Democracy & tyranny?

Question

If democracy defined as the majority voice is the winner , can it be considered as another type of tyranny ? And if you all the voters happen to vote the wrong thing would we do it ?

Answer 1

The way it's handled in many countries, the only impact the citizens have is going to vote every few years, but that's not really what the word "democracy" originally meant.
It was supposed to be the rule of the common people, not the few with the money and influence, which is what we really have.
Democracy should not be the tyranny of the majority, either, but that is hard to avoid in certain circumstances. If a decision can only go one way, it still seems to be the best way to decide, provided the views of that majority are informed by their own thinking, not by mindlessly taking over the views of whatever media they prefer.
And in the US you can see how the 2 party system has led to
polarisation and sometimes utterly silly accusations from either side among those parties' followers, while the ones at the top decide pragmatically, and follow mainly their own interests. I do believe that proportional representation is the better system, it usually enforces changing coalitions and gives minority interests a bigger chance.
About the majority voting for the wrong thing - that's where the constitution comes in, it usually needs at least a 2/3 majority to change and prevents the worst excesses of "tyranny" of the majority.

Answer 2

In theory, pure democracy is indeed "mob rule"--what the majority wants the majority gets.
This can become a form of tyranny, if the majority (or a couple of minority groups working together) vote to restrict the freedoms or liberties of another minority group.

The majority can even vote to have a dictator make all the decisions for them and give up their own power; in that case the only way they have of taking it back is to revolt.

The problem with pure democracy is this: just because a majority of people want something doesn't make it right.

Answer 3

Democracy is the least bad political system we have (compared to oligarchy, theocracy, technocracy, autocracy, etc)

You only need to read a few texts by notable politicians, military leaders and philosophers to realise it's far, far from perfect

The last quote by Shaw can be directly applied to the British Labour Party following their 1997 election. They were, by virtue of their landslide victory, the most democratic since WWII, yet with 179 more seats than all other parties combined, they were able to steamroll some pretty questionable policies into law. Even the scores of rebels who voted against their own party were safely ignored


"Democracy is necessarily despotism, as it establishes an executive power contrary to the general will; all being able to decide against one whose opinion may differ, the will of all is therefore not that of all: which is contradictory and opposite to liberty." - Immanuel Kant,
Perpetual Peace, II, 1795.


"Let the people think they govern and they will be governed." -
William Penn, 1644 - 1718, Some Fruits of Solitude, I, 67. (1693, 1.337.)

"Republican despotism is more fertile in acts of tyranny, because everyone has a hand in it." - Napoleon I, Maxims, 1804-1815.

DEMOCRACY: "... any democracy will destroy liberty when the 'have-nots' discover that they can raid the public treasury for handouts, by electing political scoundrels who promise 'free' benefits from government, thus destroying freedom." - Robert Charlton, FREEDOM MAGAZINE, Spring 74.

"... even if we accept, as the basic tenet of true democracy, that one moron is as good as one genius, is it necessary to go one step farther and hold that two morons are better than one genius?" - Leo Szilard,
The Voice of the Dolphins, 36.

"Envy is the basis of democracy." - Bertrand Russell, The Conquest of Happiness, VI, 1930.

"A democracy is a state which recognises the subjection of the minority to the majority, that is, an organisation for the systematic use of violence by one class against the other, by one part of the population against another." - Lenin, The State and the Revolution, 1917.

"All modes of government are failures. Despotism is unjust to
everybody, including the despot, who was probably made for better things. Oligarchies are unjust to the many, and ochlocracies (government by the masses) are unjust to the few. High hopes were once formed of democracy; but democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people." - Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man
Under Socialism, 1891.

"I hold with Adolf Hitler that our political democracy is a lie...
There is no antithesis between authoritarian government and democracy. All government is authoritarian; and the more democratic a government is, the more authoritative it is; for with the people behind it, it can push its authority further than any Tsar or foreign despot dare do." - George Bernhard Shaw, Letter to The New Republic, April 14th.,
1937

Answer 4

No. Democracy isn't defined SOLELY as majority rule. The majority must also recognize the the minority voice still has rights. One might notice that, under the combination of George W Bush as president and a Republican Congress, the minority voice had virtually no rights what-so-ever. If they could have simply voted to eject all the Democrats from their respective offices, they would have. Now that we (barely) have a Democrat-controled Congress, all this does is restore the balance of power. Because the pendulum isn't yet swinging the other way, no actual progress can be made. And because Bush is evil, the only way to create any progress is to remove him from office.

Answer 5

Good point. In a Democracy, people can vote for tyranny. Not on purpose, but that is how Germany elected fascist Adolf Hitler. He called himself Socialist but had actually thrown all Commusnists Socialists and Democrats out of the Party. The German people really didn't realize what they had done until it was too late, having given government huge power.

An explanation by a judge at the Nuremburg Trials:

"There was a fever over the land. A fever of disgrace, of indignity, of hunger. We had a democracy, yes, but it was torn by elements within. Above all, there was fear. Fear of today, fear of tomorrow, fear of our neighbors, and fear of ourselves. Only when you understand that - can you understand what Hitler meant to us. Because he said to us: 'Lift your heads! Be proud to be German! There are devils among us. Communists, Liberals, Jews, Gypsies! Once these devils will be destroyed, your misery will be destroyed.' It was the old, old story of the sacrifical lamb. What about those of us who knew better? We who knew the words were lies and worse than lies? Why did we sit silent? Why did we take part? Because we loved our country! What difference does it make if a few political extremists lose their rights? What difference does it make if a few racial minorities lose their rights? It is only a passing phase. It is only a stage we are going through. It will be discarded sooner or later. Hitler himself will be discarded... sooner or later. The country is in danger. We will march out of the shadows. We will go forward."

Answer 6

Democracy openly invites demagoguery. There is a reason why democracies historically fail within a hundred years.

A republic is something wholly different, until the representatives make a career out of politics. Add polls and bribing voters and the system falls apart in about a century as well.

Answer 7

Most of the voters do have it wrong, but that is better than letting a dictator have dictatorial powers. Come on, open up a history book, and see what happens when the government is allowed to have those powers. They always attempt to enslave their people.

in a democracy (that doesn't have secrecy in government), the people have the power, and they would not let the government take control over their lives (unless of course, they were scared into giving up their freedoms, with, say...TERRORISM, or some other "promulgate threat" (kissinger)

Answer 8

We don't have a Democracy in the USA. We have a Representative Constitutional Republic.

If 99.9999999% of the population demanded that we nuke Canada, even though a majority of the people wanted it, the leaders don't have to do it. This is because they are in to represent the interests of the American people, and sometimes the best decisions aren't the most popular ones.

Tyranny is an abuse of power.