form of government in which all the citizens have a vote. The
principles of democracy are also applicable to other bodies, such as universities, unions,
companies or other organizations.

In a democratic government, the people's views influence the laws and decisions made by
the government. The development of democracy can be traced back to ancient times,
particularly to ancient Greece.

 Democracy in ancient times

Around 2500 years ago in Ancient Greece, the people of the city-state of Athens
developed a way of making decisions that was different from the autocratic ways of the
past. An autocratic system of government is a type of government where one person or
small group make all the decisions on behalf of the people of the state. Citizens of the
state have no say in influencing decisions

 Ancient Greece

Athens was the first city state to allow ordinary citizens access to government offices and
courts. In theory, all Athenian citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the Assembly
which set the laws of the city-state. In reality, Athens was not a true democracy as women
were not included nor were foreigners, slaves or freed slaves. Also, according to the rules
of citizenship both parents must have been Athenian citizens for a person to qualify to
take part in the Assembly. The democracy therefore, was only a very small minority of
the people living in Athens. It was, however, the closest any country had come to
establishing a democratic society at this time.

 Democracy in the middle Ages

The middle Ages were a period of European history from the fall of the Roman Empire
(476 AD) until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD. It is also known as the Dark Ages.
 3
Although there was not a democracy directly in place during the Middle Ages,
Christianity was widely followed and so many democratic ideas were understood and
followed by many of the people. Christianity taught that all men were created equal.

Another form of government, known as feudalism developed during this time. Feudalism
stressed that all people had certain rights and developed a system of courts to defend
these rights.

 The Magna Carta

In medieval England, in 1215, King John had total control and his subjects had no
freedom or say whatsoever. The Magna Carta took some of the king's power away and
gave some rights and freedom to the people.

The Magna Carta is a historical document that means 'Great Charter' (great paper) in
Latin. It was written by the barons of England who were unhappy that the king was
abusing his power and increasing taxes.

The Magna Carta contained 63 clauses promising all freemen access to the courts and a
fair trial, eliminating unfair fines and punishments and giving power to the Catholic
Church in England instead of the king.The Magna Carta was an important milestone in
British Law and would become the basis for many international constitutions in the
future, including the Australian Constitution.

 The American Revolution

The American Revolution is an important event in history that marks a turning point in
democracy. The first step was the creation of the Declaration of Independence, written by
the American President, Thomas Jefferson in 1776. In this document many ideas were
taken from two famous philosophers of the time, Jean Jacques Rousseau and John Locke,
which outlined freedom and equality.
 4

 Modern democracies

Modern democracies developed throughout the 20th century. Democracies have

resulted from wars, revolutions, decolonisation and economic circumstances. The

number of democracies continues to grow and it has been speculated that this

trend may continue in the future to the point where democratic nation-states

become the standard form of human society.

 Development of representative democracies

Putting the idea of democracy into practice is not easy. In ancient times the idea of a
democracy meant that the community would be run by meetings and attended by every
citizen. After examining the facts and discussing what needed to be done, the people
would make the laws, decide every act of government policy and judge every dispute that
arose in the community.This system, known as direct democracy, could only work for a
small state with few inhabitants and a very simple way of life. It is not a realistic situation
for the modern world where even small countries have millions of citizens and are faced
with complex problems.

 Representative democracies

Many present day democratic societies are known as representative democracies.

Australia is a representative democracy. Under this system, the people elect
representatives to make decisions on their behalf. Every few years an election is held and
the people are given the chance to vote for the people they want to represent them. The
candidates (people wishing to be representatives) are usually members of a political party.

The elected representatives are expected to operate in ways that benefit the community as
a whole. These representatives can be removed from office during new elections if people
are unhappy with them.

 Benefits of democracies
 5
Throughout history, democracies have been the exception rather than the norm. In the
present day world, about 60 percent of the world's nations are democracies. Other nations
have rulers assigned by heredity or have used the military to take leadership by force or
rule by wealth or charisma. There are however, fundamental benefits of a democracy.

