

Democracy is hard - peteforde
http://hackertourism.com/post/39268902391/democracy-is-hard

======
lkrubner
The best interpretation of this type of dispute comes from the Federalist
Papers #10, written in the (about-to-be) USA by James Madison in 1787. I'll
paraphrase it here, but a lot gets lost in simplifications and it might be
best to just read it:

<http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm>

"Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous
citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and
personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good
is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too
often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the
minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing
majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no
foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they
are in some degree true."

He makes the point that it is difficult to combine both majority rule with a
reasonable protection of minority rights, and he references other writings
that argued that previous democracies had failed because a too permanent
majority eventually encroached the rights of the minority to such a degree
that the minority became a supporter of any agent or movement that might
improve their situation, a situation that could only be improved by ending the
rule of the infringing majority.

Madison then made the argument (wholly novel at the time) that a large and
diverse nation was better suited to majority rule than a small and homogenous
nation, for a large and diverse nation would be less likely to have a
permanent majority.

The ruling majority usually has the greatest respect for the rights of
minority factions only when that majority is about to lose its majority
status, and therefore perpetual changes in the majority is the best way of
keeping alive a wide spread respect for minority rights (that is, if everyone
can reasonably expect to be in the minority at some point during their life,
then everyone will be more likely to respect minority rights).

Some people read #10 and seem to think that Madison is arguing that people
should not engage in factions (that protest movements are bad for the nation)
however he sets that aside very early in the essay:

"There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by
removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects. There are again
two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the
liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every
citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests. It could
never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the
disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which
it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which
is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be
to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it
imparts to fire its destructive agency. The second expedient is as
impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man
continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions
will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his
self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on
each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach
themselves."

That is to say, faction is natural and can not be eliminated from a free
society. The only question is how to channel it in constructive ways.

Over the last 3 centuries most Western nations have experimented with majority
rule combined with various restraints. Some societies achieved reasonable
compromises of majority rule plus some protections for those in the minority.
The biggest failures of the model have been in those cases where some groups
were able to see themselves as holding a permanent majority, and most of these
failures have had to do with race. The writer of the linked article seems
aware of this, although they do not explicitly mention it.

------
lizzard
I hope this helps to bring more attention to the hunger strike and to First
Nations issues!

------
hingisundhorsa
Uhm, democracy is hard? The article doesn't seem to substantiate this.

~~~
peteforde
Hard: inconvenient, expensive, embarrassing at times. It takes a long time and
lots of people have to compromise.

------
getone
democracy blows. no rights are guaranteed in it's nature. tyranny of the
uninformed majority

~~~
batgaijin
would you rather live under ruthlessly intelligent fascism?

I think democracy is pretty great actually. I think we just screwed up
requiring arguing from some sort of moral-free first principles.

~~~
getone
saying democracy doesn't obviously doesn't mean I'd desire something worse.
What gave you that idea?

A pure democracy is a joke. A Republic was a fine idea, but the US has done a
really poor job of understanding the notion of a sovereign citizen (as opposed
to whatever king .. er president is in power)

