Tyranny of the Majority

Tyranny of the majority is a concept that highlights a potential flaw in democratic systems, where the majority, in pursuit of its own interests, oppresses or neglects the rights and interests of minority groups. John Stuart Mill, in his 1859 book "On Liberty," argued that this kind of tyranny could be as oppressive as the rule of a despot. To overcome tyranny of the majority, various strategies and mechanisms can be employed, as illustrated in the provided examples:

  1. Centralization Excess:
    • Scenario: In a federal system, the centralized power of a federation makes decisions that should be handled at the local level. This goes against the principle of subsidiarity, which advocates that decisions should be made at the most local level possible.
    • Solution: To overcome this tyranny of the majority, several measures can be taken.
      • Concurrent Majority: Implement a concurrent majority mechanism where both the federal and local authorities must agree on certain matters to ensure that local interests are adequately represented.
      • Supermajority Rules: Require a supermajority vote for decisions that significantly affect local jurisdictions, making it harder for the majority to impose their will without considering minority interests.

Example: Consider a federal system where the majority at the federal level wants to impose a uniform policy on education for all states. This decision might neglect the unique needs and preferences of individual states. To overcome the tyranny of the majority, a concurrent majority mechanism could be established, requiring both the federal government and individual states to agree on significant education policy changes, ensuring that local interests are protected.

  1. Abandonment of Rationality:
  • Scenario: When decisions are based solely on numerical majorities without considering their correctness or excellence. In such cases, decisions may be arbitrary and not necessarily in the best interests of the society as a whole.
  • Solution: To avoid the tyranny of the majority based on irrational decisions, several steps can be taken:
    • Public Consultation: Involve the public in the decision-making process by seeking their input, which can help ensure a more rational decision-making process.
    • Technical Consulting Bodies: Establish expert panels or consulting bodies to provide informed and unbiased advice on complex issues.
    • Judicial Review: After a decision is made, it can be subjected to judicial review to ensure it complies with the rule of law and constitutional principles. Courts can declare decisions null and void if they are found to be irrational or unconstitutional.

Example: Imagine a scenario where a majority of voters support a policy that goes against scientific evidence, such as denying climate change. To overcome the tyranny of this majority, public consultations involving scientists and experts can be held to present the facts. Additionally, a legal system that allows judicial review can act as a safeguard, ensuring that decisions are rational and constitutional.

In both scenarios, the key is to introduce checks and balances that prevent the majority from imposing its will in a way that harms minority rights or results in irrational or arbitrary decisions. These mechanisms aim to strike a balance between majority rule and the protection of minority interests and the principles of rationality and fairness.

Tyranny of the Minority

The tyranny of the minority occurs when a supermajority consensus is required for a decision, and a minority, in pursuit of its own interests, oppresses or neglects the rights and interests of the majority groups.

Example: Creating an Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) area or controlling traffic where cars are not allowed, but a minority group of car owners opposes it. Though it is difficult to pass such a bill with a supermajority decision, the minority can create a blockage. Once the bill is passed, it becomes challenging to reverse.

Tyranny of Representatives

The "Tyranny of Representatives" refers to a situation in which a small percentage of elected representatives gain unchecked control over the legislative process and no longer truly represent the interests or wishes of their constituents. This phenomenon can occur in democratic systems when a combination of factors allows a minority of elected officials to wield disproportionate power.

Here's an elaboration of this concept:

In a well-functioning democracy, representatives are elected to serve the best interests of their constituents. They are expected to listen to the concerns and desires of the people they represent and make decisions that reflect the will of the majority. However, the tyranny of representatives occurs when a select group of politicians, often from a particular party or faction, consolidates power to such an extent that they can disregard the needs and preferences of their constituents.

Several factors can contribute to this situation:

  1. Gerrymandering: Manipulative drawing of electoral districts can favor one political party over others. By creating safe districts for a particular party, a minority of voters can ensure the election of their chosen representatives, leading to unaccountable officials who don't need to cater to the broader electorate.

  2. Party Polarization: When political parties become highly polarized, representatives may prioritize party loyalty over the concerns of their constituents. This can lead to policies that reflect extreme ideologies rather than the nuanced views of the population.

  3. Campaign Financing: Representatives who rely heavily on special interest groups or large donors may become beholden to these interests rather than the needs of their constituents, further undermining representation.

  4. Lack of Accountability: In some cases, representatives may face limited accountability due to factors like low voter turnout, lack of competition in elections (e.g., due to the use of terrible voting methods like FPTP), or insufficient checks and balances within the political system.

  5. Authoritarian Governance: In some instances, representatives may develop an insatiable hunger to remain in power, which can lead them to employ authoritarian methods to consolidate and maintain their control. This can involve tactics such as surveillance, disinformation campaigns, propaganda, controlling and manipulating the media to further their interests, eroding the independence of institutions and the misuse of laws to harass dissent and opposition. By manipulating information, stifling criticism, and undermining the democratic process, these representatives prioritize their own political longevity over the well-being and rights of their constituents.

When this tyranny of representatives occurs, it erodes the fundamental principles of democracy. The elected officials cease to be true representatives of the people and instead act in their own interests or those of a select few. To combat this, it is essential to implement measures such as redistricting reform, campaign finance regulations, and fostering a culture of political accountability to ensure that representatives genuinely serve the wishes of their constituents and maintain a healthy democratic system.

e.g. Pollution Paradox because of Tyranny of Representatives

The "pollution paradox" is a term used to describe a situation where special interest groups or large donors from the fossil fuel industry, who often contribute to political campaigns and lobby for their interests, may have a counterintuitive impact on environmental policy. It points to a scenario in which the very industries responsible for environmental pollution, such as the fossil fuel industry, can influence political decisions in a way that appears to run counter to environmental conservation efforts.

