Legitimate Form of Government - Essay Example

Thoreau questions the power of the majority stating that the decision of the majority does not necessarily ensure superior wit or justice. In the same way, it will be a fallacy if anyone thinks that individual choices are inferior to the decision of the majority. Regardless of the utmost virtue, governmental decisions are often subjected to the interest of majority groups. Thoreau was influenced by the social conditions in which slavery had been the major characteristic. Yet his convictions are of great relevance today as modern democracies like the United States, the UK, and India have been testing this ‘game of right and wrong’ (voting) for decades. The political settlements in these multicultural nations have become a sort of ‘betting’ as Thoreau envisaged because representation is inevitable, perhaps the sole strategy for minority groups to negotiate their privileges with the majority. It is believed that democratic representation will help control the majority by promoting a win-win atmosphere.  Moreover, important decisions could only be taken after detailed discussion and debate.  Minority groups are given chances to achieve their goals and to limit the interests of other groups as well. 

In contrast, though minority groups and other weaker sections are given constitutional backup for proportional representation in legislation, justice has always been left to the choice of the majority.  Thoreau suggests that people should not allow the government to weaken their conscience. He also states that if anyone holds back one’s conscience in favor of the law, the person is badly serving the state. Moreover, the power of the majority might curtail the freedom and rights of other communities. Therefore, he believes that a wise man can not leave the right to the mercy of chance. Leaving justice to the choice of the majority is a highly irresponsible act that can bring ultimate adversity. 

People usually elect representatives who would advocate their common interests. However, as we know, representatives are often criticized for not keeping their campaign promises. In addition, the legislation they pass may not necessarily protect the real virtue. The Abortion Act UK (1967) can be the best example in this context. Since the enforcement of the law, the number of abortions has increased at an alarming rate. It shows how an immoral practice can be justified by the choice of the majority. When abortion is counted as a matter of women’s autonomy, the right of the fetus to survive has conveniently been ignored. This is what Thoreau commented as ‘giving a slight moral tinge’ to justify the unethical choices. To what extent representatives are liable to represent the wishes of the electorates is relative. Since there is no unanimous opinion on any political issue, it is difficult to assume that government can define the exact parameters of morality and justice.