In this essay I argue that scholars’ assertions that the majority will of the people is the “dark side” of democracy are not without merit but that overall long-term stability is the most common product of democracy. The coupling of robust liberalism with democracy serves to mitigate the deleterious effects of popular sovereignty.
Popular sovereignty is the process by which a government derives its legitimacy from the will of its people. This process is one indelibly tied to the idea of a democracy—a word whose etymology refers to the notion of the common people (with common used in the inclusive sense of the word) determining and controlling government rule and power. The will of the people is then determined by elections. It is from this important step that the roots of the darker side of democracy stem. Holding elections means people necessarily organizing into groups, thereby mobilizing a population. Anytime groups are formed, however, people are excluded and this exclusion becomes selective and carries consequences when tied to election results. The actions that occur following this selective exclusion are the true “dark side” of democracy.
Popular sovereignty is the process by which a government derives its legitimacy from the will of its people. This process is one indelibly tied to the idea of a democracy—a word whose etymology refers to the notion of the common people (with common used in the inclusive sense of the word) determining and controlling government rule and power. The will of the people is then determined by elections. It is from this important step that the roots of the darker side of democracy stem. Holding elections means people necessarily organizing into groups, thereby mobilizing a population. Anytime groups are formed, however, people are excluded and this exclusion becomes selective and carries consequences when tied to election results. The actions that occur following this selective exclusion are the true “dark side” of democracy.
While the origin of the term is much debated (Alexis de Tocqueville, John Adams, William McKinley have all used it in differing forms), the empirical truth of the “tyranny of the majority” is not. This phrase points out that majority will should not be equated with moral rectitude. The history of the United States is instructive as its majority consistently not only excluded, but persecuted, myriad groups of people (e.g., blacks, women, gays and native Americans). None of this is to argue for dictatorship or authoritarianism; in these systems the will of all people outside the ruler’s inner circle is excluded and the population is left to the “tyranny of a minority.”
Scholar Jackson-Preece expounds upon democracy’s evil shadow at length as she discusses ethnic cleansing as a ubiquitous tool used in the creation of a plethora of nation-states throughout the 20th century. Following both world wars, the democratic victors approved and ordered the population transfers of ethnic populations en masse in successful efforts to create homogenous nation-states throughout Europe. The relationship between holding democratic elections and a peaceful family being ripped from the farm on which their family has lived for generations requires a closer analysis of the true culprit—the process of democratization. The mobilization associated with elections most often occurs along ethnic lines. This ethno-nationalism always creates conflicts as groups struggle for power and security. As Muller shows, the breakup up three massive empires following World War I required the creation of a slew of new nation-states. The victors (to include President Woodrow Wilson) attempted to do this by realigning borders to ethnic populations (operating under the primordialist assumption that homogenous nation-states were the best solution). This imperfect and imprecise process in turn created new minorities that needed or were forced to move. The transfer process (after both world wars) was poorly supervised and even more ineffectively managed at the cost of millions of lives. It is the burgundy blood of these deaths that color and darken democracy’s underbelly.
Democracy’s underbelly is no darker, however, than that of any other form of governance. Winston Churchill captured this sentiment well when he stated, “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” While the path to democratization did mean millions of deaths, its end state also produced a remarkable level of overall stability and lasting peace throughout Europe. It is the process of creating a democracy that one must focus on to prevent a violent and destructive past from reoccurring. In this process, an emphasis must be placed on establishing the tenets of liberalism. In most cases this means creating the institutions and regulations (typically through a constitution) to protect the individual freedoms of all a state’s inhabitants. Only through the injection of robust liberalism into the democratization process can, not only lasting peace and stability be achieved, but also a peaceful and humane transition process.
