Tyranny of the majority vs. tyranny of the minority

[Deus Naturae]

This is something I've been thinking about for awhile. On the one hand, majoritarianism can lead to collectivism, oppression of minorities, suppression of individuals, etc. At the same time, minoritarianism (is that even a term?) can lead to government that benefits a select group at the expense of whole population, oppression of the entire population (because the minoritarian government is not accountable to anyone except the ruling minority), and in general is unlikely to consider the rights and interests of the People.

What do you think?

[Goldwater]

In either case, it's tyranny, so does it even matter?

[TNF]

Tyranny of the minority has been the human experience since the dawn of civilization. The threat of 'tyranny' by the majority has been an excuse for continued minoritarian rule since the dawn of industrial capitalism. Of course the record of actual societies in which the majority were in control, be they the Paris Commune or Revolutionary Catalonia, speaks otherwise about what a true majoritarian society would look like.

[DC Al Fine]

Tyranny of the minority. The minority at least has an unruly populace keeping it in line. Tyranny of the majority can stomp all over anyone.

[Randy Bobandy]

In either case, it's tyranny, so does it even matter?

Seems like a legit answer.

[TDAS04]

Both types of tyranny are awful, and have been problems throughout history.

If you're a utilitarian, you would probably consider tyranny against the minority to be preferable, since fewer individuals experience oppression, but I'm not really a utilitarian.

Tyranny of the minority. The minority at least has an unruly populace keeping it in line. Tyranny of the majority can stomp all over anyone.

I might agree with this, if it's arguing that tyranny against the minority is worse.  The majority is often in a stronger position to oppress, and thus be more dangerous.

[TNF]

What if we were being oppressed because we voted in the oppressors? Is that not tyranny of the majority?

The oppressors may legitimate themselves via the vote after the fact but they almost never come to power that way. In the U.S., for example, the "Founding Fathers" orchestrated a coup in implementing the Constitution through rampant electoral fraud, bribery of state legislatures, and deliberately misleading the public. They then promptly held elections to legitimize that coup, but it was still a coup.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Tyranny of the minority.  Tyranny of the majority makes genocide a lot easier.

[TNF]

Tyranny of the minority.  Tyranny of the majority makes genocide a lot easier.

Funny how genocide has only been carried out thus far by minoritarian regimes.

[DC Al Fine]

Tyranny of the minority.  Tyranny of the majority makes genocide a lot easier.

Funny how genocide has only been carried out thus far by minoritarian regimes.

Bro do you even history?

[Cassius]

Tyranny of the minority.  Tyranny of the majority makes genocide a lot easier.

Funny how genocide has only been carried out thus far by minoritarian regimes.

Bro do you even history?

I think that he's actually right, from a certain perspective. I mean if we think of a few prominent examples of genocide (the Holocaust, Rwanda etc) I doubt that the majority wished for genocide to be carried out; rather, although the majority probably did have some ill-will towards the people who ended up being the victims of genocide, it was only the militant minority (genuine Nazis, Hutu extremists) who actually pushed this into full-blown genocide. So, yes, TNF is right to some extent. However, where I would argue that the tyranny of the majority vs tyranny of the minority argument is a rather false spectrum to put in place. After all, I cannot think of a historical example where decisions were taken that a majority of people were completely happy with.

Consider - a far less extreme example than genocide - the current coalition government in the UK, the constituent parties of which obtained roughly 59 percent of the vote in the general election that led to it's formation. Superficially (and it is indeed upon this superficial, and yet necessary basis that modern democracy works upon), those voters endorsed, to some extent, the government's formation. However, that, practically, is nonsense, as many voters would not have supported the formation of said government, indeed, many of the voters wouldn't neccessarily have whole-heartedly agreed with the policies put forward by those parties individually. Rather, they voted for them because they were the best option on the table.

