Throughout the course of history, the multiple facets that make up a democracy both as an ideal and in practice- have

been the source of perpetual debate: primarily over their effectiveness, their efficiency, their long-term viability, and their adherence to some fundamental and presumably inherent principles. One such debate that incites particular divergence attempts to answer the question of whether a democracy should encourage or discourage majorities. The conflicting advocacies that arise on either side of this dispute speak to issues such as the importance of the common good and the prevalence of factions (political parties), among others. Political thinkers exposed to democracy at different periods throughout history, such as: Robert Dahl, James Madison, and Alexis De Tocqueville, all have an opinion about the dangers, or otherwise, the advantages of encouraging majorities. In the late 1700s, following its relatively recent independence from Great Britain, the thirteen existing United States of America would come together to ratify a document (the U.S. Constitution); thereby creating a brand new system of government known as a democracy. This governmental scheme would become synonymous with ideals such as freedom, liberty, and justice. However, in its framing, some aspects of the democratic system that many believed were bound to creep up- were unappealing to some very important political thinkers, namely James Madison. He believed in a decentralized government which was heavily dependent on a system of checks and balances, and that relied on federalism a separation of powers between the federal government and state governments- in order to deter the tyranny of a majority. He was particularly concerned about the formation of factions: a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse

When using the term democracy, for the purposes of this paper and unless otherwise specified, I am referring to American democracy. This statement ignores very early forms of democracy that lack some key components of what constitutes a democracy today, and even then the American form lacked a few of these components. See On Democracy Pg. (35-43) Robert Dahl.

or passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. (Madison, Sourcebook, pg.118) He worried about the ability of a majority party to implement policy and make political decisions based on their personal interests; essentially ignoring the interests of the rest of the people. He questioned the stability of a government in which the majority would be capable of ruling over the entire population using factions as a medium. Madison believed that the common good would suffer as a result of the existence of factions and that they were inherently opposed to the ideas of justice and equality since the rights of minorities would suffer. He revealed that Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable; that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. (Madison, Sourcebook, pg.118) He feared that factions that were constituted of a majority of people would inevitably oppress the will of the minority which was morally and principally wrong. He argued that measures should be added to the constitution to discourage, and ultimately, to prevent the incidence of tyranny of the majority. A couple hundred years later, another political thinker by the name of Alexis de Tocqueville made a similar observation about the dangers posed by overbearing majorities and their tendency towards tyranny. Tocqueville was impressed with the United States, and he noticed it to have a democratizing aura. That is to say, it seemed to him to reject aristocratic systems and to breed democratic ideals. He lauded the inherent freedom and political independence with which the citizens of America were endowed, and he credited this societal utility as the source of Americas lasting prosperity. He admired the incorporation of the spirit of

religion and the spirit of freedom into the very fabric of political participation in the United States. However, in his analysis of Americas democracy he expressed a concern over the possibility of the abuse of power by majorities. He held that it was an impious and detestable maxim that in matters of government the majority of a people has a right to do everything (Tocqueville, Sourcebook, pg.457) Although he feared the idea of tyranny of the majority, he maintained that he did not believe that the American democracy would collapse from weakness. He contended instead that If ever freedom is lost in America, that it will be due to the omnipotence of the majority driving the minorities to desperation and forcing them to appeal to physical force.(Tocqueville, Sourcebook, pg.458) He mentioned also that this conflict may, as a result of despotism, lead to anarchy. All things considered, it was more or less concluded that that outcome was highly unlikely; especially with the safeguards in place in American democracy today. Even though Tocqueville disliked the potential for the abuse of power by majorities, he did believe that the origin of all powers at least in a democracy- lied in the will of the majority. Albeit the source of contrary opinion in the debate discussed in the paper, this belief resonates today as the defining characteristic for a republican (representative) form of government. In the last decade or so, democracy has remained fairly constant in its qualifications and its practices, and political scientists are now able to subjectively analyze the effectiveness of democracy as it has been and as it is now. Robert Dahl is one such thinker who has, in his research, discovered that the incidence of political parties is a necessary evil, and that the will of the majority is an important power inherent to representative governments. He aligns his argument with those of Madison in his later years; revealing that The democratic rights incorporated in the Bill of Rights made parties possible; the need to compete effectively made

them inevitable; the ability to represent citizens who would otherwise not be adequately represented made them desirable. (Dahl, How Democratic is the American Constitution?, pg.30) He goes on to explain that people today take for granted the political parties and political competition that are essential to a democracy. He believes that a country without these things is not a democracy at all. Madison, Dahl claims, wrote a series of essays a few years after the close of the convention which held further that political parties were unavoidable in every political society and that No free country has ever been without parties, which are a natural offspring of freedom. (Dahl, How Democratic?, pg.35) Dahl believes that the will of the majority, when it manifests itself through parties, is an exercise in the minimization of the abuse of political power which is inevitable in any political system. He asserts that the least imperfect form of government the one that minimizes harm- is the one which ought to be implemented. He cites the reflective Madison of 1833 who stated that the abuses of all other governments have led to the preference of a republican government as the best of all governments, because its the least imperfect; that the vital principal of republican government is the lex majoris parties, the will of the majority. (Dahl, How Democratic?, pg.37) Although Dahl was apprehensive about many of the decisions and beliefs made by the Framers and early political thinkers, he whole-heartedly agrees with the notion that the will of the majority is the most democratic way to gauge and to assure the common good. The dispute over whether or not majorities are good is one that continues today, and one that, perhaps, will continue until a better alternative is created. Despite the ongoing debate and disagreement, it seems that there is a general acceptance of the current system at least among the thinkers discussed in this paper- as the least oppressive one. In many ways, respect for the will of the majority seems to have grown over time as it became clear that it was the most

republican (purely representative) means of political determination. Dahl, Madison, and Tocqueville all appreciate this aspect of democracy especially in America- for its minimization of the violation of rights and its ability to, for the most part, assure and maintain the common good.