Inpolitical science,minoritarianism (orminorityism) is aneologism for apolitical structure or process in which aminority group of a population has a certain degree of primacy in that population'sdecision making,[1][2] withlegislative power orjudicial power being held or controlled by a minority group rather thana majority that is representative of the population.
Minoritarianism is most often applied disparagingly to processes in which a minority is able to block legislative changes in the presence ofsupermajority threshold requirements.[citation needed] For example, if a two-thirds majority vote in favor is required to enact a new law, an opposing minority of greater than one-third is said to have "minoritarian" powers.
Even in the case where minority control is nominally limited to blocking the majority withveto power (whether as a result of a supermajority requirement orconsensus decision-making), this may result in the situation where the minority retains effective control over the group's agenda and the nature of the proposals submitted to the group, as the majority would be disinclined to propose ideas that they know the minority would veto.
Critics of this use ofminoritarianism argue that the ability to block legislation is substantially different from the ability to enact new legislation against the will of the majority, making the analogy to unpopular "dominant minority rule" examples inappropriate.
Minoritarianism is sometimes used to describe rule by adominant minority such as anethnic group delineated byreligion,language, or some other identifying factor.
Minoritarianism may also be used to describe some cases where appeasement ofminorities byvotebank politics is practiced. Examples include but are not limited to, Indian Muslims[3] and Francophone Canadians.
Supermajority decision threshold requirements are often found in small deliberative groups where these requirements are sometimes adopted in an attempt to increase protection of varied interests within the group. The requirements may be formally stated or may be unstated (for example, when an organization is described as having a "consensus culture").
A common criticism ofconsensus decision-making is that it can lead to a situation wherein a minority can block the will of the majority. Consensus advocates argue that this is a good feature—thatno action is preferable to one without the consensus support of the group.
Attempts to resolve the dilemma through formal supermajority standards are generally discouraged by parliamentary authorities:
Some people have mistakenly assumed that the higher the vote required to take an action, the greater the protection of the members. Instead the opposite is true. Whenever a vote of more than a majority is required to take an action, control is taken from the majority and given to the minority. ... The higher the vote required, the smaller the minority to which control passes.
—from "The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure" byAlice Sturgis[4]
Adominant minority, also calledelite dominance, is a minority group that wieldspolitical,economic, orcultural dominance in acountry, despite representing only a subset of the overall population (ademographicminority).[citation needed] Dominant minorities are also known asalien elites if they are recent immigrants.[citation needed]
The term is most commonly used to refer to anethnic group which is defined alongracial,national,religious,cultural ortribal lines and that holds a disproportionate amount of power.
 | The examples and perspective in this sectiondeal primarily with Africa and Asia and do not represent aworldwide view of the subject. You mayimprove this section, discuss the issue on thetalk page, or create a new section, as appropriate.(February 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Christians inSierra Leone are an example of minoritarianism. As of 2020, they make up 21% of its population compared to 78%Muslims.
TheTutsi inRwanda from 1884 to 1959 exerted minoritarian rule over theHutu population.
From 1965 to 1979, the government ofRhodesia (later renamedZimbabwe) was controlled by a white minority. During this period, Black Rhodesians faced institutional discrimination and had limited rights compared to their White counterparts.
South Africa was ruled by theapartheid regime from 1948 to 1994, whereinWhite South Africans (especiallyAfrikaners) wielded predominant control of the country although they were never more than 22% of the population. All non-white South Africans were subject to segregation and discriminatory laws, resulting in disparities in quality of life.[5]
InLiberia,African American-descended nationals (known as Americo-Liberians) settled in Liberia during the 19th century. Americo-Liberians were culturally disconnected from native Liberians, preferring Western-style wear, American food, Protestantism, and the English language.[6] They formed an elite that ruled as a de facto one-party state under theTrue Whig Party (TWP). The1980 Liberian coup d'état overthrew the TWP administration, ending Americo-Liberian minoritarian rule.[citation needed]
During theImperial period of Chinese history, China experienced minoritarian rule in two separate instances. TheYuan dynasty was founded byMongols, and ruled over the majority-Han population of China from 1271 to 1368.[7]
TheQing dynasty took power of China in 1644 and ruled until 1912; this dynasty was formed byManchus. Han Chinese were forced to assimilate to Manchu customs under the policy ofTifayifu, which demanded the Han people wear Manchu-syle clothing, and adopt thequeue hairstyle.[8][9]
Sunni Arabs inBa'athist Iraq, theAlawite minority inBa'athist Syria, have also been cited as 20th-century and early-21st-century examples.[citation needed]
Non Hindu minorities inIndia have been seen as examples of minoritarianism as the Indian constitution enshrines special rights for religious minorities including cultural and economic rights underArticle 30 and 31A that are denied to the Hindu majority. The minority also enjoys exemption from laws of the land like theRight to Education act.