Democracy and the values it promotes have become the cornerstone of modern society. The main principle of this model dictates that people must wield actual power over their nation in order to ensure that their interests are considered taken into account. At the same time, the distribution of this power remains a topical issue across the globe, including developed countries. This matter has been an area of intense interest for researchers and philosophers for several centuries. Prevention of tyranny is the primary objective of democracy, as it inevitably entails the oppression of certain social groups. Nevertheless, this phenomenon has many forms, and the majority tyranny can cause even more dire complications than the tyranny of the government. Based on classical writings, which correctly predicted the development of democracy, this essay argues that, if the majority dictates the nation’s policy, there is an increased risk of minority group oppression.
The issue of tyranny has been a major concern in the context of democracy, as it contradicts its basic values. This phenomenon takes effect when the power becomes concentrated in one hands or within a small group, which pursues its own interests at the expense of others. The principle of separation of power aims at preventing tyranny by introducing a system of checks and balances. It endows each branch of the government with the right to oversee the authority to oversee the work of others, thus maintaining transparent and unbiased policymaking. This way, the system is expected to protect the interests of the people through a limited, yet equal distribution of power. Nevertheless, society itself is a multi-layered structure, according to a variety of aspects. Today’s world is characterized by an unprecedented diversity level, which became possible due to rapid globalization, facilitating the worldwide exchange of culture and ideas. Whenever diversity is present within society, a majority group emerges, and its opinion may seriously contradict the views of the minority. In this case, the government faces a considerable challenge, as its policies must encompass the interests of all social groups.
In some cases, a nation’s leaders may choose to implement their own vision to avoid additional challenges. In other words, the interests and views of a small group of policymakers are imposed on the entire society, thus creating a tyranny. Mill (1869) examined this issue in this seminal writing on the nature of tyranny and social liberty. As global history suggests, tyranny is not a recent problem, as it was observed throughout centuries, starting from Ancient Greece. In previous ages, this phenomenon was often viewed positively, being associated with strong, patriotic leaders capable of ensuring their nation’s order. Nevertheless, as history progressed, the philosophy developed, as well, introducing new, human-centered values. As personal liberty became a concept of paramount importance, democratic views prevailed in developed countries. Society came to a realization that the power of the government must be limited, and the notion of authority elections became central in this regard (Mill, 1869). Accordingly, people acquired the power to elect their policymakers, thus exercising control over the course of their countries.
However, this concept was not completely devoid of flaws, despite its apparent advantages. The basic principles of democracy allow people to elect their leaders by a majority vote. Ideally, policymakers would represent the interests of their citizens, thus eliminating any threats related to tyranny. According to Mill (1869), while democracy managed to limit the power of the government, it does imply complete self-governance. If the majority’s vote determines the nation’s policy, it does not necessarily correspond with the views of the minority groups. Even if the government’s direct power is limited through a system of checks and balances, the risk persists, as the majority has the potential to become tyrannical, as well (Mill, 1869). In this scenario, the phenomenon of social tyranny emerges, which is “more formidable than many kinds of political oppression” (Mill, 1869, p. 3). Even though there is a majority, it does not speak for each citizen of a country. Nevertheless, in the case of social tyranny, society adopts the interests and beliefs of this group and imposes them on others, as unquestionable rules.
Therefore, people who do not share these ideals feel oppressed, and the situation is aggravated by the fact that the beliefs are widely spread across society. The degree of opposition between the groups may vary, as well as the exact proportion of the majority and the minority. On the other hand, personal liberty is one of the key aspects of democracy, meaning that each person must have the right to make their own choice in accordance with their worldview. Its implementation becomes difficult if opposing opinions prevail in society and permeate the policy-making process. In this case, prevailing ideas in society will inevitably put constraints on the lives of those who represent minorities. Accordingly, their right to personal liberty will not be provided in such an environment. Even when the minority group is not large, as compared to the majority, this situation implies that the country has failed to adhere to the principle of liberty dictated by democracy.
