Majority rule and minority rights are very important ideas in modern constitutional government. These ideas are important because they allow the decisions of the government to be based on the interests and preferences of the people, while at the same time guaranteeing the rights of minorities will be protected from abuse (as a result of majority decisions).
Majority Rule
To effectively manage the state, governments need practical methods for making decisions. If the agreement of every citizen in a country was needed for decisions to be made, almost no decision could be made and the government could not function. This means that some requirement (that is less than 100% agreement) must be chosen as the minimum standard for decision-making.
Representation makes decision-making processes more efficient. When citizens choose people to represent them in public institutions (like parliaments), this reduces the number of decision makers to a more manageable number.
However, in order to function effectively, representative democracies need to have rules on what percentage of votes is necessary for a law to be accepted. Since in a democracy all citizens have the right to vote, some version of the majority principle (more than 50%) is often the most practical way for governments to make decisions.
Majority rule means that a decision is accepted if more than 50% of the decision makers vote in favor of that decision.
However, majority rule also has problems. For example, if there is a rule that more than half of the votes are needed to accept a decision and 51% of the voters vote “yes”, then 49% (almost half of the people) will not be happy with the result.
However, beyond this, there are other risks and dangers associated with majority rule that many constitutions have included measures to address.
|
Majority-Rule Democracy Versus Power Sharing The nature of the executive power in a post-conflict country is determined largely by the electoral system. As mentioned, a majority type of democracy, with a single party government resulting from a plurality or majority electoral system, can be distinguished from a power sharing system, which arises as a result of some form of proportional representation. Broad agreement exists on the undesirability of a majority system that features a ‘winner-take-all’ outcome for highly polarized, war-torn countries. The prospect of a zero-sum outcome and the fear of losing power are likely to harden the electoral competition and increase the risk of renewed armed conflict. It should be mentioned, however, that in the cases of post-conflict countries such as Mozambique, El Salvador and Nicaragua, majority rule did prove effective. It has been suggested that majority-rule democracy is better suited for managing post-conflict settlements following peasant rebellions or class-based struggles than it is for settlements following armed conflicts fought by various, well-defined factions. Source: Democracy and Political Party Assistance in Post Conflict Societies |
Minority rights
Placing too much emphasis on individual rights, particularly political rights, can lead to ‘majoritarianism,’ where the culture and values of the majority community dominate society. Majoritarian systems lead to the situation where political parties that represent the majority community participate much more than others at the higher levels of government.
To reduce the risk of majoritarianism, many countries recognize the collective rights of ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities. These collective rights include cultural rights, as well as forms of self-government and autonomy for minority communities.
“Minority rights” make sure that even if the majority of a state wants to do something that would violate the rights of a minority, they will not be allowed to. Minority rights make sure that the majority cannot make decisions that:
• Cannot be changed in future (For example, establishing a dictatorship)
• Deny minorities the right to take part in the decision-making process
• Lead to discrimination or human rights abuses against minority groups.
Discrimination in the past and prevailing identity classifications had an important bearing on the demand for constitutional change. Resolving rights claims by minority groups did in many cases become a focal point for constitution building and the biggest source of tensions.
• In Indonesia, deliberation on constitutional reform was intertwined with the Pancasila concept of plural cultures and the minority rights of natives of Aceh and other territories (see chapter 2 of this Guide on principles and crosscutting themes).
• In Nepal’s ongoing constitution building following the ten-year armed conflict that ended in 2006, demands by ethnic minorities have been at center stage.
• In Eritrea and Ethiopia, the constitutional processes in 1994 largely resulted from a demand for recognition of distinct ethnic groups as self-determining entities.
• In South Africa, contention between the rights of the racial majority vis-àvis the racial minority was central to the 1990–6 negotiation that resulted in a ‘non-racial’ democratic Constitution (1996).
The concept of minority rights may implies two things: first, that individuals who also happen to belong to defined minority groups are still entitled to the same rights as everyone else (individual rights); and, second, that a minority group can itself legitimately claim particular rights (collective rights). These rights can include:
• Territorial autonomy
• Decentralization
• Vertical separation of powers.
