Theories of Democracy: Part I

Of these theories, majoritarianism seems the nearest to the idea of direct democracy. The majority rule principle, stated simply, is that the course chosen by the greatest number of participating individuals is the course that prevails. In a direct democracy, the methods for achieving such a ruling would be fairly obvious and simple. In a representative democracy, majority rule is demonstrated in the popular election of representatives ( ideally, through a universal suffrage incorporating political equality), and in the subsequent decision making of those representatives, mirroring the convictions of the majority which elected them. In this way, the majoritarian model seems to satisfy the requirements of democratic government “by the people”, albeit indirectly. There must of course arise conflict in any society, and what more reasonable method of resolving it than through the un-slanted decision of majority rule? This makes good sense for a number of reasons. Foremost, as noted in the opinion of Aristotle, is the logical conclusion that the majority will, more likely than not, be right (Mayo, 174). There is also the issue just hinted at, namely, that there is feasibly no better option. Abraham Lincoln summed up this sentiment as follows:

"Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left" (Mayo, 179).

Yet another benefit of the majoritarian model is its decisiveness; a majority ruling, once achieved, is the end of the matter (until the majority shifts).

There is, however, a vital condition, upon which Aristotle's aforementioned assumption, and in fact the whole theory of majoritarianism, depends. The majority (that is, the bulk of the people as a whole) must possess both educated knowledge and a sincere interest in the issues of their governance. This can be a difficult objective, and consequently, it is seldom realized on a scale the size of which would imply legitimacy for the majoritarian principle. In the United States, one of the world's most vocal champions of democracy, current research has concluded that less than of quarter of the national public stays reasonably informed in matters of government (Janda, et al, 41). Such a society does not provide fertile ground for the cultivation of a political theory which places the final say in matters of public interest with the people.

Another condition of the majoritarian model is a strongly centralized government (Janda, et al, 45). This, obviously, is because the process of obtaining a broad-based majority ruling on any policy requires much organization on the part of the authorities. A statewide referendum (popular vote on public policy) would be very difficult to achieve in a decentralized government, where planning, process, and results could easily become bogged down in bureaucratic red tape.

Though majority rule may seem the logical course for democratic government, it can cause much dissatisfaction when its results are such as to cause the opinions of the minority to be disregarded. It is here that majoritarianism gets a bit muddled with regards to faithfully adhering to democratic theory. It is the majority which is sovereign, which ultimately decides what shall and shall not be, based upon the will of the majority of the people. But this is not the same thing as the will of the people, technically speaking, for a large portion of that body (as much as 49%) may actually be opposed to the majority ruling. This, in the opinion of some, is enough to make majoritarianism a flawed interpretation of democracy. According to others, majority rule is valid insofar as it does not infringe upon the minorities' rights.