Minority Rules

I have previously written that Democracy is often summed up with the two-word mantra, “Majority Rules” -- a vote has been or will be taken, and all will have to abide by the outcome of the vote, the expression of the will of the majority of voters. The majority will “rule” or reign supreme. I also wrote that the real challenge for the USA (which I now realize is a “republic” rather than a “democracy”) is protecting the minority from the unbridled expression of the will of the majority.

Recently, the world has been swept with news of protests and demonstrations. Abroad, notable demonstrations have taken place in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Tunisia, along with various other countries. In the United States, the most publicized demonstrations have taken place in Wisconsin and Ohio. In the United States, demonstrators are to a certain extent protected by Federal law -- though there are still limits as to what is allowed. In the rest of the world, some of these demonstrators have been killed.

With demonstrations, protests, and similar gatherings, there is no way to clearly know whether you are dealing with the “majority” or the “minority” -- though probably MOST demonstrations and protests, at least in the USA, involve less than half the population, or even less than half the voting population, so in some sense would be considered the “minority”. SOMETIMES there are demonstrations and protests by people specifically opposed to the outcome of a vote that has already taken place. In this case, I would say the protesters almost certainly must be labeled the “minority” (unless there are allegations of actual fraud in the vote).

In the case of people demonstrating against the outcome of a fair, valid vote that has already taken place, the demonstrators (the “minority”) can be viewed as seeking to impose THEIR will upon the “majority”, who have already voted against the demonstrators. This is complicated and troubling.

One problem lies with the fact that demonstrators often seem to believe their passion and/or their numbers and/or their volume are an indication of the correctness of their position. I see little evidence that this is true. This is not to say that loud, passionate demonstrators are incorrect -- I just fail to see any relationship between passion and “correctness” or “goodness”. Passionately-supported ideas are not necessarily “good” ideas, just as the majority is not necessarily “right”.

Still, to a certain extent, our society defines “right” and “wrong”, at least in terms of political issues, according to the will of the majority, within the limits of protecting the minority. Whatever or whomever wins the election is “right”. If I had it in my power to secretly change the results of an election, so that all of the candidates and issues favored by ME prevailed, this would be “wrong” -- no matter HOW convinced I was that my candidates and issues were better than the OTHER candidates. (In fact, this would be an interesting personality question: “If you had it in your power to secretly change the outcome of a vote, WOULD you change it?”)

We COULD change our entire system, with questions decided by an old-fashioned “applause meter”. The candidate who gets the loudest applause “wins” the election. In a way, this is what demonstrators are advocating. It is also, in a way, the opposite of our current system, in which theoretically the quietest, weakest, poorest person has exactly the same number of votes as the loudest, strongest, richest person. (Granted, this is THEORETICAL. The loud and the strong and the rich already have greater power in making decisions in our country.)

I must emphasize that this is a complicated topic, and each situation is unique. The “majority” is not necessarily truly right. Demonstrations and protests are not always geared toward subverting the will of the majority. Often their relationship to the will of the majority is unclear, and, sometimes, they serve a valuable function. Still, there is often an element of “might makes right”, which is precisely what some demonstrators claim to be arguing AGAINST.

Truth is complicated.