Majority Rule Is the Right Response to Resolving Disagreements in Society - Outline Example

Introduction Democracy is defined as a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them either directly or indirectly by their elected agents. However in practice democracy is governed by its most popularly understood principle of majority rule. That is the side with the most sides wins whether it is an election, a legislative bill, a contract proposal to a union or a shareholder motion during incorporation. Therefore when it is said that the people have decided it is the majority decision (Web, N.d). Government is an institution majorly formed to create stable society for the people that it governs. The people are however a complex group with widely varying wishes, needs and ideas as such the government must always turn to majority rule. The government cannot in anyway please everyone all the time. It must focus on making most of the people happy in order to gain stability faster (Web, N.d). Right is conformance with justice, law or morality. It is fair and effective. Rights can also be defined as entitlements to perform certain actions, or to be certain in states or entitlements that others perform certain actions. They dominate modern understandings of what actions are permissible and which institutions are just. They structure the form of governments, content of laws, and distribution of freedom and authority. Thus to accept a set of rights is same as to approve a distribution of freedom and authority and hence to endorse a certain view of what may, must and must not be done (Wenar, 2010). Many theorists agree that A’s claim-right gives B a second order reason not to act on some first order reason. To go by this route we would need to tamper the conclusiveness of the conclusive reasons implied by assertions of rights to accommodate the fact that some rights have priority against others, and if any, few rights outweigh absolutely all non-right considerations in all circumstances (Wenar, 2010).This paper will focus mainly on the principle of majority rule and the rights of the minority. The main arguments are that majority rule is the right response to resolving agreements and supermajority rule is a better response to resolving disagreements in the society. Majority rule is right to resolving disagreements because it provides utility and fairness. Utilitarian argument The principle of utility states that in any circumstance that action ought to be done and that institution ought to obtain all the alternatives available, produces the greatest net balance of happiness over unhappiness when we sum up all happiness and unhappiness over all sentient beings from now in to the future (Cohen, 2002). The main feature of utilitarian political feature is that it calls for the maximization of happiness summed over all and not any particular distribution of happiness and subject to the constraint of everyone is above a certain minimum level. Thus from this emphasis on aggregation, utilitarianism requires that we trade off the burdens on some people and benefits to other people. The utility principle reduces highly contested and vague issues of right and wrong to problems that can actually be addressed through public methods of observation and calculation rather appeals to equally vague and contested intuitive ideas. Because of the gains in analytical tractability one may be able to secure greater public agreement about what is at stake in a political dispute and how to resolve it. Hence this principle represents one way to treat people as moral equals and it assigns the happiness of each affected party equal weight in determining what ought to be done. In actual sense the principle of utility represents a refinement of the intuitive idea that conduct and policy are right just in case they have the overall consequences or best results (Cohen, 2002). Egalitarian argument Egalitarian view that equality is the special sense of comparative equality but the prioritarian view that equality has nothing to do with justice is also wrong. However there are at least four different aspects which show that justice and equality are closely connected with each other. According to prioritarians equality is important as a by-product for the fulfillment of absolute standards. Relational equality is one aspect is one aspect of justice among others and thus one needs rational equality in order to yield legal equality, equality of chances or antidiscrimination laws. Equality is indispensable in being a joint starting point with regard to political autonomy, social membership or liberty of exchange (Gordon, 2010). Tyranny of Majority When the majority oppresses the minority by their decisions which could be harmful and wrong sometimes is called the tyranny of majority. According to Mill’s religious review, man is free unless he harms others. Individuals are free and rational enough to choose any religion they want. However government should interfere when it is for the protection of the society. Mill states that 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 (Mill, 2011). Majority rule is effective to resolving disagreements because there is greater anonymity, neutrality and should structure out a deliberative process. Anonymity and Neutrality argument Anonymity and neutrality are expressions of the ideal