The main benefit of democracy is that every adult person regardless of race, religious
belief or gender has the same political rights as each other. People living in a democratic
society are protected from oppression by laws and limits on governmental power.
Democratic governments put laws into place to protect their citizens and to ensure a safe
and fair society. The people who lead a democratic country have to obey the same laws as
everyone else.

 Less violence

More democracy leads to less internal violence, fewer wars and less mass murder by
governments. Democracy aims to reduce political uncertainty and instability and assures
citizens that they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or
change policies with which they disagree. This makes it preferable to a system where
political change takes place through violence.

 Happier people

Democracies allow for information to be more readily available to the public. Resources
are able to be managed better and there is higher economic freedom in democracies.
People have more freedoms and rights in democracies.The idea of a tyranny of the
majority goes back centuries, but for the past 200 years it has been a byword in American
politics. This lesson explains the concept.

 What Is a Tyranny of the Majority?

In many societies today, the idea of a voting and going with the desire of the majority is
largely taken for granted. However, what would happen if the majority began to outlaw
all thought that went against it? What if a majority suddenly took the rights away from the
minority, or even ordered them killed? A tyranny of the majority occurs when a majority
 6
takes action to thoroughly subjugate the minority. In history, this has went as far as to
include killing them, but can be as simple as acting only in the interests of the majority,
not the people as a whole.

 Ancient History

The Greeks were among the first to recognize the real potential for a tyranny of the
majority, although they would never call it that, preferring instead the name ochlocracy.
Measures were taken against it, namely in comparing a government by the
majority, ochlocracy, with a government by everyone, democracy. Philosophers at the
time stated that even if a majority must rule, it must act in the best interests of the people
as a whole, not just itself.

In Rome, the majority rarely acted in the interests of the people as a whole. While Greek,
especially Athenian, political debates could be lively, Roman debates often ended up
being fought with mobs. Few societies demonstrate the idea of an ochlocracy better than
the ancient Romans - the majority of citizens governed often in such a way to punish
minority groups. Newly conquered peoples were often used as gladiators, while members
of minority religious sects could find themselves fed to the lions for public amusement.
Both acts served to remind the spectators that Romans were the true civilized majority
and should not bother themselves with the fate of the vanquished.

 Early America

The Founding Fathers of the United States had serious concerns about the possibility of a
tyranny of the majority and took several steps to limit its likelihood. Indeed, Alexis de
Tocqueville, an early observer of the United States, wrote at length about the possibility
of such a tyranny developing in the nascent country. Most notably, they established a
system of checks and balances that helped keep any one part of government from gaining
too much power too quickly. One of these methods was the idea of a supermajority,
which meant that Congress could only ignore the minority voice if an overwhelming
number of lawmakers agreed. As the hot-button issue of the day - slavery - divided the
country almost exactly in half, by Senate seats, at least, this method was successful, if for
the short-term.
 7
Also recognizing the ability of a majority to infringe on the rights of a minority, the
Constitution included a Bill of Rights. These first ten amendments to the Constitution
served to mandate individual and minority protections, ranging from freedom of speech
and assembly to how a trial by law should be carried out. It is important to note that many
of the amendments passed in the intervening two centuries have been expansions of these
rights.

 Gay Marriage In New Jersey–Continuing To Overturn Tyranny

Of The Majority

We’re happy to announce appearance #8 of this post, which we run each time the issue of
gay marriage is resolved by a state court in its favor. The first time was back on May 21,
2008, when California’s Supreme Court decided that banning gay marriage was
unconstitutional. The original point was that whenever a court overturns a law, there are
always those who squawk—incorrectly—that it has overstepped its authority. The
judiciary in the U.S. is meant to overturn laws, even laws with great popular support that
are unconstitutional because they restrict peoples’ liberty for no good reason.Overturning
bans on gay marriage started out as an example of thwarting this “tyranny of the
majority”, as de Tocqueville called it, but now that the majority of Americans support or
do not care to ban gay marriage, this type of legislation is becoming a rebuke to tyranny
of the minority. That’s heartening.Here is the original post, resurfacing now as New
Jersey Governor Christie drops his attempt to stop gay marriage and the first couples are
wed in that state:The California Supreme Court’s decision that banning gay marriage is
unconstitutional has been met with the by-now common complaint that the Court
overstepped its bounds, trampled the wishes of the voters, and got into the legislation
business without a permit.A review of the constitutionally described role of the judiciary
is in order.The famous commentator on American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville,
talked a great deal in his books Democracy in America about the tyranny of the majority.
This is when majority rule—the basis of democracy—ends up perverting democracy by
forcing injustice on the minority of the public.
 8
For example, slavery was an example of the tyranny of the majority. Most Americans in
the slave era were white and free. White and free people were the majority, and they used
their majority power to keep slavery from being abolished by the minority of Americans
who wanted to abolish it. The rights of black Americans were trampled by the tyranny of
the majority.

