Preventing Tyranny

Preventing Tyranny " Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch."

     Under this scheme of legislation, there is no real way that any one individual or any minority group can gain power. However, there is a great possibility for a majority group to disregard the rights of a minority. And before you think that this does not concern you, take note of the following two observations:

1. Every population prediction I have seen shows that Anglos as a majority will be replaced by a more equal distribution of races by the year 2020. Meaning, there will be no majority race/ethnic group and every race/ethnic group will be a minority compared to the others.

2. Everyone is a minority in one respect or another, even now. Are you an elderly white person, then you are in danger of being discriminated against by the majority of more youthful citizens. Are you male, then you can be discriminated by the majority of the population that is female (the irony of this question is that females are the majority of the US population, yet they are the ones discriminated against). Are you rich; are you poor; do you believe in a religion different from the majority; do you have family origins that go back to a highly nationalist country; are you single, or married without children? If you answered yes to any of these, then you are part of a minority group that has been discriminated against.

     Protection of the minority from the majority is of utmost importance to everyone, because everyone is a minority in some fashion or another and is in danger of being treated unfairly.
     Since the legislative body is the most democratic of the political structures in the ideal society, it offers the greatest risk to the rights of minorities. The most important political structure to protect the individual from the mob is found, as it always has been, in the judicial and executive structures, but the Ideal Legislature, even as it stands now, does have a few safeguards of its own.

1. Since this scheme is a hybrid between representational and direct democracy, minorities can still appeal to those representational features of the system. For instance, the drafting body must first approve of a bill by a 50% vote before it is presented to the ratification body for approval. Thus, by appealing to those key legislators in the drafting body, an interest group can successfully prevent "damaging" legislation from being presented for ratification.

2. Since the drafting body will be randomly selected from the ratification body, any minority group should, statistically, have the same number of representatives in the drafting body as they make up in the population. These representatives can initiate minority-friendly legislation, though appeals must be made to the population in general before it has any chance of being ratified.

3. The interest groups are given free access to present their side of the issue before any bill is ratified. And those who are voting on the bill will at least need to access the appeals before being allowed to place their vote.

4. Every 10 to 20 years, minority groups have a chance to overturn any legislation which they view to be discriminatory to their people. Or, if enough people vote "disapprove conditionally," the drafting body can be forced into modifying the law to be presented again.

     There is one other safe-guard that I think would be prudent in case all else fails, and that would be approval of the specific groups targeted in the legislation.
     Before a certain group could be considered the "targeted group", it would have to be referenced in the legislation in some way and have restrictions being placed upon it. Now, if the legislation effects everyone in the same manner, as good legislation should, this would not be an issue. But on the devisive issues where there is usually some majority group trying to impose restrictions upon some minority, the law would have to pass as usual, but also be passed by 50% of those voters who can be demonstrated as being part of the "targeted group".
     Now there are many ways that the majority could get around this aspect of the Ideal Legislature. The majority could work the wording of the bill to have a devastating, but indirect impact upon the minority in question, or the bill could be worked so that it impacts two opposing minorities. Or, if the minority group is heavily discriminated against, its members could fear being identified with the group and so will not be heard during ratification. Or you could have majority members "posing" as a member of the minority to get around this.
     There are also technical problems with allowing this in the scheme, and that is its impact upon legitimate legislation. The main issue is with managing criminal activity. Should murderers be allowed to block legislation which affects them? Of course, there are many cases where criminals should not be allowed to block legislation which would prevent their criminal activity. But we must not make this objection a blanket disqualification, because there has always been a tendency to turn our prejudices into law, and thus, criminalizing some minority.
     One example is the sodomy law that was passed out of prejudice against gay people, so their opinion would not matter in passing laws against them because they would be "criminals". And how about the laws which used to exist against inter-racial marriages, or even more barbaric, laws which made escaped slaves outlaws. So, several generations ago, escaped slaves would not have a voice in any legislation that impacted on them. We begin to see quickly that the label of "criminal" is not always justly applied.
     For these reasons, this check on majority tyranny is going to need the input of another body: a body which is not responsible to the people, but is responsible to the ideals of the people as expressed in its Constitution. Of course, I am referencing the judicial body. Their role in this check on tyranny would be to identify which, if any, group(s) are being impacted more than the whole, how members of the group(s) are to be identified, and whether the group's votes should be considered separately during ratification.
     The details of this are discussed more thoroughly in the Ideal Judicial Body section.

Send your comments by clicking here.*
Back a Page

* I will place your comments and any responses in the category which seems most appropriate. Your message, if it addresses multiple issues, may be placed in more than one category. I will e-mail you with the page(s) your comments appear. Please be patient, all e-mail received will be addressed.
7/4/97

1.	Every population prediction I have seen shows that Anglos as a majority will be replaced by a more equal distribution of races by the year 2020. Meaning, there will be no majority race/ethnic group and every race/ethnic group will be a minority compared to the others.
2.	Everyone is a minority in one respect or another, even now. Are you an elderly white person, then you are in danger of being discriminated against by the majority of more youthful citizens. Are you male, then you can be discriminated by the majority of the population that is female (the irony of this question is that females are the majority of the US population, yet they are the ones discriminated against). Are you rich; are you poor; do you believe in a religion different from the majority; do you have family origins that go back to a highly nationalist country; are you single, or married without children? If you answered yes to any of these, then you are part of a minority group that has been discriminated against.

1.	Since this scheme is a hybrid between representational and direct democracy, minorities can still appeal to those representational features of the system. For instance, the drafting body must first approve of a bill by a 50% vote before it is presented to the ratification body for approval. Thus, by appealing to those key legislators in the drafting body, an interest group can successfully prevent "damaging" legislation from being presented for ratification.
2.	Since the drafting body will be randomly selected from the ratification body, any minority group should, statistically, have the same number of representatives in the drafting body as they make up in the population. These representatives can initiate minority-friendly legislation, though appeals must be made to the population in general before it has any chance of being ratified.
3.	The interest groups are given free access to present their side of the issue before any bill is ratified. And those who are voting on the bill will at least need to access the appeals before being allowed to place their vote.
4.	Every 10 to 20 years, minority groups have a chance to overturn any legislation which they view to be discriminatory to their people. Or, if enough people vote "disapprove conditionally," the drafting body can be forced into modifying the law to be presented again.