Tyranny of the Majority

In a weekend interview with the Jerusalem Post, Shimon Peres was asked what would happen if his Labour party decided to join the government, and several of their ministers did not want to. He answered, "They are members of the party, and have to accept its authority. They can't sit inside and outside of the party, and that is not acceptable to me. If they take part in the debate, they have to accept the results of the debate. Every party has a minority, but in a democracy the majority decides. They are not above democracy." While in this instance he may be correct about the necessity of party unity, his answer does reflect his overall attitude towards democracy. In other parts of the interview, Peres expressed his opinion in favour of expelling the Jews from Gaza and handing over the assets to our enemies. He views the government decision to uproot the Jews there as moral and democratic, and shuns opposition to this belief by stating that people of a minority opinion "aren't above democracy". Peres, a man who was not raised in a truly democratic and free society, and who has strong links to former communist and socialist regimes, does not surprise me when he expresses his total lack of understanding of a Liberal Democracy.

One of the less commonly known aspects of the flaws of democracy is the tyranny of the majority. John Stuart Mill, in his essay "On Liberty" speaks of the tyranny of the majority and says, "Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant- society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it- its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself."

Mill's essay "On Liberty" is known to be the philosophic cornerstone of democratic morality and present a search for the true balance between the rights of the individual and power of the state. Indeed this situation we face now in Israel is sadly one that falls under tyranny of the majority. Despite the results of Likud internal elections on the disengagement plan, we in the opposition to disengagement should not kid ourselves and realize that a majority of Israelis would be in favour of expelling Jews from Gaza. Despite the fact that the Likud referendum on disengagement was illiberal in essence, polls have shown that the slim majority of opinion in Israel is contrary to the referendums results. This does not mean however, that the Israeli government has the right to expel Jews from their homes just because the majority of Israelis want his to happen. This is not how a Liberal Democracy behaves. Can you imagine if a majority of citizens in the US decided they wanted to reintroduce slavery? And what if a referendum was held on the issue and it won? The Shimon Peres' of America (in this hypothetical situation) would say that this is what the people want, and "in a democracy the majority decides. They aren't above democracy."

Mill points out this that is a total abuse of democracy and we must be aware of it to fight against it. Firstly, Sharon's choice to ignore the illiberal referendum that he called for, and lost, and his firing of two cabinet ministers to ensure a majority, definitely falls under what Mill describes as "chiefly operating through acts of the public authorities." Sharon and other pro-disengagement MK's are falsely labeling their acts of pushing through their own agendas as "democratic" and misleading the young country into believing this is how a Liberal Democracy works. "Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression…" Mill is pointing out that yes, on most issues in a Liberal Democracy, the majority decides. However, if the issue that is to be decided upon can be infringing on the rights of a minority, or discriminate against a minority opinion because of its ethnic or religious identity, the majority has no mandate to decide on this issue. There is a fine line between what a majority can decide upon in a Liberal Democracy, and what is not up for discussion. That is why in most democratic countries there is a constitution in order to protect minorities and ensure them their basic rights, even if the majority does not respect them.

When Mill points out just how evil tyranny of the majority is, one of the reasons given was that it is because "it leaves fewer means of escape." To paraphrase what Golda Meir was quoted saying about Sharon, "If Sharon does not get his way in Knesset, he would line up tanks and surround the Knesset until he did." Indeed this is true of Sharon and of tyranny. What are we to do to escape this tyranny of the majority on the settlers of Gaza? Like a traitor, who acts falsely in the name of the people in order to gain a better angle in which to commit his actions, the tyranny of disengagement is being bulldozed through the Knesset and the driving force behind it is telling the public that what they are doing is democratic and good for the country. They have also waged a propaganda war against the Gaza settlers, with Peres being quoted as saying, "Everyone wants peace except the right-wing extremists" and new leftist slogans like "The majority has decided: Leave Gaza and start talking." Peres' comments are dismissive of his opposition to the point where he lies about what the other side wants. No one on the right wing denies the fact that left wingers want peace. We all know that how to achieve it is the point of contradiction. Right wingers want peace just as much, maybe more, than Shimon Peres does, but they have a different opinion of how to attain it properly. However, Peres is dismissive of this fact and chooses to attempt to deceive the public into believing that only people agreeing with him truly want peace. I think no matter what your opinion is on how to achieve peace in the Arab/Israeli conflict, it is never justifiable in a liberal democracy and of course in a Jewish state, to create war between brothers. Demonizing the settlers will only create more of a rift in an already splintered Jewish people, and concealing these illiberal acts and passing them off as democratic will surely, as Mill said, "penetrate much more deeply into the details of life, and enslave the soul itself."

Itamar Weisbrod
K'Cholmim & Magshimey Herut