Tyranny in a Democracy

The Tyranny of the Majority in a Democracy

I. An Overview of the Socio-Political Condition of the Nineteenth Century

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), a political and social thinker of the nineteenth century wrote one of his several classics, On Liberty. It was the genre when social injustices are more predominant than politically motivated inequality. It is a genre that uses democracy as mere facade to project that there exist freedom and justice. This was basically what Mill tried to change by initiating reforms. In his lifetime most significantly upon his father's death and following the demise of his wife, Mill pushes for transforming the society through the influence of his writings and works.

He was most notable for three dramatic events that capitalize on transforming the social structure of Britain. The first of which was Mill's attempt to revise the 1867 Reform Bill. He was for the use of the word "person" in replace of "men" in the text to extend the right to women on the issue of suffrage. He was for the idea of suffrage for all, including women. It was for this purpose that Mill was known to advocate the equality in all aspect of life most practically endorsing the equality of gender. From which he draws his inspiration to write one of his most acclaimed works, The Subjection of Women. Following this controversial move that pushes for extending equal rights to women, Mill spearheaded the Jamaican Committee in a pursuit to prosecute Governor Eyre for imposing Martial Law after the black's uprising.

On his various works he emphasize on the value of what appears in the society rather than focus on metaphysical or the a priori concepts or disposition. Amongst his controversial principles would focus on the concept of justice. In his work, On Liberty, Mill talks about civil and social liberty. Specifically, this book addresses the nature and limitations of power that can rightfully exercised by the society to any of its individual members. It was in this book that Mill highlighted the principle on harm. The given principle recounts that individuals are free to act as they please. No one has the right to regulate his or her action, provided that his action or inaction does not result to harming others.

II. The Harm Principle

"...that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

- J.S. Mill, On Liberty (Chapter 1)

To understand the principle of harm it is best to study the precepts that made the author theorize on the premise of how power can rightly be executed. Mill identifies the role of the society in creating social injustice and how the government despite the practice of democracy failed to protect the minority from injustice.

As per the observation of Mill he carefully takes note of the history of struggle experienced in the midst of the rulers and his subjects. He made an assertion that comparing to political tyranny, the social counterpart of which is more treacherous. He phrased this as the "tyranny of the majority." From Mill's point of view the government is composed of the ruling majority, from which certain standards and norms are being discreetly practiced and drafted into law. The tyranny is expressed with the enforcement of these laws which sympathizes the ruling class.

In this respect it can viewed as the regulation of conduct that prohibits and supports actions only deemed as righteous by those identified elite (majority). Mill counters this by saying that such practice is treacherous in a sense that is taken as self-justifying and self-serving.

Mill suggests that a state is rightfully called honourable and moral if it provides its people with assurance that their basic and inalienable rights are defended and if the state would interfere less with the affairs of its people. The threat lays with the fact that the state is composed of people who cast their decisions base on the precepts of the majority. Therefore, the majority is likely to oppress the minority.

This can argument can be rectified by the law and opinion on homosexual marriage. Despite the growing in numbers of homosexuals in a global perspective, they are still out-numbered by those who practice relationships with the opposite gender. Hence, despite the clamour to allow the binding or union of two person of the same sex, this is still strictly objected by the majority. Under this premise, the freedom to exercise one's own free will in a democratic nation has already been bridged. This would suggest that even in a democracy, there is a justified proof for inequality and lack of freedom.

The concept of paternalism exists when the ruling majority finds something in the minority worth objecting. Their objection will be translated into the promulgation of a law or a policy that would restrict the minority with the majority exercising their political power to exclude or discriminate the minority. In addition, this can also be exercised when the majority identifies the minority's practices as dangerous and harmful. The majority may pass laws prohibiting or banning the exercise of such practices regardless of religious or cultural justifications to support this way.

A. The Definition of the Harm Principle

To safeguard against the tyranny of the majority Mill developed a theory. According to Mill, a democratic form of government does not warrant the people are actually protected from oppression. He argues that in order to be protected from this form of oppression, there must be a premise that would serve as a basis for legislature to be enacted. This principle would be utilized to restrict the government.

For Mill, there are two types of action that people can execute.

The first involves action that harms other people, not including the person doing the action and the second are actions that do not harm other people. Given this understanding, Mill defends that for a civil society to exist, the government must construct its law that would punish any act causing the harm of another person. However, this seems to have excluded actions that pose no harm to others regardless if the action harms the individual doing the act.

In other words Mill was trying to stress the purpose for punishment and the realm of power vested into a state to interfere with freedom or liberty of action is for self-protection. Mill stresses that an individual is bound by his moral ascendency of not causing harm to other