Tyranny of the Majority

In my opinion, what best differentiates the American democratic model from many other purportedly democratic forms of government is the protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This wondrous feature wasn’t really an important part at the inception of the United States of America, but the first ten amendments to the Constitution, known at the Bill of Rights, were ratified officially on December 15, 1791 and layered in those basic protections ranging from free speech and assembly to protections again slow progress to trial and warrantless searches and seizures, all arenas where majority votes could curtail unpopular minority efforts and causes.

But not all democratic forms of government offer this protection. Immediately after our departure from Iraq, for example, Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki (pictured above right) and his majority Shiite-controlled government began disenfranchising the minority Sunnis and were (still are) trying to force the arrest of a Sunni vice-president (Tariq al-Hashemi, the most prominent Sunni in government) as a terrorist. Feeling helpless, the minority Sunni Iraqiya boycotted the Parliament, and on December 22^nd, a wave of 16 bombings rocked Baghdad killing dozens and dozens of people. Most analysts attributed the violence to Sunni groups feeling helpless against the Iranian-supported Shiite majority. Fears of a return of all-out sectarian violence seemed to be well-founded.

But even in the Western world, the notion of majority-parties using their power to dominate if not destroy their opponents is alive and well. In Hungary, “the ruling [right of center] Fidesz Party has used its two-thirds majority to tighten its grip on the news media and the courts, redraw parliamentary districts in its favor and pack the constitutional court with supporters. On Jan. 1, a new ‘majoritarian’ Constitution written and ratified by Fidesz takes hold.

“Democracy here is dying not with a single giant blow but with many small cuts, critics say, through the legal processes of Parliament that add up to a slow-motion coup. And in its drift toward authoritarian government, aided by popular disaffection with political gridlock and a public focused mainly on economic hardship, Hungary stands as a potentially troubling bellwether for other, struggling Eastern European countries with weak traditions of democratic government.

“To mounting criticism from the European Union and the United States, Fidesz is racing to use its supermajority in Parliament to pass a flurry of legislation before the new Constitution takes effect, a push that critics say will consolidate overwhelming power with [Prime Minister Viktor] Orban [pictured above left], a political veteran who got his start opposing Communist rule as it waned in the late 1980s.” New York Times, December 21^st.

The subtext in all of this is a push-pull between an almost-knee-jerk pull to the right when bad times hit hard and the negative feelings in the Hungarian electorate as the Fidesz party has to implement the harsh austerity measures it agreed to in the recent reconfiguration of the Eurozone economies under Germany’s “leadership.” You can expect Fidesz to shoulder much of the blame when belt-tightening gets personal, and you can also expect other forms of disruption among the other former Eastern Bloc nations as they struggle with austerity and democracy. And it is my fear that the majority of Americans would, if allowed, impose their will on the minority, banning free speech and religion and allowing the indefinite detention (without trial) of US citizens charged in certain terrorist activities… ooops, we seem to have passed the latter. Let’s see whether our Bill of Rights in our Constitution is still valid.

I’m Peter Dekom, and I approve this message.