Here's how the pollution paradox can be connected to the tyranny of representatives:

  1. Concentration of Power: Special interest groups and large donors from the fossil fuel industry often concentrate their financial and lobbying efforts on a select group of elected officials who are sympathetic to their interests. These representatives may receive significant campaign contributions and support from these groups, which can lead to the concentration of power in the hands of a few politicians.

  2. Influence Over Decision-Making: The influence of fossil fuel interests can lead to a situation where a small group of representatives gain disproportionate control over energy and environmental policies. These representatives may prioritize the interests of the fossil fuel industry over the broader concerns of their constituents or the environment. This can result in a lack of responsiveness to the will of the people they represent.

  3. Suppression of Environmental Action: The tyranny of representatives in this context can manifest as a suppression of environmental action. Elected officials heavily influenced by fossil fuel interests may resist or delay policies aimed at reducing pollution, transitioning to clean energy sources, or addressing climate change, even when there is a broad public desire for such actions.

  4. Disconnect from Constituent Interests: In the pollution paradox, representatives may no longer serve the best interests of their constituents, who may desire cleaner and more sustainable energy solutions to combat pollution and environmental degradation. Instead, these representatives may prioritize the interests of the fossil fuel industry and their campaign donors.

The connection between the pollution paradox and the tyranny of representatives underscores the challenges that arise when powerful interest groups exert undue influence over elected officials and policy decisions.

Tyranny of Shareholders

The concept of the "tyranny of shareholders" refers to a situation in which corporations prioritize the interests of their shareholders above all other stakeholders, such as workers, suppliers, consumers, and communities. This approach to corporate governance is often associated with the doctrine of "shareholder primacy," which asserts that the primary purpose of a corporation is to generate profits and maximize shareholder value. While maximizing shareholder value is a critical aspect of corporate governance, the exclusive focus on it can lead to negative consequences for other stakeholders.

Here's an explanation of how the tyranny of shareholders works and its impact on various stakeholders:

  1. Workers: Shareholder primacy often leads to a relentless pursuit of cost-cutting measures to boost short-term profits. This can result in reduced wages, fewer benefits, job insecurity, and diminished job quality for workers. Companies may prioritize shareholder returns over fair compensation, job stability, and employee well-being, adversely affecting the livelihoods of their workforce.

  2. Suppliers: Under the pressure to maximize shareholder value, corporations may push suppliers for lower prices, sometimes to the point of unsustainability. This can harm smaller suppliers and reduce the quality of goods or services provided, ultimately impacting the supply chain's stability.

  3. Consumers: An excessive focus on shareholder value can lead to practices that prioritize short-term profit over product quality and safety. Consumers may be exposed to unsafe products or services, misleading marketing, or inadequate customer support, as the corporation prioritizes cost-cutting and profit maximization.

  4. Communities: Corporations have a significant impact on the communities where they operate. When they prioritize shareholder returns at the expense of other stakeholders, it can result in adverse consequences for communities. This may include environmental degradation, reduced corporate social responsibility initiatives, or a lack of investment in local infrastructure and economic development.

  5. Long-Term Growth and Innovation: Shareholder primacy can encourage a short-term mindset, as executives and boards focus on meeting quarterly earnings targets. This can hinder long-term investments in research, development, and innovation, which are essential for a company's sustained success and competitiveness in the global market.

An example of the tyranny of shareholders can be seen in cases where companies engage in share buybacks, which involve using corporate funds to repurchase their own shares in the stock market. While this can boost the company's stock price, it may divert resources that could have been invested in research, employee training, infrastructure improvements, or other long-term strategies.

A more balanced approach to corporate governance, considering the interests of all stakeholders, can lead to sustainable and responsible business practices that benefit society as a whole rather than just a narrow group of shareholders.

Democratic reform trilemma or trade-offs

Trade-off: a balancing of factors all of which are not attainable at the same time.

Democratic theorists have identified a trilemma due to the presence of three desirable characteristics of an ideal system of direct democracy, which are challenging to deliver all at once. These three characteristics are participation – widespread participation in the decision making process by the people affected; deliberation – a rational discussion where all major points of view are weighted according to evidence; and equality – all members of the population on whose behalf decisions are taken have an equal chance of having their views taken into account. Empirical evidence from dozens of studies suggests deliberation leads to better decision making.

How will Shivarthu's direct democracy solve the tyranny of the majority/minority?

Shivarthu

Suggestion:

Some of the voting or feedback sytem.

  1. Direct Voting by Local Citizens: This method involves directly polling local citizens.

  2. Schelling Game Decision by Users: Users make decisions using the Schelling game.

  3. Voting by Representatives Elected via Proportional Approval Voting: Representatives are elected by the people through a proportional approval voting system (Sequential Phragmén)

  4. Voting by Department Representatives with Specialized and Multidisciplinary Knowledge: Department representatives with specialized and multidisciplinary knowledge participate in the voting process.

  5. Providing More Voting Weight to Individuals Creating Positive Externalities: This approach assigns greater voting weight to individuals who generate positive externalities.

    These different methods can enhance rationality and reduce centralization excess. Double approval can be implemented using these voting methods. Additionally, a discussion forum can be created where different voters can articulate the reasons for their approval or disapproval of a decision.

    Further consideration is needed to determine when to employ a simple majority or a supermajority.