Majority Rule
Democracy is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary as:
Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them either directly or through their elected agents . . . [A] state of society characterized by nominal equality of rights and privileges.
What is left out of the dictionary definition of democracy is what is meant by “the people.” In practice, democracy is governed by its most popularly understood principle: majority rule.
The principle of majority rule has several functions. For one, it establishes a clear mechanism for democratic decision-making.
Namely, when something is voted on, the side with the most votes wins. Citizens in a democracy understand this principle whether it concerns an election, a legislative bill, a union-management agreement or a shareholder motion in a corporation. The majority vote (or in some cases a plurality of votes when there are more than two choices) decides an election or an issue.
Thus, when it is said that “the people have spoken” or the “people's will should be respected,” the people are generally expressed through their majority.
The principle of majority rule has several functions. For one, it establishes a clear mechanism for democratic decision-making. Generally, 50 percent plus one decides an issue or question. This ensures at a minimum that more people are in favor than against when decisions are made.
When elections are decided or decisions are made by slim majorities, the outcome may seem unfair to the “near-majority” on the other side. But even in the rare cases that a decision is made by just one vote (50 percent plus one), the principle of majority rule is essential to ensuring both that decisions can be made and that minority interests do not block the majority from deciding an issue or an election. Otherwise, a minority holding economic, social and political power would use that power to dominate and establish minority rule. There would no longer be democracy.
Democracy is the first form of government established based on non-violence. . . . Once the consent of the governed is achieved, the people’s acceptance of majority rule is the essential mechanism for continued peaceful governance.
A “super-majority” (either three-fifths or three-quarters) may be required to establish the consent of the governed ─ a constitution or basic principle of governance ─ and to change that consent through amendments to the fundamental law. Such a requirement strengthens the consensual foundations for governance. In general in a democracy, the broader the support within the citizenry on any decision or in any election strengthens the basis for public policy. (This is the case, for example, on issues like social security, basic infrastructure and public education.)
As a matter of general governance, however, super-majorities or consensus decision are impractical and undermine democracy if required for regular decision-making or passing legislation. Again, minority interests then prevail over the general will. There is minority rule, not majority rule.
Having a firm decision-making principle for establishing democracy is also needed to undergird democracy’s other most basic feature: a peaceful means for choosing leaders and making decisions. Democracy is the first form of government established based on non-violence. The state’s or an individual ruler’s dominant control of the means of violence (the police, army and other security agencies) does not determine who is in power or how decisions are made. Once the consent of the governed is achieved, the people’s acceptance of majority rule is the essential mechanism for continued peaceful governance.
Protection From Political Tyranny
Yet, majority rule cannot be the only expression of “supreme power” in a democracy. If so, as the French author Alexis de Tocqueville notes in the quote above, the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority in the same way a single ruler is inclined to rule. Thus, while democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it also must guarantee minority rights so that the majority cannot abuse its power to violate the rights of the people.
[W]hile democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it also must guarantee minority rights so that the majority cannot abuse its power to violate the rights of the people.
A defining characteristic of democracy is the people's right to change the majority — and the policies of government — through elections. This right is the people's supreme authority. The minority, therefore, must have the right to seek greater support among citizens in order to become the majority and must be able to exercise all the rights necessary to compete in free and fair elections.
In short, no majority can assert its rule as permanent in a democracy. Ensuring minority rights then is also a matter of self-interest. A current majority will need the same rights when it finds itself in the minority and seeks again to become a majority. This basic premise holds equally true for multiparty parliamentary democracy when no party gains a majority. A government is still formed in coalition by a majority in parliament.
Minority Rights Require Human Rights
While the American founders established a system with majority rule, like Tocqueville they worried that a ruling majority would abuse its powers to oppress minority interests. James Madison considered the danger broadly: “It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part” (The Federalist Papers, No. 51).
A defining characteristic of democracy is the people's right to change the majority . . . through elections. This right is the people's supreme authority. The minority, therefore, must have full rights to seek greater support among citizens in order to become the majority.
At first, Madison and his co-authors in The Federalist Papers initially argued that the institution of the US Constitution’s federal structure and division of powers was sufficient to thwart dominant majority interests from coming together to violate the rights of the political minority. But in the heated debates over ratification, many states approved the Constitution contingent on or with specific recommendations for adopting protections in the constitution for basic liberties — speech, assembly, association, petition, due process and others. In the first Congress, Madison thus was persuaded to draft a Bill of Rights with nineteen amendments. Twelve were approved by Congress and ten were adopted as the first amendments to the Constitution following adoption by three-quarters of the states.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen adopted in France in 1789 were even more expansive in defining citizens’ liberties (including general suffrage and the right to own a printing press). Both documents enumerate rights that may not be violated by the government and thus safeguard against political tyranny ─ in theory, if not always in practice (see also below and History).
