One of the characteristic problems of democracy as a form of government, and one that is frequently experienced by people all over the world in the blind quest to make democracy more common is the problem of the tyranny of the majority. It is to be remembered, and something people have a hard time understanding, that this sort of tyranny is a problem. Whenever an elected or representative body has a plurality or a bare majority short of a consensus about something, the decision to try to push this narrow majority to lead to the passage and implementation of policy rather than the search for a legitimate and genuine mandate is itself an abuse of authority. Let me repeat, as this bears repeating, that the attempt to impose policy and the passage of laws from a narrow and likely temporary majority where no consensus has been build, especially on contentious issues, is an abuse of the power of governing institutions. That this is not more widely recognized is a serious problem.

Every legitimate majority decision rests on a prior unanimity, and that is an agreement to be governed by laws and to accept the legitimate working of institutions and also a recognition of the rights of all, including minorities, to be free from being governed in an arbitrary fashion. Indeed, any well-functioning republic tends to have a variety of safeguards in order to ensure that multiple majorities may need to be met in order to achieve the passage of legislation. The Swiss Republic, for example, requires that in order to pass, laws must not only have a majority of votes in favor of a given proposal, but also a majority of cantons, to make sure that a minority of cantons may not force their will on others. The United States requires a majority in both houses of Congress, where there is proportional representation in one house and an equality of states in the other house, to demonstrate that there is a broader majority than simply that of a majority of voters in favor of a given policy.

Why is this done? Indeed, what is often done is itself insufficient to protect minorities from harm, in that most laws are seldom put to a vote of the affected population themselves, and a great many rules and regulations, what is termed administrative law, is passed without the consensus or even the involvement of elected representatives, much less the people that they represent. No rule is valid or legitimate without the participation and the consent of those so governed. The achievement of a unanimity of putting oneself under the authority of a government frequently requires the recognition of fundamental laws that limit the scope of authority to areas where a broad consensus exists and a recognition of the freedom of people from the arbitrary and abusive power of government against unpopular minorities. The erosion of such rights marks the arrival of the tyranny of majorities, and the breakdown of a legitimate social order.

The remedies for such an alarming situation, where governments do not place themselves under restraint to avoid enacting laws and regulations on the presence of bare or narrow majorities, are limited. Power sharing agreements can easily be broken when one side possesses the votes to overturn the interests of the smaller and weaker side. Autonomy can be granted in name but denied in fact by regimes which seek to push for a uniformity that is not borne out by the reality of support across diverse communities of people. Even the sacred right of self-defense can cease to be recognized for those people who find themselves part of permanent and enduring minorities within a larger community, and their persons and property may simply not be protected or regarded by police and legal and governmental institutions, despite their frequent protests. In many cases, a long chain of abuses of a smaller group by a larger and more powerful one may make it impossible for those minorities to accept any longer the rule and authority of an abusive majority. The result is a proliferation of smaller polities that seek to survive in a harsh world that rewards those who can work together in larger groups, but such a skill seems elusive in even our most enduring republics in the present day.