democracy and social equality (Essay Sample)

DEMOCRACY AS A VEHICLE FOR BOTH EQUALITYAND THE RISE OF MAJORITY TYRANNY Name Subject Date When the French and Russian peasants revolted against monarchial rule in 1789 and 1917 respectively, they were not only fighting for better governance, but also agitating for fair and equitable distribution of national resources. They wanted to form a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, as a means of ensuring fair representation of all classes of people. Thus, the two revolts reflected the masses’ realization of their right to self-determination by electing leaders into public office and having a say on how they were governed. It changed the approach to public administration from “ruling” as demonstrated by kings’ absolute powers, to governance, as exemplified by the people’s power to oppose unprogressive policies. Accordingly, increased democracy promotes greater social and political equality not only by ensuring fair representation of all groups of people in government, but also by promoting progressive social reforms. At the same time, democracy encourages the rise of factions by allowing the majority to influence election outcomes and government policies. The recent election of Donald Trump as U.S. president illustrates this point because he controlled the support of the majority white voters. Accordingly, while increased democracy results in greater social and political equality, it also presents the risk of promoting the tyranny of the majority by allowing them to elect leaders and influence government policies. Democracy was one of the major political achievements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries as it changed for the better the way societies elected their leaders by abandoning the hereditary system of the monarchy and adopting elective leaderships. As John Stuart Mill writes in Principles of Political Economy, monarchs- such as in Asia- exploited peasant farmers by taxing them heavily and leaving them with what was barely enough to sustain them. Democracy gave voice to the weak and minority groups in society by providing them with the platform to participate in the election of leaders and public administration. Specifically, democracy ensured that leaders were elected into office not because of their social class or ethnic background, but because they represented the interests of the people. In France, for instance, the peasant’s revolution put in place a government that implemented land reforms by redistributing land that was originally owned by a small number of families, “the owners of the soil and rulers of the inhabitants.” At the same time, the principle of one man one vote created a fair playing ground by ensuring that the upper class does not have an advantage in electing leaders who favor them. Democracy, accordingly, made both rich and poor equal when it came to deciding on a country’s leadership. As a result, elected leaders could not afford to disregard the needs of the poor because they too had the same power as the rich. It is for this reason that democratic governments support popular policies aimed at improving the living conditions of the poor. Nevertheless, the rise of special interest groups such as farmers, manufacturers, bankers and workers unions, has led to the creation of voting blocs that have bigger influence on election outcomes than the general population. Interest groups have a big impact not only in influencing public perception about political candidates- and effectively determining their election potential- but also in government’s allocation of resources. The danger of interest groups, in this, regard, is in their ability to transform the democratic process into a vehicle for promoting the interests of the majority at the expense of the minority. For instance, leaders are compelled address the needs of the majority to ensure there reelection. This is especially the case in elections where the winner is determined by the popular vote. Even in mature democracies where there are safeguards against the creation of factions by the majority, the principles of democracy favor the most popular candidate. Still on the U.S. election, the voting patterns that secured Trump the presidency suggest that candidates are always assured of victory if they win the support of the majority voting group. In such circumstances, minority groups will be ignored because their choice of candidate does not have a significant impact on the outcome. Trump demonstrated this reasoning in his frequent attacks on immigrants and minority groups because he knew that he did not need their vote to win. He understood that he only needed the endorsement of the white society to clinch the presidency. The fact that Trump won the presidency even after making racist attacks and showing openly his dislike of immigrants, women and other minority groups, suggests that democracy is indeed a platform for rubberstamping the will of the majority. It creates a very worrying precedent in democratic societies by demonstrating that the surest way to win an election is to stand with the majority. It kills the principles of integrity and progressive policies as the yardstick for assessing and electing leaders. Trump showed that policies, character and integrity not matter. Most tragically for democracy, he showed that minority groups are inconsequential in determining the outcome of an election. In light of these views, it appears that democracy is a double-edged sword. While it gives voice to the minority by allowing them elect their preferred candidate, they do not actually have any power when they are pitied against the majority. Granted, democracy has achieved many positives such as bringing transparency into public administration by making elected leaders to be accountable to the electorate. However, transparency and accountability become an issue when they are connected to the interests of the majority. In other words, governments will only worry about accountability when it concerns the majority group’s needs, because they have the power to change the government if their needs are not met. As a result, minority groups lack the voice to push for their interests in public administration. The rise of activism in democratic societies to promote the rights of the minority further illustrates the tendency of democracy to establish pro-majority governments due to the tyranny of numbers enjoyed by majority groups. For instance, a lot of activism by human rights groups revolves around the interests of marginalized groups, such as women, immigrants, the disabled and racial minorities. John Stuart mill notes that even in democracies, there are groups, such as women, who are marginalized by being denied equal economic opportunities as women. The cause of this situation is that governments see no political capital in passing policies that benefit minority group, for the simple reason that they (minority groups) cannot determine their reelection. In contrast, governments strive to support the interests of the majority so as to remain in power. What lesson does this scenario offer? It shows that democracy is simply a means of allowing the majority to have their way. It seems, sadly, that democracy is to a large extent an exercise for the legitimization of popular tyranny, that is of imposing the interests of the majority on the minority. To expound on this point further, it would be necessary to consider a scenario where there are two groups of voters with conflicting interests, one representing the majority, the other representing the minority. Say that the minority group happens to come from low-income classes, and therefore would support increased government on welfare programs such as food stamps, free education, free healthcare, and other poverty-eradication programs. Accordingly, they will be inclined to elect leaders who support social equality policies, for instance the U.S. Democrats. If the minority has their way at the ballot, they will elect a government that will impose higher taxes on the rich to generate the required revenues to fund social welfare programs. However, higher taxes are against the self-interests of the upper-class because it takes more money from them to invest in programs that do not benefit them. For instance, rich people access healthcare through private insurance policies. Thus, they do not benefit when the government taxes them to provide universal healthcare. In fact it is for this reason that the fiercest critics of Obamacare were from the upper class and the business community. In contrast, the business community and the rich support government policies that helps them to make more money, rather than taking money from their pockets. For instance, the corporate sector support business-friendly policies such as low taxes and relaxed laws on environmental pollution. In a society where the business community and the upper class constitute a majority, they will elect leaders who support a free market economy and low taxes. Roger Buckhouse illustrates this idea by observing that classical thinkers of economic philosophy were free traders who opposed government intervention in the economy, suggesting that “the hidden hand” is sufficient to regulate the economy through the forces of demand and supply. In such a scenario, the majority would have imposed their ideologies on the whole of society, regardless the position of the minority. It is for this reason, the ability of the majority to override the interests of the minority, that democracy is considered a platform for the formation of a tyranny of the majority. The government formed by a majority is in some way a tyrant government as far as the minority is considered, because it imposes policies that are favored by the majority. In other words, the policies adopted by a majority government are not chosen because they are fair and progressive, but because they are what the majority want...