 | This articlepossibly containsoriginal research. Pleaseimprove it byverifying the claims made and addinginline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.(September 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Majoritarianism is apolitical philosophy orideology with an agenda asserting that amajority, whether based on areligion,language,social class, or othercategory of the population, is entitled to a certain degree of primacy in society, and has the right to make decisions that affect the society. This traditional view has come under growing criticism, andliberal democracies have increasingly included constraints on what theparliamentary majority can do, in order to protect citizens' fundamental rights.[1] Majoritarianism should not be confused withelectoral systems that give seats to candidates with only aplurality of votes. Although such systems are sometimes called majoritarian systems, they use plurality, not majority, to set winners. Some electoral systems, such asinstant-runoff voting, are most often majoritarian – winners are most often determined by having majority of the votes that are being counted – but not always. Aparliament that gives lawmaking power to any group that holds a majority of seats may be called amajoritarian parliament. Such is the case in theParliament of the United Kingdom and theParliament of Saudi Arabia and many other chambers of power.
Under a democratic majoritarianpolitical structure, the majority would not exclude any minority from future participation in the democratic process. Majoritarianism is sometimespejoratively referred to by its opponents as "ochlocracy" or "tyranny of the majority". Majoritarianism is often referred to asmajority rule, which may refer to a majorityclassruling over a minority class, while not referring to the decision process calledmajority rule. Majority rule is a belief that the majority community should be able to rule a country in whichever way it wants. However, due to active dis-empowerment of the minority or minorities, in many cases what is claimed as the majority with the right to rule is only a minority of the voters.
Advocates of majoritarianism argue that majority decision making is intrinsically democratic and that any restriction on majority decision making is intrinsically undemocratic. If democracy is restricted by aconstitution that cannot be changed by a simple majority decision, then yesterday's majority is being given more weight than today's. If it is restricted by some small group, such asaristocrats, judges, priests, soldiers, or philosophers, then society becomes anoligarchy. The only restriction acceptable in a majoritarian system is that a current majority has no right to prevent a different majority emerging in the future; this could happen, for example, if a minority persuades enough of the majority to change its position. In particular, a majority cannot exclude a minority from future participation in the democratic process. Majoritarianism does not prohibit a decision being made by representatives as long as this decision is made via majority rule, as it can be altered at any time by any different majority emerging in the future.
One critique of majoritarianism is that systems withoutsupermajority requirements for changing the rules for voting can be shown to likely be unstable.[2] Among other critiques of majoritarianism is that most decisions in fact take place not by majority rule, but by plurality, unless thevoting system purposefully channels votes for candidates or options in such a way as to guarantee a majority, such as is done underContingent voting, two-round voting andInstant-runoff voting.[3] According toGibbard’s theorem andArrow's paradox, it is not possible to have avoting system with more than two options that retains adherence to both certain "fairness" criteria and rational decision-making criteria.[3][4]
Unchecked majoritarianism may threaten the rights of minority groups.[5] Some democracies have tried to resolve this by requiringsupermajority support to enact changes to basic rights. For example, in the United States, the rights tofreedom of speech andfreedom of religion are written into theConstitution, meaning it would take more than a simple majority of the members of Congress to repeal the rights.[6] This actually empowers a minority and makes it stronger than the majority. Other democracies have sought to address threats to minority rights by adopting proportional voting systems that guarantee at least some seats in their national legislatures to minority political factions. Examples include New Zealand, wheremixed-member proportional voting is used, and Australia, where asingle transferable vote system is used.[7][8] Whether these methods have succeeded in protecting minority interests, or have gone too far, remains a matter for debate.[9]
Majoritarianism, as a concept of government, branches out into several forms. The classic form includesunicameralism and aunitary state. Qualified majoritarianism is a more inclusionary form, with degrees of decentralization and federalism. Integrative majoritarianism incorporates several institutions to preserve minority groups and foster moderate political parties.[10]
There are relatively few instances of large-scale majority rule in recorded history, most notably the majoritarian system ofAthenian democracy and otherancient Greekcity-states. However, some argue that none of those Greek city-states were truly majority rule, particularly due to their exclusion of women, non-landowners, and slaves from decision-making processes. Most of the famous ancient philosophers staunchly opposed majoritarianism, because decisions based on the will of the uneducated and uninformed 'masses' are not necessarily wise or just.Plato is a prime example with hisRepublic, which describes a societal model based on a tripartite class structure. Anarchist anthropologistDavid Graeber offers a reason as to why majority democratic government is so scarce in the historical record. "Majority democracy, we might say, can only emerge when two factors coincide: 1. a feeling that people should have equal say in making group decisions, and 2. a coercive apparatus capable of enforcing those decisions." Graeber argues that those two factors almost never meet: "Where egalitarian societies exist, it is also usually considered wrong to impose systematic coercion. Where a machinery of coercion did exist, it did not even occur to those wielding it that they were enforcing any sort of popular will."[11]
Majoritarianism (as a theory), similar to democracy, has often been used as a pretext by sizable or aggressive minorities to politically oppress other smaller (or civically inactive) minorities, or even sometimes a civically inactive majority (seeRichard Nixon's reference to the "Silent Majority" that he asserted supported his policies). This agenda is most frequently encountered in the realm of religion: In essentially allWestern nations, for instance,Christmas Day—and in some countries, other important dates in theChristian year as well—are recognized as legal holidays; plus a particular denomination may be designated as thestate religion and receive financial backing from the government (examples include theChurch of England inEngland and theLutheran Church in theScandinavian countries). Virtually all countries also have one or more official languages, often to the exclusion of some minority group or groups within that country who do not speak the language or languages so designated. In most cases, those decisions have not been made using a majoritarianreferendum, and even in the rare case when a referendum has been used, a new majority is not allowed to emerge at any time and repeal it.
| This section has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.[12]... In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.
— Alexis de Tocqueville,Democracy in America, Volume I, Chapter XV (1835)
In recent times—especially beginning in the 1960s—some forms of majoritarianism have been countered byliberal reformers in many countries.[clarification needed] In the 1963 caseAbington School District v. Schempp, theUnited States Supreme Court declared that school-ledprayer in the nation'spublic schools was unconstitutional, and since then many localities have sought to limit, or even prohibit, religious displays on public property.[clarification needed] The movement toward greater consideration for the rights of minorities within a society is often referred to aspluralism.[clarification needed] This has provoked a backlash from some advocates of majoritarianism, who lament theBalkanization of society they claim has resulted from the gains made by themulticulturalism; these concerns were articulated in a 1972 book,The Dispossessed Majority, written byWilmot Robertson. In turn, supporters of multiculturalism have accused majoritarians ofracism andxenophobia.[citation needed]
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)