Taking the Principle Further
The British political philosopher John Stuart Mill took the principle of minority rights further. In On Liberty, he wrote, “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others.” Otherwise, Mill warned that government would become a vehicle for the “tyranny of the majority.” He viewed the government as a threat that could stifle minority voices and impose regimentation of thought and values. Mill's “no harm principle” became a basis for much of liberal (as well as libertarian) political philosophy.
Today, democracy requires individual rights to safeguard minority rights. These are embodied, for example, in international conventions such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As democracy is understood today, the minority's rights must be protected even when a minority is alienated from the majority society; otherwise, the majority's rights lose their meaning.
Majority Tyranny: “A Constant Threat”
Yet, a half century after the United States was established, Alexis de Tocqueville saw in his travels to America that neither the US Constitution nor the Bill of Rights had solved the problem of majority tyranny. It was, he wrote, “a constant threat” to American democracy. While self-evident to Tocqueville in regard to the entrenchment of slavery in the U.S., he saw that the threat existed more generally.
Alexis de Tocqueville, in his famous work Democracy in America, described “the constant threat” that the “majority not only makes the laws, but can break them as well.” Public Domain.
During his travels that formed the basis of Democracy in America, he visited Pennsylvania, among the first in the union in 1780, to adopt a law to abolish slavery (albeit gradually). As well, the right to vote was guaranteed to “every freeman” who met qualifications of property ownership and tax status. Tocqueville, however, saw that no free Black persons (most of whom met the property and tax qualification) had come to vote in an election he was observing. When he asked why, he was told that “while free blacks had the legal right to vote, they feared the consequences of exercising it.”
Tocqueville had confronted one of the most profound challenges to the functioning of a true democracy. “The majority,” he concluded, “not only makes the laws, but can break them as well.” Soon afterwards, in a constitutional convention in 1838, Pennsylvania joined many other non-slave states to formally limit the franchise to white men.
Protecting Minority Groups in Society
What Tocqueville observed highlighted the problem of protecting minority groups in society. Throughout history, rulers have targeted minority religious, racial and ethnic or national groups for harsh repression. They have done so to protect their own interests, to protect the privileges and interests of the majority ethnic or national group, or simply out of ingrained prejudice and racist beliefs. While autocracies have been consistent in repressing minorities, there are many examples among modern democracies of majority tyranny of minority groups, including the practices of slavery and legalized discrimination.
In practice, the protection for minority groups is found ultimately in the establishment of governance based on the guarantee of equal rights inscribed in the foundational law.
How can governments protect against majority tyranny of minority groups in society?
In practice, the protection for minority groups is found ultimately in the establishment of governance based on the guarantee of equal rights inscribed in the foundational law. Guarantees of political and legal equality (such as those found in the Bill of Rights and the13th, 14th and 15th Amendments in the US Constitution or in the adoption of political equality and abolition of castes in the Constitution of India) have served to advance the rights of minority groups against majority tyranny, although this has often required long and prolonged struggle (see also History).
Today, the protection of minority rights has become a basic principle for establishing a full or real democracy and is incorporated in all democratic constitutions. It is a principle extended to racial, national, ethnic and religious minority groups as well as more recently to sexual and other minorities.
International Protection of Minority Rights
International law also protects minority rights.
The long struggle to abolish slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries made prevention of enslavement a high priority of states. The Convention to Abolish the Slave Trade and Slavery, adopted first in 1926 by the League of Nations, has been among the most important international treaties protecting minority groups. (It was updated by the United Nations and is signed by 133 states.) Slavery remains a practice, but not on any previous scale.
The 20th century saw the emergence of a term for another terrible practice of tyranny: genocide or the targeted killing of a minority ethnic, racial, religious or national group.
The 20th century saw the emergence of a term for another terrible practice of tyranny: genocide or the targeted killing of a minority ethnic, racial, religious or national group. The term emerged after World War II to describe a unique crime, the Shoah, or the systematic murder of 6 million Jews in Europe by the Nazi regime. But genocide existed prior to World War II, such as the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1916, the Holodomor (“death by hunger”) of Ukrainians in Stalin’s Soviet Union in 1932-34, as well as many instances over centuries of targeted destruction of Indigenous populations. The Nazis also attempted to carry out the genocide of other groups, such as Romani.
Protection of ethnic, religious and national groups from destruction has become the highest obligation of international law. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted after World War II in 1948, is among the most widely recognized international treaties governing the practice of nation-states.
The UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted in 1966, further defines minimum protections for minorities expected of nation-states. Article 27 asserts:
[P]ersons belonging to [ethnic, religious, or linguistic] minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language.
Other international covenants offer protections for ethnic, religious, national and cultural minorities. These include the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, (issued in 1992 by the UN General Assembly). Specific protection of Indigenous rights and recognition of their importance to democracy is found in the Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples adopted by the International Labour Organization in 1989 as well as within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The Persistence of Discrimination
Even with such protections, unfortunately the world has continued to experience many genocides, mostly in dictatorships (see History). At the same time, the issue of minority groups seeking greater freedom, equality, autonomy and protection against discrimination and unequal treatment remains at the heart of politics, protest and conflict in many parts of the world, including many democracies.
[T]he issue of minority groups seeking greater freedom, equality, autonomy, and protection against discrimination and unequal treatment remains at the heart of politics, protest and conflict in many parts of the world.
In Europe, minority communities from former colonies in northern Africa, the Middle East and Asia struggle against discrimination and the denial of equal opportunities in education, jobs and housing (see, for example, Country Study of France in Constitutional Limits). In Latin American countries, majority indigenous groups as well as descendants of enslaved Africans have long been persecuted and discriminated against for most of their countries' constitutional histories (see, for example, Country Study of Guatemala). Only recently have Indigenous communities gained greater political representation and rights (see, for example, Country Studies of Bolivia and Chile).
In democracies today, these issues are addressed mostly through nonviolent means: elections, protests, legislation, constitutional amendments, adjudication in courts, expansion of educational opportunity and efforts to protect Native lands and grant regional autonomy or specific rights and privileges to minority groups.
In some cases, minorities facing discrimination or national oppression have acted in violent protest or even taken up arms to achieve their goals. Such actions are usually less successful and often result in greater persecution, but sometimes armed revolt has resulted in achieving autonomy or independence (as in East Timor).
LGBTQ+ communities have obtained greater freedom and rights for sexual minorities in most democracies. . . . Yet, a large number of countries, mostly authoritarian regimes, still criminalize homosexuality and gender non-conformity and discriminate broadly against the LGBTQ+ community.
In the last 50 years, LGBTQ+ communities have obtained greater freedom and rights for sexual minorities in most democracies. This has been done in part through asserting constitutional protections for individual or equal rights in courts (such as the right to marry). In part, this has been achieved through specific legislation protecting LGBTQ+ communities as a minority group (such as barring discrimination in employment and public services and preventing targeted persecution by police or mob groups).
Yet, a large number of countries, mostly authoritarian regimes, still criminalize homosexuality and gender non-conformity and discriminate broadly against the LGBTQ+ community. (Freedom House has added measures of LGBTQ+ rights and equality to its survey and they are reflected in its freedom rankings.)
Minority group rights sometimes pose difficult political choices within a democracy: assimilation or integration versus preserving communities and cultures. While assimilation or integration of minority groups into the broader society offers minorities greater opportunities and political influence, this is often at the expense of practicing their cultures and beliefs. On the other hand, preserving cultures, beliefs and other practices may insulate the minority from the majority and reduce its influence within majority politics. It is not an easy balance (see, for example, Country Study of Netherlands in this section). Many countries (such as Sweden and Italy) have attempted to resolve the issue through granting broad regional autonomy to minority communities.
A Democratic Ideal
The achievement of majority rule together with respect for minority rights has been an ongoing struggle. Democracies have fallen short for much of their histories and even presently. Indeed, the word “struggle” is an understatement of what has been required to overcome majority tyranny (see also History). Over time, however, democracies have achieved a much greater respect for the rights of minority groups than non-democratic systems.
An early copy of The Roberts Rules of Order. Its rules for parliamentary and other meetings offers a democratic ideal for minority rights. Public Domain.
As noted above, achieving majority rule together with respect for minority rights is done in practice by a set of foundational rules agreed to by everyone in a political community. Yet many difficulties remain. How is the popular will determined? What are the limits of debate and speech? Should a minority sometimes be allowed to deny the majority's will? If so, when? How can minority groups be guaranteed their rights and political and social representation within a democratic framework?
As with all of the democratic principles explored on Democracy Web, there are no singular answers to such questions. They have been answered differently in many democracies (as can be seen in Democracy Web’s Country Studies). Still, Robert's Rules of Order, a standard guide for running parliamentary and other meetings and discussions, offers a concise statement of what might be considered a democratic ideal. It states:
American Parliamentary Law is built upon the principle that rights must be respected: the rights of the majority, of the minority, of individuals, of absentees, and rights of all of these together.
The content on this page was last updated on .