Tyranny of the Majority?

2002-10-10 06:35:00

I think we have covered the word tyranny to the satisfaction of most. We all realize there are numerous ways to use the word varying from the teenager feeling tyrannized for being grounded by his parents to the Iraqis and Kurds living in very fear of their lives because of living under a tyrant. As the word is discussed in my writings it describes a situation affecting the majority of the people.

If you have a group of one million people and more than 500,000 live in fear of death, terror and torture because of abusive authority, then you have a true tyranny recognized by all but the tyrants. But if you have a group of a million people and maybe only a dozen live in fear of death, terror and torture then the problem is not usually seen as a tyranny. It is true that the dozen who are abused in the second group, individually feel just as much distress and the 500,000 in the first group, but looking at it from the viewpoint of the whole of the situation, the abuses of the second group is usually seen more as flaws and corruption within the system than viewing the whole group as a tyranny.

For instance, Iraq is seen by the majority as a tyranny since such a large percentage of the people suffer because of abusing authority. On the other hand, within more benevolent countries such as the United States, France, England, Australia, New Zealand etc there are also those who suffer pain fear and even death through unjust authority. Because the number suffering is not so great that it strikes fear into the heart of the average man on the street, these countries are rarely referred to as tyrannies. The problems are generally seen as abuses or flaws within the system that need correction, but the whole of these countries are not called tyrannies.

Does that handful who are abused feel tyrannized? Most likely. Does the problem make the whole country a tyranny? No. Is there a group within the country which could be called a tyranny? Perhaps.

For instance, let us suppose there are a dozen cops within a particular city who form a secret organization to abuse and terrorize gays. They are successful to the extent that every gay in the city lives in fear. Now, if we isolate the gays and the twelve policemen and lump then into one group then we can say that this group of gays and police are a tyranny with the police being the tyrants and the gays being the victims.

Does this mean the whole country would be called a tyranny by neighboring countries? No. Instead these this will be seen as an abuse within the system, which system as a whole is flawed but not considered a tyranny.

It's a little like a flaw in an automobile which causes death or injury to one driver in a million. This may not be a big enough problem to cause a major alarm or fear about the problem even though the one person who suffers may not feel that way. But if a larger number of people start having problems then the situation moves into another category. Now the car is seen as causing drivers to live in fear (tyrannized) of pain and suffering.

Now, let us move on to analyzing the whole thought causing the original questioning. Again the major sentence under debate has been: "Tyranny by the majority is almost nonexistent."

Before we talk about what this does say, let us itemize what it does NOT say.

(1) It does not say there have not been tyrannies of the majority in the past. Note the word IS is used telling us that this represents the current situation in the civilized world.

(2) It does not say there are no exceptions to this rule. Note the word "almost."

(3) It does not say the majority is always right, or there are not some minorities more correct than the majority.

Note this statement from the previous paragraph in the book: "But no matter how good and true any foundation document is, the people will never be able to literally follow it one hundred percent. THE MAJORITY WILL ALWAYS DRIFT AWAY FROM IT. Sometimes the drift is good but usually it is not..."

Here, John in the book tells us that the majority will always drift away from a foundation document. This is perhaps the most troublesome aspect of the majority, yet this is not always bad. It was good that the majority in communist USSR drifted away from their foundation documents. It is good that the majority of the Chinese are also drifting away from their foundation principles.

As the majority on the left and right, good or evil, drift away from their foundations they meet in the middle and produce new foundation documents of a higher caliber than was had before. Overall this majority drift is an ingredient in the Law of Dominating Good, but will always be very troubling to the standard bearers of the faith.

The discovery of America for instance, was the beginning of what would later become a majority drift from kingdom government to government of the people. The old guard was very alarmed, but in this case the drift was good. When dealing with a positive foundation such as the U.S. Constitution, the drift is usually bad in the short run, but overall the drift will eventually create a contrast where new vistas will be seen and corrections will eventually be made which will make things all the better.

So what does the statement in question really mean?

First of all we must ask - what is or would be a "tyranny of the majority?" Is it even possible to have one?

One reason that a tyranny of the majority is rare is that the majority is always effected by a true tyranny. Because the majority is adversely effected by a tyranny the large number effected causes the majority to resist a majority tyranny if at all possible.

If the majority are distressed under a single tyrant with absolute power, resistance is difficult, but if there is some majority exercising unjust power, resistance becomes much easier for many of the abusers themselves become abused and change becomes more desirable and possible for all.

In almost every true tyranny in history we see that it was initiated by just a handful of people seeking power and control, generally with one powerful individual leading the pack.

