The foundation of majoritarian governance and the claim of defending the inalienable rights of minorities are two contradictory concepts, and only the noise of their supposed unity can be heard. The proponents of democracy believe that these two elements can coexist; however, their accumulation and balance are impossible within this majoritarian form of government. It is akin to mixing oil with water. Majority rule serves as a mechanism to organize majoritarian governance and make self-interested decisions regarding specific party issues and pressure groups.
On the other hand, minorities do not have guaranteed fundamental rights due to their ethnicity, religious beliefs, geographic situation, income level, or just as losers and cheated in elections, and their rights are always denied; While the slogans of these ambitious governments are to provide minorities with their rights and defend them and their identity. Among the fundamental rights that are apparently defended in democratic governments are freedom of religion and belief and freedom of speech, during legal procedures, and the right to have equal rights in the protection of the law and to have the right to oppose or fully participate in the social life of one’s community. All these are baseless claims and pure propaganda.
Proponents of democracy know that defending the rights of minorities in order to preserve their cultural identity, social customs, inner and individual feelings and religious activities is one of their primary duties, but accepting ethnic and cultural minorities, who are considered alien or a strange tribe In the eyes of the majority of the society, is one of the biggest challenges that democratic governments face, and the governments that operate under the title of democracy see them as a threatening challenge.
Majoritarian spokesmen often try to describe and present opposing minorities as a separate and isolated part of the people and the dominant majority; In order to explain this separation, the special attitudes and special decisions of the minorities, which are upon their belief and character, are made big and contradictory and they highlight them in the eyes of the public and the nation so that they can find a chance from this invisible trap to remove the minorities from the government seats and government positions.
Perhaps this reason seems a bit more justified and acceptable that the personal and special interests of the minorities are in conflict with the interests of the existing majority of the majoritarian society and they do not go In the same atmosphere, but this small but willing stratum is ignored and from the amount The inalienable right to be deprived of constitutional and political rights or citizenship rights like other citizens and to be subjected to legal oppression is a separate issue that can be researched and investigated, and neglecting this means trampling on the rights of others.
Equating the will of the people with the will of the majority may be a justification for limiting the political rights of minorities, but those who are in the minority on a particular Issue or usually consider themselves entitled to remind the rest of society that they are also part of the people. They are from the same water and soil.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau puts forward the position of minorities in relation to the democratic principle more clearly than anyone else: “However, it may be asked how a man can be both free and forced to obey wills that are not his own? How can the dissenting minority be both free and subject to laws that does not agree with?” The short and clear answer to this question is that the minorities cannot do anything and their hands are not tied anywhere. Minorities do not rule themselves, but the majority rules them. This topic is so wide that Rousseau starts his discussion with it and lays the foundation of his work.
It Is difficult to find the way out of this bottleneck and put the puzzle together and form a single picture of it. As Locke proposed In justifying majority rule: society “becomes a single and unified body when it takes one direction.” Society can be much more diverse than it was In John Locke’s time, when religious obedience was absolutely necessary for citizenship; Because every society has common laws and policies, despite the widespread tensions between minorities and majorities, on which everyone agrees and accepts them; For example: basic issues such as which side of the road to drive or more important issues such as the death penalty.
When there is no general agreement, according to the principle of democracy, issues should be arranged and resolved according to the will or desires of the majority; Therefore, one of the problems of democratic systems is still determining the rights of minorities. However, if a society is divided In such a way that It contains several permanent and existing minority groups, and those minorities know for sure that they will never be able to deal with the issues they care about because of the principle of the majority; Then this majoritarian principle will be ineffective. In fact, the presence of ever-present minorities whose wishes, hopes, and even principles are regularly ignored or violated in collective decision-making processes, easily prevents majoritarian democracy from working and becomes an obstacle to Its progress and growth.
Therefore, there are valid reasons to reject identifying the anomalies of democracy with the unconditional principle of majoritarian rule. People cannot be equated with only a majority of them; Accordingly, it is not possible to consider “the government of the people” as equivalent to the government of the majority and therefore the representatives of that majority. Minority groups are also a part of the people, and as much as possible, their interests, opinions and beliefs should be taken into account in the policy-making and decision-making process. Of course, this is not always possible In liberal democracy systems. It is not always possible to reach an agreement; Therefore, they have to choose the option that they think is the most acceptable among completely different policies. In any case, It is only the conspiracy of the behind-the-scene policymakers who impose their will on others in the name of democracy and majority. In addition, today by the help of the media and through the portrayal made by the owners and influencers of the triangle of power, wealth and media, in practice, democratic processes work in favor of choosing and giving priority to the will of the majority, and the media can accept it In the name of acceptance by the majority to the society or beyond , It will give an approach and direction to the political tastes of the mass of people, according to the wishes and desires of the owners of the capitalist system. Therefore, this presupposition in democratic politics is completely crude that only the majority governments has the right to decide on all issues, Which majority has the necessary authority to make a decision? Is a question that should always be repeated.
By admin2
