Karolina Cetera, Political and legal thoughts
Tyrania większości wg Tocqueville'a i Mill'a
Throughout the ages, people have invented many different power systems. Starting with despotism and early form of democracy, we can observe the evolution in that area. Nowadays, when most of the countries are ruled by modern democracy, even though some nations leaders brought in totalitarianism or authoritarianism, one can also observe a system called tyranny of majority.
According to the definition from the Oxford Dictionary, we can say that tyranny is a cruel and oppressive government or rule. From that we can draw a conclusion that tyranny of majority must be characterized as a system where a group of people constitutes the law and has a decisive word in the most important aspects of internal and foreign policy of a country.
The issue of tyranny of the majority was recognized by many philosophers but two of them presented the issue in the way it is understood today. Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill focused on that topic and showed it in different contexts.
Alexis de Tocqueville, French philosopher born 29th July 1805 in Verneuil-sur-Seine is best known as an author of `Democracy in America', written as an inspiration after his journeys to United States. That work is focused on sociology and political science. De Tocqueville was writing about political system he had observed in United States and relations between its citizens. His findings showed that a real power in America is kept by the majority, so one can say in it is possible to talk about tyranny of majority with respect to that country.
In his view, the power of the majority is a feature of democratic systems. De Tocqueville claims most of American constitutions were written in order to strengthen the position of the majority. He also claims that majority have a bigger influence on legislative body, because its representatives are chosen by the majority for a short period of time, so it's easy to make them do what most of the people want. When, for example, a parliament is getting its power from the voters, other executive bodies are getting weaker because decisions depend on the will of the majority. Legislative power has also its influence on judiciary, because congressmen have an possibility to choose judges.
But there is something more than just a political aspect of the power of the majority. One can also discuss a moral side of that issue which is based on a theory that many people together are wiser and can make better decision than minority or that amount of law-makers is more important than their capacity. De Tocqueville says, that he cannot agree with that theory. For him, the most important thing in every political system is justice, which has the power to find bounds of human rights. So even the wisest people can't rule the country properly, when they can't find justice solution for its problems.
It is necessary to mention, what Tocqueville thinks about majority's influence on society way of thinking. His notion is untypical - French philosopher finds United States as a country, where “there is so little independence of mind and freedom of discussion (…)”. He claims that even in Europe people are allowed to talk about their thoughts. In United States majority states what can be said or written and appoints boards of the freedom. In simple way those features are changing national character of Americans. Tocqueville believes that the more powerful majority is, the worst people appear in United States' politic. So one can assume that freedom turns people to be less reliable. What is more, he is sure, that if every people are equal, they will create only a mass, trying to chase after small pleasure. They would be equal not only because of the rights they have, but also because of thoughts. The most important thing in that “new kind of despotism” for Tocqueville is not equality, but low level of thinking that is characteristic for people from mass society. He claims, that such people, lazy in thinking, can be the best option for mastery. Foolish society is easier to be controlled. That vision is terrifying - it can be a threaten for individual liberty. Who would be able to brake turning democracy into tyranny if society is not involved into political life of nation? It is also called soft despotism, that gives people the illusion that they are the lead power, when in fact they have very little influence over their government and are controlled by them. But new despotism is not a brutal form of dictatorship. It should be defined as system which interferes to every aspect of people's life.
Alexis de Tocqueville is confident, that he wouldn't be able to allow any majority to act in an uncontrolled manner; from his viewpoint, even though tyranny of majority is a feature of democracy, it can be very dangerous for a political system of that kind. It may lead to an abuse of liberty and despotism. According to the author, even the largest group of people is not strong and wise enough to have all the power in its hands and their will to achieve that should be kept in a check as well.
As it was mentioned, another thinker considering the issue of the tyranny of majority was an English philosopher and economist, John Stuart Mill born 20th May 1806 in Pentoville, London. He is best known as originator of democratic liberalism.
In his book “On liberty” he claimed that the biggest threat for democracy may appear within itself. Mill notices that in the countries where democracy has reached the highest level of development, people create dictatorship of majority. As an example he showed a situation in France during the French Revolution, where people abolished the monarchy and changed the political system into democracy. Their ideas were by far noble, but the consequences turned out to be worst than anyone had expected leading to public executions and overall chaos. French citizens wanted to decide for themselves on matters regarding their own state, however it appeared that democracy could be even more dangerous than other systems. Main problem with that kind of power is that people, who belong to the majority may want to make a decision which won't be profitable for the members of the minority. Mill admits that such situation may also happen in a classic tyranny or parliamentary system of power, but when the majority becomes a part of hegemony, other people have fewer opportunities to avoid it.
In his view, when society becomes tyrant, it “practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression”. Mill is less afraid of penalties which can be used by government than methods using by society. Majority has power to slave a soul of each citizen and make him absolutely obedient.
John Stuart Mill claims, that the formation of the tyranny of the majority in democratic countries can't be stopped, but citizens should impose the rules, which may protect individuality. He defines such mechanism as the freedom of belief, speech, public gathering or information. He believes that an extended catalog of rights would be powerful enough to minimize a negative impact of the tyranny of the majority. What is more, people need also protection against bad influence of public opinion, using its own tyranny, to avoid being enslaved and fought by majority way of thinking.
It is clear that Mill does not oppose the democracy, but he also recognizes the fact that it should be limited by some rules. He also points out that citizens should be aware of the power of the majority, to be able to counteract before any form tyranny is introduced.
To sum up, according to the philosophers whose ideas were presented, democracy is a positive apparition when it is exercised by the people, who understand its main purpose: that it is not a system, with an uncontrolled power of the majority. A democracy by today's standards is the one which respects the rights of the minority.