COMMENSAL ISSUE 92

Hello Theo, Alan Carr here ...

In answer to your question "under what circumstances in a democracy is it right for the majority to override the wishes of a significant minority ?" : what a question ! I don’t know if I can answer it. I probably can’t, but anyway : the first thing that hit me was to me, democracy is an aspiration. I haven’t seen a country yet that I would consider a democracy. A true democrat placed in the above position of the overridden minority would respect the decision of the minority (sic; "majority" ?? - Ed) regardless of the consequences. Do we use the banner of democracy for our convenience ?

There are two types of threats to democracy that come to my mind : from within and from without. Within : corruption, legislation, etc. by the establishment; without : theft, violence, etc. by those outside democracy : thieves, thugs, etc. With all these occurring does this negate the possibility of living in a democracy ? While all of us aspire to live in a democracy, do these factors come into play. Do I have a point, Theo ?

But, anyway, in a democracy every person has an established set of freedoms and liberties. Sometimes these are curtailed for the benefit of the whole (recent gun ban). Here lies the problem ! I just hope I can identify it. It is right for a majority to override the wishes of a minority of individuals or a group minority when it can be objectively reasoned that the gains of the whole, both majority and the minority, outweigh the loss of freedoms to the minority. Those who decide whether this is acceptable are the minority possibly infringed upon, as their actions decide whether or not the democracy functions; ie. they could rebel.

Do I have a point and did I answer the question to your satisfaction ? Probably not !

My condolences to the family of Eric Hills.

I have decided not to submit my Northern Ireland article for this issue, as the current peace process is at its make or break point and I wish it and all the people involved all the best. Maybe the next issue or the one after.

All the best,

Alan Carr

Alan : I think you’re generally along the right lines ! A democracy will tend to tolerate a minority that is objectionable to the majority along game-theoretic lines; ie. if the cost of tolerating it is less than the investment required to sort it. There’s not much that’s "moral" or even "democratic" about this, though ! The democratic angle will add a short-termist perspective necessitated by governments remaining electable rather than right !

Theo