Before Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, the majority of Americans were fine with
segregated schools. They used their majority power to oppress the minority of Americans
who were black, or who were white and wanted desegregation.

In each example, the majority is imposing and enforcing injustice which is incompatible
with democracy. They are tyrannizing rather than governing.

The judiciary was created to break this grip of majority tyranny. The legislature—
Congress—cannot usually break majority tyranny because it is made up of people
popularly elected by the majority. But the appointed judiciary can break majority tyranny
because its sole job is not to reflect the wishes of the people but to interpret the
Constitution.

If the judiciary finds that a law made by the legislature perverts democracy and imposes
the tyranny of the majority, it can and must strike that law down. This is what happened
in California. The court found that although the majority of Californians (as evidenced by
a previous referendum) had voted to ban gay marriage, that majority was enforcing and
imposing injustice on the minority. So the court found the ban unconstitutional.This is not
beyond the scope of the judiciary; it’s exactly what it is meant to do.I heard a
commentator yesterday saying the California court should have left the issue to “the
prerogative of the voters”. But if the voters’ prerogative is to oppress someone else, then
the court does not simply step aside and let this happen.

The same people who rage against the partial and biased justices who lifted this ban are
generally the same people who would celebrate justices who imposed a ban on abortion.
People who cry out for impartiality are generally only applying it to cases they oppose.So
that’s what the judiciary does: it prevents the tyranny of the majority from enforcing
 9
injustice in a democracy. Like it or not, the “will of the people” is not always sacred, and
sometimes must be opposed in the name of equality.

 Tyranny of the majority a paradox in democracies

Two recent news stories illustrate a paradox in democratic societies that is all too rarely
discussed. The first was a news item which originated in Nature Magazine and which
announced that DNA evidence supported long-standing assertions that Thomas Jefferson,
or a close relative, had fathered a child or children by Jefferson’s slave, Sally Hemings.
The second was that in British Columbia there is a movement to hold a referendum
designed to deflect Indian land claims.

Tyranny is easily understood in its extreme episodes. The majority Hutu went on a
rampage in 1994 in Rwanda and slaughtered 800,000 of the minority Tutsi. The majority
Turks murdered 1.5 million minority Armenians in 1915, and in 1941 Germany tried to
exterminate the Jews. It may be comforting to try to urge that a few criminals at the top of
the pyramid were to blame, but in fact those societies had nothing in place to protect their
minorities from the tyranny of the majority, of which there are countless examples. The
majority was free to do its work.International criminal courts are trying cases involving
people who led or encouraged genocidal acts in Rwanda and Serbia, including former
Serbian leader Slobodan Milosovec. The need for such courts illustrates perfectly the
problem of the tyranny of the majority. The politicians who led genocidal episodes were
enormously popular at the time, including Adolph Hitler.

Democracy, whatever its merits, has not been an effective deterrent to abuses, even
genocide, directed against minorities. Far more common instances of abuses directed
against distinct peoples within a society are found in most countries and are usually not in
the consciousness of the citizenry as an exercise of tyranny.

This paradox is called the tyranny of the majority and democracies are not immune. John
Stuart Mill mentioned it, proving that it predates modern democracies. James Madison,
the fourth U.S. President, spoke clearly in the Federalist Papers about the need to restrain
 10
the majority and made clear that the movement toward democracy had not solved the
problem. Alexis de Tocqueville also talked about it. He thought that in America the
majority was often unfocused by issues and subject to whim.

