Topics Justice

Question Hi! Firstly, I'm sorry about my poor English. It's not my first language but I hope you can understand my question. Thanks. About Democracy. We know a government can't be democratic unless its laws are confirmed by majority of people. On the other hand, we know the majority can't force the society the oppressive laws. Is not that a paradox?! And what is the line which limit the majority?! For example: in a Muslim country, the majority may want all women dress veil. Does not it mean an oppression to some women who don't like veils?!On the other hand, in that society, if the law lets women dress or not dress veil, can such a law be democratic although it's not confirmed by the majority?! Please note my question is not only about veil in a Muslim society, it's about democracy and its way about such situations. When and where the democracy can ignore the majority will without losing its democratic nature?!

Accepted:
July 15, 2011

Comments

This problem, of the "tyrrany of the majority", is a very old one in political theory, and it is also one of the major practical problems every democracy must negotiate.

Theoretically and historically, its solution lies in the emergence of what are sometimes called "liberal democracies". The term "liberal", in this usage, is not as opposed to "conservative" but rather concerns "liberties", that is, rights that each citizen has and that serve to protect his or her interests from the majority. In the United States, for example, these rights included those enshrined in the first ten amendments to our constitution, which are collectively known as the Bill of Rights. The first of these reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Exactly what this language prohibits is controversial, of course, but note how it acts as a limit on the will of the majority. Congress here is the representative, law-making body, so what the first amendment says is that the majority cannot make certain kinds of laws, e.g., laws "abridging the freedom of speech", however much they may want to do so.

This idea, which one of course finds in other countries too, of balancing majority rule with rights that restrict its scope, is really quite brilliant. But of course it leaves lots of questions open. For example, in the United States, we might ask: Is a Muslim woman's wearing a veil an "exercise" of religion, in the sense of the first amendment? Would Congress be permitted to make a law prohibiting the wearing of such veils, as in France? These are difficult issues. But, in general, I hope this makes it clear how the question you asked can be answered.