For example, The Constitution of Spain (1978) attempted to create self-government within the three historic nationalities while extending that principle to any other region that requested it.
Power sharing devices
For example, In Lebanon, the presidency is permanently assigned to one ethnic group while the prime minister’s position is permanently assigned to another (Lebanon)
Cultural autonomy (or constitutional recognition of cultural diversity)
For example, In India, Israel and Lebanon matters of marriage are still determined by the different religious communities.
Electoral system-based power sharing
For example, In Singapore, for example, most parliamentarians are elected from multi-member districts. Parties must provide a list of between three to 6 candidates for each district. On each list, at least one must be a member of the Malay, Indian or some other minority community.
The Right to Self-determination
For example, the Ethiopian Constitution adopted in December 1994 recognizes the right to self-determination for every officially recognized ethnic group in Ethiopia (Article 39.1) (IDEA 2011: 122)
Laws related to Non-discrimination and inclusiveness For example, Nigeria requires political parties to reflect the “federal nature” in their executive committees (see box on the opposite page).
Affirmative Action Rules and Policies
For example, In Colombia (‘black communities’), Croatia (ethnic minorities), India (scheduled tribes and castes), Jordan (Christians and Circassians), Niger (Tuareg) and Pakistan (women and non-Muslims) Reserved seats set aside a certain number of seats for specific minorities/women in the legislature.
|
Restrictions on Formation of Political Parties in the Constitution of Nigeria Article 222 No association by whatever name called shall function as a political party, unless— (a) The names and addresses of its national officers are registered with the Independent National Electoral Commission; (b) The membership of the association is open to every citizen of Nigeria irrespective of his place of origin, circumstance of birth, sex, religion or ethnic grouping; (c) A copy of its constitution is registered in the principal office of the Independent National Electoral Commission in such form as may be prescribed by the Independent National Electoral Commission; (d) Any alteration in its registered constitution is also registered in the principal office of the Independent National Electoral Commission within thirty days of the making of such alteration; (e) The name of the association, its symbol or logo does not contain any ethnic or religious connotation or give the appearance that the activities of the association are confined to a part only of the geographical area of Nigeria; and (f ) The headquarters of the association is situated in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. Article 223. Constitution and Rules of Political Parties (1) The constitution and rules of a political party shall— (a) Provide for the periodical election on a democratic basis of the principal officers and members of the executive committee or other governing body of the political party; and (b) Ensure that the members of the executive committee or other governing body of the political party reflect the federal character of Nigeria. (2) For the purposes of this section— (a) The election of the officers or members of the executive committee of a political party shall be deemed to be periodical only if it is made at regular intervals not exceeding four years; and (b) The members of the executive committee or other governing body of the political party shall be deemed to reflect the federal character of Nigeria only if the members thereof belong to different States not being less in number than two thirds of all the States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. Source: Political Parties And Democracy In Theoretical And Practical Perspectives: Adopting Party Law |
|
Case Study: Observing Language Rights and Conditions in Finland According to the Constitution, Finland has two equal national languages – Swedish and Finnish. Both are also Finland’s official languages in the European Union. In addition to Finnish and Swedish, the Constitution mentions three other language groups as well: Sámi, Roma and Sign Language users. Finnish and Swedish have been spoken in Finland for over 900 years. Swedish was the language of administration and law for a long time. After Finland’s independence in 1917, both Finnish and Swedish were confirmed as equal national languages of Finland. At the end of 2011, 90% of the population spoke Finnish and 5.4% spoke Swedish. 