Majoritarianism

Majoritarianism is the advocacy of the idea that the majority of the population should have the final say in determining the outcome of public policy (e.g., there is a movement aimed at making the English language not only the national language of the United States but the only language used in public). There are, of course, various ways of “slicing up” the population that would give different identities to the majority.

Majoritarianism must be distinguished from majority rule. In a political system that operates through majority rule, the ultimate power on matters of public policy resides with the vote cast by more than half of those eligible to vote. The majority of those eligible to vote is not identical with the majority of residents in a country. It is conceivable that the views of the majority of the population may be expressed in some instances by other institutional arrangements or persons designated to speak on behalf of the majority.

From the time of classical Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle down through the 18th century, including the founders of the United States such as James Madison, majoritarianism has had a pejorative connotation. It was routinely presumed that the majority of the population was constituted by the poor and the ignorant. It was also presumed that the majority, when given the power and opportunity to do so, would tyrannize over any and all minorities. The latter view was of great concern in the 19th century to J. S. Mill and Alexis Tocqueville, the latter of whom coined the phrase tyranny of the majority.

Starting in the 18th century, majoritarianism began to acquire a positive connotation. To begin with, it was argued that any individual or group less than the majority was also capable of tyranny. The classical view that only some individuals had the intellectual and [Page 1312]moral virtue that enabled them to determine the common good as opposed to the interests of a particular faction was challenged by the Enlightenment view expressed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and others that through proper education everyone is capable of making that kind of decision.

There are four important issues raised by majoritarianism. First, is the purpose of majority rule a negative formality to block tyranny by one faction or is it a positive way of arriving at an objective social truth? That is, is the social good a set of procedural norms for protecting the independent interests of individuals (Madison) or is there a social good that substantively encompasses all individual goods (Rousseau's “General Will”)? Second, can the interests or rights of minorities (including individuals) be protected through formal legal and political structures (e.g., a constitution) or can they be protected only through some shared cultural values at some other level? Third, is majoritarianism a concept that applies only on the political level or does it permeate every institution? For example, should religious organizations have authoritarian structures or should they have democratic structures? Is the purpose of a business firm to produce a product or service that is ultimately profitable to shareholders or should a firm be organized to give voice to all stakeholders? Should these decisions be left to the individual institutions or should they be made democratically by society as a whole? There are paradoxes connected with voting as noted by Kenneth Arrow. Finally, do the terms majority and minority capture some important conceptual distinction or are they merely a political rhetoric?

...