Is Democracy Really Majority Rule?

Some decry the tyranny of the majority, just as others complain that minority rights must yield to the will of the majority. Israel has its powerful, right wing, ultra-Orthodox community – exempt from military services and supported in a lifetime of religious studies by the rest of the nation. The recent election suggests that this minority’s power may be subsiding as the middle class is no longer content to carry the economic and military burden of supporting this sect.

Iraq’s Shiite majority is enjoying the new-found control they have over their Sunni minority, a smaller group that once ruled this country until their Sunni leader, Saddam Hussein, was deposed. Powerless and angry, too many Sunnis have taken to venting their rage at this Shiite control by blasting away in Shiite communities and at Shiite mosques. Alawites (the Shiite minority that is led by the brutal Assad regime) and Christians shake in fear as the Syrian Spring threatens to place a potentially vindictive Sunnis majority into power, potentially embracing the kind of intolerant fundamentalism that marks the potential of minority Taliban rule in Afghanistan.

Many Egyptians are still skeptical of their Muslim-Brotherhood-affiliated president and the constitution he seemingly railroaded to fruition. Obvious political unrest is evident everywhere. “Egyptian opposition supporters are protesting across the country on the second anniversary of the uprising that swept Hosni Mubarak from power… Police clashed with President Mohammed Morsi's opponents in Cairo, dispersing protesters outside his palace as thousands gathered in Tahrir Square.” BBC.co.uk, January 25^th. People are still dying in these protests against the government, all over Egypt.

And in the United States, we are witnessing a level of polarization that we have not seen since our devastating Civil War a century and a half ago, one that pits rural against urban values, the once white majority against a new “majority of minorities,” and a willingness of extreme politicians willing to let the country slide into economic chaos rather than succumb to compromise. Even in our gun-control battles have well-armed constituents believing that they have a right to bear arms specifically to be able to overthrow a government whose policies they oppose, even if that government represents the views of the majority. Read the Second Amendment and tell me what, pursuant to an amendment passed in an era of muskets and primitive rifles, “well regulated” means in a modern context: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Nobody seems to be paying any attention to those words or their historical context.

Non-Democratic China has used a complex centralized government to push through economic reform that has exploded the standard of living for the majority of Chinese. Highways and infrastructure have been un-democratically imposed on communities that have simply been “reassigned” to other housing. With the United States, Japan and Western Europe experiencing massive deficits, untenable debt loads, intense fractionalization and polarized political decision-making that has often left democratically-elected government frozen into inaction, unable to deal effectively with the crises that surround them, traditional Western democracy has been taking it on the chin.

Indeed, many emerging nations seem to be casting an admiring eye towards the centralized and undemocratic Chinese model. Some argue that absent educated masses, democracy cannot function. They point to the corrupt and infrastructure-impaired machinations in India and Pakistan as prime examples of this failure. Others maintain that the rapid change needed to modernize cannot be implemented in a lethargic democratic process… that harsh decisions must be made to accelerate economic progress. And there are other political scientists who question how democracy can function in countries with large populations or where there are diverse ethnic and religious differences. They are questioning the very assumption that democracy is the best form of governance for everyone.

Obviously, the risk of overly-centralized governmental control is a nasty combination of potential brutality, tyranny and massive corruption. While the above criticisms of may have validity, and democracy suddenly imposed on a feudalistic and undereducated populace might be an experiment doomed to failure, the fact remains that effective democracy does work provided that: 1. Minority rights are protected (even at the expense of majority opposition), 2. There is a trusted legal/judicial system that sufficiently allows predictable commercial transactions and a fair and just criminal justice system, and 3. The overwhelming majority of people within the system trust and cherish their form of government.

It is interesting to examine our own basis for our legal system: the United States Constitution. The notion of judicial “strict constructionism” hasn’t ever been applied across the centuries, just differing views on exactly how much interpretation is appropriate. Even the most conservative judges would find it difficult to deny the ability of the government to create and maintain the Air Force, since the constitution only gives Congress the right to raise a standing army and navy. But if strict constructionism were to be applied, that would be a necessary result. To suggest that a document with its roots in the late 1700s must be strictly applied as implemented centuries ago simply defies logic and the rather clear intention of our forefathers to create a viable and flexible form of government built to endure through the ages.

In his personal correspondence, Thomas Jefferson opined that a viable constitution has a useful life of about nineteen years, and that each generation should have the ability to amend and update that cherished document. Unfortunately, Jefferson signed off on a constitution that is hideously difficult to amend, with concomitant plusses and minuses. The plusses are the sustainability of the protection of individual rights even at the expense of majority opposition. The minuses reflect decisions made in a very different era, where communications and general modernity were profoundly absent from that society.

In the end, we are either going to have to find a way to make that constitutional form of government work for us, to accept the necessity of compromise as the ultimate democratic solution, or watch this country unravel and splinter into the obvious factions that are digging in their heels, left, right and center. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Abraham Lincoln, June 17, 1858. Those unwilling to embrace compromise are effectively voting to end the great American democratic experiment.

I’m Peter Dekom, and I am indeed puzzled why so many Americans believe that they can stop change and keep this country together.