In the situation of the past, which is quickly disappearing, we had rule by kings or emperors. In this case we had rule by a strong leader and whether or not there was a tyranny depended almost entirely on whether the leader was a good person or a bad one.

For instance, the Roman Empire had great emperors such as Marcus Aurelius who worked diligently to make the lives of the people better, or Nero who put fear in the hearts of everyone in the kingdom. Even though, in both instances, Rome had all-powerful leaders, one era had a tranquil society and the other had a tyranny.

Let us look at the recent situations that were considered tyrannies by most historians and observers. In the past we have Nazi Germany, Communist USSR as terrorized by Stalin, Mussolini in World War II Italy, Mao of China, Ho Chi Minh from North Vietnam, Kim II Sung of North Korea, and Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania to name a few.

What is the common thread that goes through all these tyrannies? The common thread is that the tyrannies were not run by a majority or even a small minority but mainly instigated and perpetuated by a single individual.

The tyrannies of the magnitude of those just mentioned have greatly diminished in today's world. Iraq and North Korea are perhaps the most notable still in existence. Russia, Germany, Romania and other countries are thankfully no longer tyrannies. Some feel that China is because it does terrorize certain groups, but others do not because the majority of the people are improving their quality of life and do not live in fear of imprisonment. Labeling this nation would be a judgment call. They certainly do have restricted freedoms but do not live in nearly as fearful situation as the Iraqis.

Can there be a tyranny of the majority?

Usually, that which is called tyranny by mainstream writers and observers is a situation where terror is instigated by a small group, often one individual being mainly responsible.

The reason tyrannies usually spread so the majority is effected is this. If cruel rulers will seek to terrorize a small group they will have no qualms about terrorizing a large group to stay in power.

Are there any tyrannies where the majority tyrannized the minority?

Like I say, this is rare for as we examine well recognized tyrannies, as we mentioned a few paragraphs ago, they are caused by, not the majority, but by a small minority.

The most common description of the majority tyrannizing a minority is the long history of slavery on this planet. Until just a few generations ago slavery was practiced throughout most of the planet.

Now in the current age we would feel tyrannized if the majority made us slaves as in the old South or ancient Rome. But what few realize is that which is seen as a tyranny in one age may not be seen that way in another. Chapter thirteen of The Immortal points out that slavery was not seen as the great tyranny to fight against in the days of Jesus and even Jesus did not speak against it. In that day the tyranny was the abuse of slave, not the having of slaves.

Research indicates this was also the case in the Old South. Belinda Hurmence edited a book called Before Freedom, based on 48 oral histories (taken in the early part of the Twentieth Century) of former North and South Carolina Slaves. Of these 48 only two of the former slaves saw their slave life as negative or tyrannical. Several were neutral, but the far majority had positive feelings about their masters and their life as slaves.

This research flies in the face of the views of slavery as seen on TV and in the movies today.

The point is this. Tyranny is often in the eye of the beholder. People today do not realize that in past ages many things that we see as tyrannies today were not seen that way back then. Therefore, many past injustices that we believe to be the tyranny of the majority over the minority were not seen that way, even by the minorities.

Certain things though are universally seen as acts of tyranny if widely supported by an absolute power. Such acts are torture, rape and killing on a mass scale.

So are there any examples of true tyranny in today's world? Lenin accused capitalism as being a tyranny, but few, if any, who live in the capitalist world, are fleeing to communistic societies to escape.

Some say bad laws that cause grief to a minority represent a tyranny of the majority because the majority do not actively oppose and eliminate such laws. But because someone does not actively oppose a thing does not mean he supports it. Each of us only have time for a few causes in our lives and there are hundreds of injustices out there that you and I do not support, yet have no time or means to be an activist against them. All law, good and bad, is passed by a small minority we call our legislators. Sometimes a law is passed by this minority that outrages the majority. Many laws are passed that the majority knows nothing about.

Even though people elect their representatives, after elected, the majority often have little power to determine how they will vote.

Here is another point. Each representative is elected by a minority. Usually less than 50% of the people vote and an election won by a 50% of actual voters only represent about 25% of the people, a definite minority.

Therefore, if you count the representative who passes bad law, as well as all those responsible for electing him, you still have a minority of 25%. Even so, it is hardly fair to count the voters as tyrants, because their will is often betrayed by politicians.

Conclusion: Bad law is created and maintained by a minority.

The War on Drugs is cited by some as a tyranny of the majority against the minority. They cite overreaching laws and overreaching police causing grief to a few innocent people.