This is not to disparage the democratic process - after all, none of us can find a political party that we agree with upon every individual detail. However, it shows, to a certain extent, how the idea of majority rule is flawed in practicality. Consider, another example, the various governments that have been elected to office in the United Kingdom since the 1930's. None have won a popular vote majority (though some have come close) and even then, as I have said before, not all of the voters that voted for each party would have been whole-heartedly content with what those parties did in power. Furthermore, it's not as if most of those voters had a more than peripheral (through the blunt instruments of polls and of course the ballot box) influence over what got done. In recent times, the ability to pass bills into law has depended upon the support of 326 men and women in the commons, and a slightly higher number in the lords. Thus, stripping things down to their most basic level, less than 1,000 people have been governing the UK in recent years (and considering that the majority of important decisions are taken in cabinet, a smaller grouping still, it is actually far less than that).

I guess my point, to put it in plainer terms, is that majority rule - actual majority rule - is a wild fantasy that will never be achieved. The best that can be hoped for is the adamant support of a minority and the, to put it crudely, acquiescence of most of the rest. The idea of majority rule in modern society is completely infeasible, because it can only work in very small groups where there are only a limited range of viewpoints and outlooks upon life. It cannot be transplanted into a situation where most people will never meet each other (like the UK, a country of over 60 million people). In modern cases where majority rule has been attempted, the 'majority' usually tends to be a sizeable and radical minority (usually one that was previously 'oppressed') who are able to shout down other voices and then train their fire upon the minority who previously held the reigns of power. Think of Zimbabwe. Not that the Smith regime was neccessarily good, but, on the other hand 'majority rule' simply brought in the tyranny of the radical bits of the Shona minority (and this tyranny quickly degenerated into the tyranny of the Mugabe clique). Majority rule is impossible, and always collapses into minority rule.

Thus, minority rule is the only way to go.

[courts]

Tyranny of the minority has been the human experience since the dawn of civilization. The threat of 'tyranny' by the majority has been an excuse for continued minoritarian rule since the dawn of industrial capitalism. Of course the record of actual societies in which the majority were in control, be they the Paris Commune or Revolutionary Catalonia, speaks otherwise about what a true majoritarian society would look like.

let's be honest here, a lot of this comes down to culture and your own interests. a transsexual would do OK in iran probably, ironically enough... but most gay/bi people would obviously take living in 1970s iraq to iran or a lot of the other comparatively more 'free and democratic' parts of the mideast (e.g. libya) now. of course there's other examples but i picked one that has particular relevance to a lot of the forum.

[Sol]

Tyranny of the minority.  Tyranny of the majority makes genocide a lot easier.

Funny how genocide has only been carried out thus far by minoritarian regimes.

Idk, but Rwanda for instance had a lot of participation by the masses

[Mechaman]

ITT is a dumb debate.

You can come up with pretty good examples of either that disprove the other in five minutes.  I rather take the position that tyranny sucks.

However, if the debate is between democracy and oligarchy, the former is preferable any day of the week.

[angus]

majority. 

Good faith in the good nature of humanity leads us to the conclusion that most people will do what's right.  In that case, majority should rule.

On the other hand, assuming that most people are assholes who can be bought will lead us to the conclusion that democracy can lead to bad laws.

In the first case, majority is clearly preferable to minority.  In the second case, majority is also preferable to minority, because either the majority will not naturally control the resources and therefore allowing its rule will ensure a more equitable economic balance, or because the majority already does control the resources and, humanity being self-serving, those resources will be put to good use.

In either case, majority tyranny is preferable to minority tyranny.

[Antonio the Sixth]

How in the universe can tyranny of a minority possibly be better than tyranny of majority? Any person who claims that is either someone with pre-Enlightenment political values or an utter illiterate (Cassius aside, probably the latter).

[TNF]

How in the universe can tyranny of a minority possibly be better than tyranny of majority? Any person who claims that is either someone with pre-Enlightenment political values or an utter illiterate (Cassius aside, probably the latter).

Tyranny of the minority is Enlightenment thinking. The masses are too dumb to govern themselves, hence why they must elect "representatives" to do all the thinking and legislating for them. (And this is a system we call 'majority rule', despite all evidence to the contrary!)

[k-onmmunist]

tyranny of the proletariat

[ElectionsGuy]

Tyranny of the majority because only a fraction of the population would be victims instead of most.