‘Tyranny of the majority’
A democracy is to be free from tyranny. It engages the majority and ideally, it is utilitarian by nature. A democracy exalts ‘equality’, ‘justice’, and through that, the ‘maximum happiness for the maximum number.’ But one of the pitfalls of having a democracy is the ‘tyranny of the majority’.
I think John Stuart Mill’s writings can explain the sentiment of an electorate that has voted too close to call a majority government. There is a strong correlation with the majority (in the House) being perceived as a tyranny and a minority govt that appears to have an equitable balance of power.
I shall mull upon ON LIBERTY, and survey on the milestone political events/major policies that have caused a change in voters’ sentiments in three democracies, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia, to understand and explain a hung parliament. In the analysis of the events and policies, I shall examine the key stakeholders involved in the decision-making to determine the interests and political power, and their association with the broadly used and often abused term of ‘ the majority’. Are such decisions truly utilitarian? Are these policy undertakings detrimental to the welfare of the ‘majority’? Finally, are elections effective in calibrating the health of a democracy? Does it bring a nation and its society closer to what we presume as ‘perfect liberty’?
Psephology sounds tempting.
No trackbacks yet.