4.5% of the population spoke some other language as their mother tongue. Thousands of Finns are bilingual and the majority of the Swedish speaking people also speak Finnish. Since the beginning of the 1990s the language environment in Finland has diversified rapidly. Finland is gradually changing into a multilingual country, although the immigrant minorities are altogether fairly small. During the last ten years Russian has established its position as the third largest language in Finland, covering over one percent of the population. The new Language Act which deals with Finland’s national languages came into force in 2004. The law safeguards basic language rights: everyone’s right to use their own language, either Finnish or Swedish, when dealing with state and municipal authorities, in court, Parliament and city councils. Municipal services have to be provided in each national language, if the municipality is bilingual. It is also possible to study in Swedish at university or technical college. The purpose of the law is to ensure that the Finnish and Swedish speaking population are able to function in society using only their mother tongue. Finnish is spoken practically everywhere in the country. It is usually considered self-evident that Finnish language speakers use the language and get services in Finnish in all situations. Swedish is spoken in Finland mainly in the capital and coastal areas including the Åland Islands. Swedish is endangered because it is only spoken as a mother tongue by a small minority of the population. The use of Swedish has declined, especially in official and public life. Of the 336 municipalities in Finland, 30 are bilingual. 19 municipalities are purely Swedish speaking. Sami people are entitled to use the Sami language in official matters in Sami areas, which are in parts of the province of Lapland. There are less than 7,400 Sami people in Finland. The majority of Sami people are Finnish speakers. The Finnish Constitution and the Sami Language Act guarantee the rights of the Sami people to maintain and develop their own language and culture. Source: Political Youth Organizations: Strengthening the Voice of Youth in Politics: The Finnish Experience |
|
Power Sharing in Post Conflict Situations Arend Lijphart, the most fervent defender of the parliamentary consensual democracy as we know it in the Netherlands, has argued in favor of a group-based or consociation-based form of power sharing for divided societies, in which the various groups have the direct authority to manage their own internal affairs, while their leaders assure communal or ethnic representation on the basis of proportionality at tthe national executive and/ or legislative levels. This system has proved relatively successful in helping pass from a conflict into a post conflict situation in countries like Lebanon and Bosnia, but its implementation has proven to be problematic in a country like Burundi. Moreover, a consociational form of power sharing may be more suitable for a period of transition than for a period of consolidation. As Lijphart has argued, consociational power sharing works best when ethnic or other divided groups are of roughly comparable size and when there are more than two opposing groups (and negotiations and compromises are needed). And the system only works when the (ethnic) elites are in fact more moderate than their supporters. One of the main arguments against group-based power sharing is that the system perpetuates (ethnic) divisions and makes reconciliation more difficult. On the other hand, when (ethnic) divisions are real, it seems that the only way to manage them is by accommodating them in the power structure. Moreover, in general it can be said that democracy and governance are more sustainable when all players seek compromises and consensus, recognizing their differences. Source: Democracy and Political Party Assistance in Post Conflict Societies |
Minority Representation in Political Parties
Many countries employ quota systems designed by the legislature or by political parties rather than the constitution. As the main representatives of the people in political decision-making processes, parties should (taken together) reflect the interests of all citizens. This applies not only to decision making in government, but also when speaking symbolically for politically marginalized groups, as this promotes the inclusion of these groups both in government and in society more broadly.
There are several approaches that minorities and political parties can take to promote representation of minorities. For example, a minority group might set up its own political party (e.g. the Ang Ladlad party in the Philippines, which represents lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender Filipinos), or express itself through several different political parties (e.g. the Dalits in Nepal).
However, just the presence of minority parties or minorities within political parties is not always enough to ensure their representation in politics. Consequently, some constitutions require that a certain minimum number of women to stand as candidates in elections. To prevent political parties from placing women at the bottom of their electoral lists, and thus limiting their chance of election, many constitutions further require a certain proportion of women candidates across the party list or at the top of a party list.
Such a system exists in Argentina, which has a constitutional provision mandating affirmative action as a measure to ensure equal opportunity to run for elected office and an implementing decree setting in place a mechanism to ensure that parties put up women candidates.
In other cases, a country’s regulations might forbid parties from excluding other groups. This is the case in Burundi, where political parties are not allowed to associate themselves with only one ethnic group. In other countries, formal identification along ethnic lines is not allowed (e.g. Rwanda) or it is difficult to build parties around religion (e.g. in Tanzania).