Lani Guinier, President Clinton’s failed nominee as assistant attorney general for civil
rights and the first tenured black woman professor of law at Harvard, urged that the
measure of unfairness of the tyranny of the majority should be determined by results. If a
minority group, say black people, were determined to be denied access to the things they
need (jobs, education, health care, food, safety, etc.,) through the exercise of public
policy, this would be evidence of such tyranny. In the 21st century, around the world
from Serbia to Rwanda to Florida, the reality of the tyranny of the majority is cast against
the practice of pluralism and the rights of the minorities. The U.S. government is often
cited as an example of a constitutional system with many checks and balances which tend
to protect the rights of diverse peoples, but no government in the world does this perfectly
or, in cases where powerful competitions and conflicts are at work, adequately.

Direct democracy is most difficult and dangerous when the tyranny of the majority ?the
willingness of the majority to ignore or run roughshod over the needs and aspirations of
the minority ? is unbridled and nothing can restrain it. Although a significant minority?
Even 49 percent? May have legitimate grievances over a given course of action, the
ruling group, the majority, often claims the right to act on its impulses without
accommodation or compromise with minorities. This can be extremely disruptive and can
cause untold competition, even civil war.

The thing about this phenomenon is that when a group becomes prosperous, it tends to
want to keep things that way. In that pursuit it can become very resistant to any kind of
change. People who are resistant to change in this context are called “conservative.” The
society may be replete with examples of inequality and certain groups may have been left
out of the economic, educational or social mainstream, but any attempts to correct these
ills are resisted by conservatives because these people are happy with things just the way
they are. Sometimes this results in positions that sound as though wealth is static and not
created, and that if a part of society improves its lot, it does so at the expense of others.
 11
This is the paradox of conservatism. Conservatives do not see the problems of minority
groups (the poor, racial or ethnic groups, women, etc.) as problems to be solved because,
as beneficiaries of the social order, they like things the way they are. They tend to see
people who are trying to correct social injustices as problems, and they can be very
passionate about this and are often driven to extreme emotions by unfounded fears that
any gains made by minorities are at their expense.Earlier this year the respected journal
Nature published a study of DNA evidence linking descendants of slave Sally Hemings
and President Jefferson and concluded that Jefferson was not ruled out as the father of at
least one of her children. Critics denounced the report as an example of “political
correctness,” ignoring considerable other evidence that supported the possibility. The
level of anger that accompanied this response, and most responses to “political
correctness,” gives testimony to the presence of tyranny.

There seems little doubt that someone in the Jefferson line fathered children by Hemings.
It is hardly news that white masters slept with black slaves. What seems to infuriate the
critics is that such allegations would besmirch the reputation of a “founding father” and
cast into disrepute everything Jefferson accomplished. There is, of course, no proof that
such a result is on the horizon, just as there can be no proof Jefferson was perfect. Some
of the founding fathers were flawed. It’s not news. Their accomplishments have survived.
The deconstruction of the myth of perfection of the founders and of a golden age when
the privileges of white people were in perfect order was under way long before the Nature
article and was, in any case, simply a reality check. The conservative reaction to an
otherwise innocuous news story is but one facet of the culture wars in the United
States.One of the clearest examples of the tyranny of the majority can be found in
Canada’s British Columbia. It was not uncommon for settlers simply to seize Indian land
without compensation or due process. In recent years Indian land claim lawsuits have
been having some success in the courts and an Indian nation negotiated a treaty that
recognized the rights to land and resources of that nation. The reaction was to demand a
referendum by B.C. citizens to abort the court process and determine, essentially, whether
to restore some of these rights. It is, in essence, a demand by the people who benefit from
the transfer of assets (some would say theft) from Indian to non-Indian hands, to vote on
whether some of it should be returned.
 12
The referendum, denounced even by some moderate politicians as racist, is under court
challenge. International criminal courts and international law are probably the last resort
for some oppressed peoples who have been abused, subjected to having their lands and
other assets seized, denied civil rights and due process of law, and otherwise mistreated.
Canada, considered among the enlightened nations of the world, has shown significant
reluctance to recognize the rights of its indigenous peoples.The situation unfolding in
British Columbia is a test of that society’s ability to manage its historic and structural
pattern of injustice to its most significant minority. If it is able to do so in a way that
brings compromises and accommodation to a long-suffering minority population, it will
set an example for the world to follow.