On the other hand, while social tyranny may be a negative phenomenon, one may assume that it is not inherently worse than the tyranny of the government. The latter suggests that the opinions of people are disregarded by default, and all policies serve to meet the needs of the ruling elite. Tyrannical leaders focus on preserving their power and imposing their views on the entire nation. As mentioned prior, such an approach yielded substantial results in the past, and many tyrants secured an image of strong leaders with developed strategic thinking (Mill, 1869). Evidently, such goals were accomplished at the expense of numerous human lives and suffering, which is not acceptable in modern society. The pressure of the majority is not as violent, and, in developed countries, the lives of those who represent the minorities are not at risk.
At the same time, the idea of majority dictatorship generally corresponds with the ideas of democracy. The group, which elects the country’s leaders and determines its future policies, represents the same society. From a logical standpoint, it would be unnatural for them to promote detrimental ideas, damaging their own nation. In most cases, the majority would not endorse inherently negative policies, as these people live in the same period and location as the rest of the population. In addition, members of the majority also share contemporary values, promoting the importance of human life and integral rights. Therefore, it cannot be their objective to affect the liberty of others. If the elected policymakers carefully listen to the public’s opinion and conduct their work in accordance with the general agenda, there will be little or no chances of oppression or ostracism. If the government acts otherwise, it will compromise the basic ideas of democracy, and regular tyranny will emerge.
However, the detrimental effect of social tyranny should not be diminished, as it is a multi-faceted phenomenon capable of encompassing various aspects of people’s lives. The terms were proposed by Alexis de Tocqueville (1838) who saw the increasing power of the majority as the source of vices of democracy. According to him, social tyranny reveals itself in the United States of America, where majority voting determines the course of all branches of the government (de Tocqueville, 1838). De Tocqueville (1838) mentions that the United States legislature particularly suffered from the principle of majority sovereignty. Consequently, the nation mostly implemented short-term legislation, which focused on the immediate concerns of the majority, thus accounting for the general political instability (de Tocqueville, 1838). Such an approach limits a country’s potential to tackle long-term issues effectively. If the public does not see immediate actions taken in light of their interests, the policy-makers will soon be replaced by others. Accordingly, the government is pushed toward rapid decisions, which lack thorough examination and are potentially detrimental to the well-being of the minority.
Within the discussed paradigm, the majority group eventually gains practical omnipotence, meaning that it can unconditionally dictate its terms to the rest of the population. While social tyranny may not be as physically violent as its governmental counterpart, its controls the way society, in general, acts and reacts in all situations. De Tocqueville (1838) states that the command of the public thought is the ultimate form of tyranny. In the case of the United States and other developed democracies, the ideals of the majority are embedded in the system on all levels. If the government is elected to respond to the demands of the majority, it enacts policies, which suit this purpose. As a result, those who do not conform to such ideals remain excluded from the decision-making process. Moreover, if minorities’ rights are violated, they have few potential sources of help, as all powerful elements of the system are controlled by the majority. Consequently, people face a range of disparities, and society is likely to become discriminating.
The issue in question highlights the disadvantages of conventional democracy, as it appears impossible to encompass the interests of all groups within society, as anarchy is detrimental to the public, as well. De Tocqueville (1838) traces the problem’s origin to one of the basic principles of democratic government. According to him, a strong desire to avoid any form of the tyranny of the state shifted the balance toward the domination of the majority (de Tocqueville, 1838). Values of the 21st century promote complete equality of all people, as well as tolerance toward all views. However, these dogmas cannot be effectively imposed by policymakers if they do not align with the majority’s views. In a way, enforcement of a certain paradigm, even if it is inherently positive, can be considered a form of tyranny. Additionally, it appears difficult to alter the concept of modern democracy to a sufficient degree. Therefore, positive changes must begin within society, so that the majority dictates its will in light of the interests of the minority groups.
In conclusion, humanity has known the concept of tyranny since ancient times. Over the course of history, the views on this phenomenon have changed significantly, and modern principles of democracy resist tyranny in any form. Nevertheless, great political philosophers of the 19th century studied this political paradigm and concluded that the pursuit of liberty created another form of despotism. If the majority of the population exercises complete control over a country’s policy-making process, the minorities risk being deprived of their liberties. In order to eradicate the problem of social tyranny, the majority must adopt values, which would consider the interest of the rest of the population, thus enabling proper, inclusive democracy.
Reference List
De Tocqueville, A. (1838) Democracy in America. New York: G. Dearborn & Co.
Mill, J. S. (1869) On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts & Green.