MAJORITY RULE & MINORITY RIGHTS

On Thursday, June 24th, the U. S. Senate failed on a cloture vote to move to the floor a bill that would have extended jobless benefits to 1.2 million unemployed Americans. The bill also included an extension of the date for home purchases eligible for the income tax credit. The vote was 57 in favor and 41 opposed.

The Senate has one formal rule—Rule XXII—for imposing limits on the further consideration of an issue. Called the Cloture Rule (for closure of debate), Rule XXII became part of the Senate’s rulebook in 1917 and has been amended several times since. It calls for an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the entire Senate membership (60 of 100 votes) to end debate on a bill, amendment, or motion.


Majority Rule
Democracy Web is a site devoted to comparative studies in freedom. It has this to say about majority rule and minority rights:

“Democracy is defined in Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary as Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them either directly or through their elected agents; . . . . . a state of society characterized by nominal equality of rights and privileges.

What is left out of the dictionary definition of democracy is what constitutes “the people.” In practice, democracy is governed by its most popularly understood principle: majority rule. Namely, the side with the most votes wins, whether it is an election, a legislative bill, a contract proposal to a union, or a shareholder motion in a corporation. The majority (or in some cases plurality) vote decides. Thus, when it is said that “the people have spoken” or the “people’s will should be respected,” the people are generally expressed through its majority.

Anne-Marie Slaughter is the Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Government at Princeton University and Bert G. Kerstetter Professor of Politics and International Affairs. In 2007, she authored a small book entitled “The Idea That Is America,” essentially a primer on the essential principles on which our Nation was established, namely liberty, democracy, equality, justice, tolerance, humility and faith. She writes: “Largely the work of James Madison, the Constitution stands as the foundation of what has come to be known as American democracy.” She continues: “George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton all saw big and important differences between a republic and a democracy. The revolutionary principle that they had fought for was self-government: government by the consent of the governed. Republican government and democratic government were both forms of self-government. A republic was a government in which voters must elect people to represent them. Democracy, on the other hand, meant pure majority rule—direct rule by the people themselves.” [Emphasis mine.]


Minority Rights
Our Founding Fathers may have embraced rule by majority, but they also were very concerned that it not evolve into tyranny. Going back to the Democracy Web article:

“Yet majority rule can not be the only expression of “supreme power” in a democracy. If so, the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority- rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority. For one, a defining characteristic of democracy must be the people’s right to change the majority through elections. This right is the people’s “supreme authority.” The minority, therefore, must have the right to become the majority.

The American founders—Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike—considered rule by majority a troubling conundrum. In theory, majority rule was necessary for expressing the popular will and the basis for establishing the republic. The alternative—consensus or rule by everyone’s agreement—cannot be imposed upon a free people. And minority rule is antithetical to democracy. But the founders worried that the majority could abuse its powers to oppress a minority just as easily as a king.

In conclusion, this excellent essay brings out another important point:

“On a practical level, the application of majority rule and minority rights relies on a set of rules agreed to by everyone in a political community. How are majorities determined? What are the limits of debate and speech? How can members in a community propose a motion or law? Should a minority be allowed to prevent the majority’s will by abusing its rights? There is no one answer to these questions, and many democracies have answered them differently. But for those countries that follow an Anglo-Saxon tradition, one of the basic guides for democracy is Robert’s Rule of Order. Its beginning offers a concise statement of the democratic ideal:

American Parliamentary Law is built upon the principle that rights must be respected: the rights of the majority, of the minority, of individuals, of absentees, and rights of all these together.”

Considering the above, might one ask if the minority in the current Senate is abusing its rights? The democratic process provides an alternative, as noted above. It can take positions to enhance its electoral opportunities, and assume the majority role. However, in taking stances to improve that possibility, should the current opposition party be permitted to thwart the duly elected representatives of the people? Again, back to Democracy Web:

“British political philosopher John Stuart Mill, in his essay On Liberty wrote: 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. Mills no harm principle aims to prevent government from becoming a vehicle from the tyranny of the majority, which he viewed as not just a political but also a social tyranny that stifled minority voices and imposed a regimentation of thought and values.”

But the same line of thought can be aimed at the minority, which in this case could be viewed as exercising tyrannical powers.

In an interview with Ezra Klein published in the Washington Post, Stenny Hoyer, Democratic Majority Leader in the House of Representatives, is quoted as follows: “This is a United States Senate that has had more cloture votes in one year than in the 1960s and 1970s combined. They had three cloture votes on whether to extend unemployment benefits, and that bill passed [in the House] 97-0! The reason this issue needs to be raised is that, ultimately, the political representatives will respond to the demands of the public. Now, the public has been polarized. Every night on the television, they listen to polarizing people. We’ve gone from Walter Cronkite to angrier people who are trying to incite them. It’s very difficult [to fight that political logic]. The motivation that Congress has on each side of the aisle is to be in the majority so that it can set policy. But it’s very difficult for the institution to move forward on a bipartisan basis when the minority policy does not believe that that’s in their best interest to regain the majority. Rarely do you get a crowd ecstatic about a compromise. So the parties, to some degree, think the Gingrich strategy might be successful. And the only way to overcome that to happen is for the American people to know what’s going on.”

Up to this point, neither Democrats nor Republicans have shown any real interest in reforming Rule XXII, although it is 93 years old and instituted in a far different legislative world than we now live in. Why? The minority obviously sees it as a safeguard to its own positions. The majority seems to believe that the two-thirds vote that would be needed to make a rules change is unattainable. So here we are, in a virtual state of political paralysis in the Senate. The Nation deserves better.