 Where did the concept of “majority rule” come from? Why

should any majority rule over any minority?

Of course the idea of protecting minority rights also exists. It is accepted in the civilized
world that minority religions, ethnicities, and cultures should be respected. So evidently
the global belief in majoritarianism is not absolute. But overall, the prevailing global
political culture in democratic societies is majoritarian. The party which has some
majority in an election gets its leaders in the government, and it is able to impose its
policies on everybody.

In a voluntary club, it seems natural that the leader be elected by the majority. Everyone
in the club agrees about the mission of the club. Suppose it is a hiking club. It does not
matter too much who the leader is, so a majority vote seems like the best option. Also, in
deciding which location to hike in, majority rules seem sensible. Majority rule provides
greater utility than minority rule, and there is general agreement that making more people
happy is better than if fewer are happy.

But when it comes to government, majority rule is problematic. First of all, majority rule
is based on the persons who may vote, not the whole population. Young children do not
vote, and foreign residents do not vote. The adult citizens own the country, so they vote.

People believe in majority rule because they think of the alternative as either dictatorship
or a rule by an elite minority. Why should one man or an aristocracy rule over the others?
 13
The global political culture now rejects monarchical rule as violating equality. What is
not understood is that imposed majority rule also violates equality.

If we accept human equality, that all human beings have an equal moral worth, then the
logical conclusion is equal self-governance. No person has a natural right to impose his
will on another, because is it morally evil to coercively harm another person. Harm means
an invasion into the domain of others, including the harm of restricting the other’s
peaceful and honest actions.When a person becomes employed, or enrols in an institution
such as a university, one does not usually expect democratic governance. The company is
a non-democratic hierarchy, in which there is a top boss, lower bosses, and the ordinary
workers who are directed. The worker has to comply with rules he may not favour, but
the arrangement is voluntary because the worker chose to enter into employment or
enrolment, and he may quit.

The equality of the employment situation is the ability of the worker to enter and exit, and
the ability of the employer to equally contract with the employee and to terminate the
employment. Free association is the basis of equal liberty.The governance of territory is
in accord with human equality when there is freedom of association among the members.
Whether a territory is ruled by one man or by a majority does not matter so long as the
individuals consent to be governed, so long as they can exit at will. After all, a traveller
does not expect a voice in the rules of the places he visits. Whether the location is run by
one person or the local majority does not matter to the traveller, so long as he may come
and go, and so long as any unusual rules are presented in advance.
 14

 Conclusion

We need governing structures, but these can be contractual agreements among equals. We
have today voluntary contractual communities such as homeowner associations, road
associations, condominiums, cooperatives, and proprietary communities. All
neighbourhoods could be governed this way, and then the local organizations can form
greater associations for public goods with a broader scope. An occasional hermit would
not disturb the governing continuum.

Just as local communities would be able to associate, they would have the freedom to
disassociate. The problem with imposed majoritarianism is that individuals and
communities may not secede, and so they are forced to be dominated by the majority.
Minorities are subjected to the law enforcement, schooling, drug laws, civic services, and
taxes favoured by the majority.

The reform that would establish deep equality would be a constitutional rule that would
prohibit only coercive harm to others. Government would not impose costs and
restrictions on peaceful and honest action. Contractual communities would be free to have
restrictive rules among their own members. Contractual governance is best implemented
bottom up, with secession where feasible.

The avoidance of imposed costs implies the absence of taxes on transactions and
produced goods. There would be charges for trespass and invasions, such as pollution. In
the absence of taxes on labour, capital, and trade, those who hold title to land would have
to pay for civic services from the yield of their land, the rent. Ideally, people would
understand the logic of equal benefits from the rent generated by nature and community.
 15
The deepest equality would consist of both equal self-governance and, as Henry George
put it, standing “on equal terms with reference to the bounty of nature.”