of formal justice. Anonymity and neutrality should count decisively in favor of a voting procedure only if one can never imagine circumstances in which influence should be different among voters. Hence satisfying anonymity and neutrality to justifying a voting rule thus a good decision rule is majority rule. One can therefore argue on grounds of economy that although it would be better to more finely the voting rules to their particular domains of argument, in the absence of time to do that, mistakes are minimized by adopting a rule that in all cases satisfies at least the general requirements of fairness. It can also be argued that satisfying anonymity and neutrality guarantees that the outcomes will be fair. Satisfying these virtues ensure fairness if nothing else and not intended to ensure anything else (Brennan & Lomasky, 1989). Majority rule has however failed in several occasions. There is ultimate denial of minority rights. This has been experienced mostly in the 20th and 21st centuries. Nazi Germany perpetrated the holocaust which killed six million Jewish and a significant portion of Roma. This was mainly to do away with unwanted groups. The most recent one is that of the Russian federation which waged a brutal war against its own republic of Chechnya. Deliberative justice It is very clear that a modern democracy in Africa in the sense of rule of, by, and for the people requires that a modern democracy in requires that it be developed by the people and engaged in through a highly deliberative process. In order to sustain a meaningful modern democracy, even if the majority decides the minority must be respected. Majority rule should structure out a deliberative process whereby deliberative process is procedurally fair and effective (Web, N.d). In this case a decision is always made by the decision of the majority. Majority rule is effective to resolving disagreements. Taking an example of World Trade Organization most of the decisions made to resolve the trade disagreements is always made by a majority vote. This ensures that every member state’s interest is included in the decision made (Wenar, 2010). Other responses to resolve disagreements Deliberative democracy It strengthens citizen voices in governance by including all races, classes, ages and geographies in deliberations that actually affect public decisions. This approach has become common because most democracies recognize that usual formats for decision-making often waste public resources, create unproductive conflict, and fail to tap citizen potential. This form of resolving disputes is majorly used in North America, Western Europe and many other parts of the world (Cohen, 2002). Public deliberation results in better policies, superior public education, and increased public relations. Dryzek and List argue that deliberation can prevent cycling of situations through generating ideal conditionality of impartiality, rationality and knowledge. With impartiality, rationality and knowledge, decisions reached are considered more moral through deducing epistemicallyc trust and reduced conflict when policy moves to implementation (Web, N.d). Supermajority rule Deliberative democracy encourages a sort of supermajority rule. Supermajority protects minorities from the mob rule or tyranny of majority. Encourages minoritarianism where minority groups adopt primacy over decision making process. Hence it increases protection of minority through consensus. Supermajority is mostly used by countries to resolve their political disputes. In a case whereby during an election process a candidate cannot be appointed by absolute majority simple majority is the only method that can be used to elect the new leader. Conclusion Majority rule is right to resolving disagreements because it provides greatest utility and fairness. However in some instances majority rule can impose in total equality and increase in total utility. Majority rule is effective to resolving disagreements because there is greater anonymity, neutrality and should structure out a deliberative process. However it fails to measure preferences equally and assumes conditionality. Democracy is said to be the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time. This is a dangerous assumption but is vital to maintaining a stable society. Hence if the government tries to please the will of minority against the will of the majority an overwhelming sort of violence or protest would ensue. In the end the only sure way of government to create a stable society is by acknowledging majority opinion. Bibliography Brennan, G., & Lomasky, L. E. (1989). Politics and process. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, J. (2002). Liberty And Equality In Hedonistic Utilitarianism. Retrieved April 16, 2010, from http://www.thelearningvault.com/courses/Political_Science_2/Justice_8/Lecture_Notes_33/Liberty_And_Equality_I Gordon, J. S. (2010). Moral Egalitarianism. Retrieved April 16, 2011, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-eg/ Mill, J. S. (2011). Utilitarianism. New York: MobileReference. Web, N. D. (N.d). Majority Rule/Minority Rights: Essential Principles. Retrieved April 16, 2011, from http://www.democracyweb.org/majority/principles.php Wenar, L. (2010). Rights. Retrieved April 16, 2011, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/ Read More