In considering this we must first again note that the rules and laws governing this war on drugs are initiated by a minority of legislators and bureaucrats. Again, the legislators are elected by a minority of the people. Surveys show that about two thirds of the people support laws against drug use, but 75% are not happy with the way the war on drugs is being fought. I cannot find any specific data but common sense dictates that the majority do not support extreme measures in fighting drug use which will bring grief to innocent people. Only a small minority are even aware of many of the laws and practices used in the War on Drugs.

Conclusion: No matter how you look at it there is a minority responsible for the abuses of the drug war.

Larry presented a creative and interesting account of abuses in Japan which he believes to be a majority tyrannizing as minority. Here is what he came up with from the web:

When most westerners, particularly Americans talk of a "tyranny of the majority", the sort of mental picture they might come up with would closely resemble the culture of one of the leading industrial countries of the world. What country is that? Japan, of course.

There is a saying in Japan which perfectly encapsulates one of the most important tenets of that culture:

"The nail that stands up gets hammered down."

The basic meaning is that for the sake of group harmony any individual who flaunts the norms of Japanese society faces strictures and possible ostracism. The "gets hammered down" part is very real. It means that children from the earliest years in school will be verbally and physically abused until they learn to accept the "norms" of Japanese society.

Japanese society requires a degree of conformity that most Americans cannot truly imagine. For example a Japanese parent wrote:

"We should not seek recognition, nor single out others for such recognition, especially our own children!"

A Japanese norm for parents it to never praise children or acknowledge accomplishment. The attitude might be expressed as, "Praise no! Constructive criticism, yes!"

Another norm of Japanese society is "Hi-ge" which means "submissiveness in the face of authority." Every Japanese family must have a "visit" from the police every year. Every year a policeman will "interview" your family. Some might view this as good "neighborhood relations", but many westerners would see such forced visits as highly intrusionary!

Another norm of Japanese society is forced confessions of suspected criminals. Every year a fairly large number of Japanese in the hands of the local police are severely injured, while being "interrogated" for crimes they are suspected of having committed.

For example, here is a short excerpt from an Amnesty International article:

The Daiyo Kangoku system of pre-trial detention continued despite criticisms from the UN Human Rights Committee. Suspects may be held for up to 23 days in police detention cells during which time they are closely monitored, and are questioned for long periods by several police interrogators. There are no legal regulations governing police interrogation procedures and no provision for court- appointed lawyers for criminal suspects prior to indictment. Interrogations are not recorded or videotaped nor are defense lawyers allowed to be present during the interrogations. Many detainees confess during this initial detention period. Some have reportedly been beaten and many have alleged that they were tricked into believing that if they confessed the detention would end. The forced confessions have been used in court as evidence. --- http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webasacountries/JAPAN?OpenDocument

Let's analyze a few of these items. To me the conformity thing would be an irritation, but I would not raise it to the magnitude of a tyranny. Such pressure to conformity has existed in many cultures from the American Indian to the Luddite weavers in 19th century England. Are they tyrannies? You would have to do some surveys among the people being affected. People in many societies with restrictions that we may consider outrageous are considered acceptable and normal by them. The norm which is accepted by the masses does not usually fit the definition of a tyranny.

I have heard that this situation is changing, that more youth are rebelling against authority and that the next generation will be much different.

The other examples of the police abusing suspects are definitely an injustice. I wouldn't say that it reaches the magnitude of a tyranny and these methods are legalized and sustained by a minority. If one did a survey in Japan, I would be willing to bet that the majority would be against such abuse.

Overall, I cannot think of one clear example in the civilized world where the majority exercises a tyranny over the minority. Every true tyranny I can think of is the other way around. There are some areas outside of civilization, as we understand it, where a majority does tyrannize the minority such as some tribal cultures which mutilate women. - but even here the women may be a majority for they often represent more than 50% of the population.

The closest example I have seen where a majority has tyrannized a minority may be the Missourians who persecuted the Mormons and ran them out of the state.

The French Revolution where there was mob rule for a while may be another example.

In our current civilized world I cannot think an example of the majority tyrannizing the minority as I understand the term.

Others who define tyranny differently have other opinions. I have a friend who sees the laws requiring us to have driver's license as a tyranny. He refuses to get one and has been arrested many times and jailed several. He will probably go to jail several more times. Is the standard enforcement of the driver's license laws a tyranny? My friend thinks so. But 99% of the population disagrees.

Tyranny is in the eye of the beholder. Because of this, I maintain that we need to look at the views of the majority in any group to accurately define it.

To be continued.