Skip to main content

Moving beyond a tyranny of the majority

I really like the colour orange, and orange shirts. But what if a majority of the people in my life wanted to stop me from wearing orange, and decided to take a vote of those who were opposed to ever allowing me to wear orange again? What would I do!?

In the last post I made brief mention of the possibility that, under majority rules, decision-making could result in a tyranny of the majority. This can occur anytime there is a minority (which is pretty much possible all the time) who do not have the sufficient numbers to influence decisions under this approach (majority-based decision-making). In this scenario there is no incentive for the majority to take into account opposing views. Those who find themselves in the minority will have their needs and desires rejected, ignored, or worse, oppressed.

To put it bluntly - a group could decide it's not cool to wear orange anymore, and to put in place a law whereby anyone caught wearing orange would be imprisoned. All they would need to do is get majority support. What would stop this from happening?

This fear has been held by political theorists as far back as Aristotle, including John Stuart Mill and Edmund Burke more recently, and the architects of the American Constitution: Madison and Hamilton. Simply put: vesting complete and unequivocal decision-making power with the majority yields the very real possibility of a tyranny of the majority. Avoiding this pitfall becomes a question of balance. How do we balance the desire for democratic decision making with restraints, rules, or limits that will avoid a tyranny?

Hamilton and Madison put forward the concept of 'checks and balances', and practices such as the Electoral College, to try and mitigate against a tyranny of the majority in the United States. But are there other approaches to avoiding this challenge, when faced with a situation in which a vote is required?

In Canada the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and an unelected independent judiciary, are intended to serve this purpose. When it comes to the Charter, no group, no matter how much support they get, can infringe upon the enshrined rights of any person or group. Even if a political party wins majority support, they cannot make decisions that compromise basic rights. Groups that do find their rights have been compromised have very specific recourses for action.

If you are charged with leading a decision-making process, what recourse do you offer participants who have issues with the the process, or the ultimate outcome? Is there a feedback mechanism? Some kind of check or balance against the possibility that the majority will ignore the perspective of some specific segment of participants? These are important questions to contemplate before you launch into a decision-making process. Here are some ideas.
  1. Clear rules of engagement and decision-making - make a constitution for your group! 
  2. Have a facilitated process that ensures everyone gets a chance to speak
  3. Outline core values or principles that must align with any group decision
  4. Give those who find themselves in the minority more time for a rebuttal, or more time to give their opinion
  5. Rotate the position of chair
  6. If an issue is divided, appoint a committee with equal representation from the different perspectives or constituencies involved, and empower them with decision-making
  7. Reach out to a wider group of stakeholders to make a decision! Share your question/challenge with a wider community, and see what they think! 
What ideas and practices have you tried out to avoid a tyranny of the majority? If I was a member of your group, would I be able to keep wearing my orange shirt? 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Including rational thought in decision-making: novel idea?

The post last week brought up the idea that we need to think about what concepts and ideas are put forward in the public realm. From pop music to sports to local community events, our approach to decision-making is influenced by commonly understood cultural practices. Meaningful democratic decision-making requires that we think about the practices, ideas, and values that percolate throughout society. More specifically, when it comes to engaging a group of people to get together and go through a democratic decision-making process, practitioners need to think about how participants are being, or have been, educated. By definition, democratic decision-making is not limited to specialists. "Rule by the people" means everyone gets to participate in decision-making, even about issues where we are not experts. This does not mean, however, that democratic decision-making should be approached from a place of ignorance.  Robert Dahl  emphasized the importance of  enlight

Why democracy doesn't mean you get your way - Part 2

If you do an online search of the word "democracy", you'll come across references to things like 'majority decision-making' or 'control by a majority'. Majority decision-making, and voting, are often assumed to be key features of a democracy. However: neither voting, nor control by a majority, are necessary for democratic decision-making. This may come as a shock, but there are ways for groups of people to make decisions that do not involve voting. Voting leaves very little room for nuance, for the exploration of alternatives, or for compromise between disparate perspectives. Majority decision-making, for its part, can lead to a tyranny of the majority, the oppression of minority perspectives, the polarization of opinions, and, by definition, a portion of participants whose preferences are ignored. So what's the alternative? If you're part of a group that is empowered to make a decision on some issue (a board, community group, committ

The Problem with Voting

Voting at the polls is a cornerstone of democracy today. When we think about, and understand, democratic participation, we imagine casting some kind of vote for some kind of person or issue in some kind of election. Unfortunately, a focus on voting narrows the possibilities for democratic participation, which is really all about shared decision-making . Don't get me wrong, voting is important. It took us about 2500 years to set up voting as an actual mechanism to make decisions, and even now it's certainly not a widespread practice. The right to vote is a contested aspiration in many corners of the world, and we should support the right of each and every person to an equal voice in community decision making. However, an exclusive focus on voting carries a significant risk. The concept of democracy is an aspiration; an aspiration to share decision-making, and to enable each other, as equals, to participate in decision-making. Decision-making cannot always be achieved with