Zakhele Mthembu | Legal Researcher | Free Market Foundation | mail me |
Modern day states are characterised by an implicit admission that everyone who is living under them, consents to be governed by them. Yet when one looks at the world, in any society, there is always a large portion of people who not only disagree with authority but actively did not consent to it by voting differently or not at all. Are the views of these people not important because they represent a minority?
When majorities rule, the minority, even if it is 49%, is overrun. This has characterised politics since the advent of the democratic order. An order, which gets its legitimacy from being endorsed by the people who will comprise it, through elections. Yet when deciding what the state that has been democratically elected ought to do, the matter is decided through a collective tyranny. Tyranny, because one could disagree with the merits of a policy or law proposed by the state yet if the majority supports it, it becomes reality.
The person who disagrees with a policy is supposedly the one who chose it. In finding justification for the inhibitions to liberty the state passes, it invokes the mandate it got from the people. South Africans ought to be aware of how ‘the people gave us a mandate’ is the rallying cry of the ruling party. Yet, if you are not one of the people who voted for the ruling party, you are still affected and governed by policies you actively resisted and voted against. You are supposed to be bound by these laws you voted against, because, well the people who passed them were chosen by you, even if they weren’t.
‘It is a democratic decision’ you will often hear people remarking. Whenever a particular government law or policy is opposed by citizens, the democratic nature of how that decision was taken is cited. One asks themselves if the decision to murder babies would be supported by most people, would it being democratically taken through majoritarianism be enough to justify it?
What happens to my rights, my freedom, to self-determine as an individual, to speak, move and trade freely when my neighbours vote in a manner I disagree with because it inhibits these rights? Does my right to self-determine stop the moment most of my neighbours decide it should be taken away?
The legally savvy will cite constitutions and various government edicts that were passed through the very same democratic system that can easily take them away, should they obtain a majority in support of doing so. Constitutions can be changed. In South Africa we ought to know this; the problems with what the ancient Greeks called demagoguery persist even in a constitutional democracy.
Every time elections come along, citizens of the various jurisdictions that litter the planet are reminded to vote and choose. Yet, in a majoritarian system of government, which is the system of democratic government all over the world, ‘choosing’ is the wrong word. If your choice is not supported by a majority of people, then it is as good as no choice. If you decide not to vote for a socialist party and all your neighbours do, your choice is overrun, and you will be governed by socialists. Replace the socialist term with capitalist and the issue is still there.
There are alternatives though to how things are currently run. There can be consensus-based democracy. Instead of majoritarianism, this form of democracy and governmental decision making will have consensus as its end. Instead of having the majority rule, we can have everyone rule and have a genuine say in the policies and laws that affect them.
So, when a majority supports a decision, the views of the minority in that issue are not overrun nor disregarded just because their ideas are not popular. Since we all live in the same reality of post-democratic decision making, it would be unjust to simply invalidate views that are not popularly held. Consensus based democracy requires that everyone’s view be considered before any decision can be taken.
This form of democracy must be accompanied by a state with minimal powers and scope. The areas affected by decisions that could be taken by such a state in people’s lives must be kept to a minimum. Therefore, the long process of taking decisions by a state in a consensus democratic system will be for important collective action that fall within the small scope of that state.
Decisions like say whether a nation should go to war or not are what should be subject to this proposed process, not decisions about how much sugar a particular drink should have, or how clean a table must be at a food restaurant. These latter decisions should fall outside the scope of the state and be left for individuals to decide as fully autonomous beings themselves.
When democracy is being touted as the panacea that cures all political problems, one should be aware of the multitudes that are trampled by it under its majoritarian form. The solution should be more liberty and a consensus based democratic system with a minimal state.
This is not to say that voting is useless, and no one should do it. Rather this is a reminder that voting under these conditions of majoritarianism is not all it is cut out to be. For true governmental justice, a change in the provisions that permit majoritarianism in our constitutional order must happen.
