So what does make of the constant brandishings of “democracy, democracy, democracy” from messers Bush and Blair(PLC of course)?
A lack of education? 
A lack of education?
I agree with comments on the idea that the judiciary helps to avoid excess views like bringing back segregation for example. Also when the “Mob” makes a point by changing the government… they basically just MADE a change… they didn’t “TAKE OVER” government. They made their point in one aspect they didn’t like. The socialists now have control and will do things as they wish.
Personally I was more worried about Democratically elected leaders going against 90% of the opinion of their country without even attempting to justify their folly in helping Bush in Iraq. 60% opinion is still close to half way... and debatable. 90 fucking percent ?! Aznar should be ashamed of overiding common sense like that... did he even try to convince people it was a good thing ?
( BTW Paul… you should have made it clearer that the OP spanish example wasn’t your opinion. If it is your opinion then it correctly came through to me as being such. So I don’t blame sailor for his reaction… or his pitting you. Your post in the past have been reasonable… so I warrant it was just a misunderstanding.)
Thank you for your vote of confidence.
Last evening was my time for being misunderstood. I presume my writing was especially unclear.
First, I wish to address the question in the title of this thread, rather than the question in the body. When does Democracy become Mob Rule?
When I think of Mob Rule, I think of a lynch mob, i.e. a large group of people (or majority) spontaneously gathered to take a particular action, usually resulting in the detriment of some person or persons we’ll call the minority.
When I think of Democracy, I think of a large subset of a population going to polls to vote on action for their entire society to take. Such action often results in some detriment to a minority (the losers in the vote).
Hence, Democracy is a very specific kind of Mob Rule, or a subset of Mob Rule, in which the particular action taken by the mob is to vote and subsequently to enact and enforce the outcome of the vote.
Both are a kind of “tyranny of the majority.” Democracy becomes Mob Rule when the institution of voting breaks down, but the majority continues to act in conflict with the minority.
I was trying to think of a historical example. One could argue by the above definitions that Germany’s Democratic government broke down into Mob Rule when Hitler took over, though I tend to think of Mob Rule as lacking centralized authority.
More often, I suppose, Mob Rule becomes a Democracy when a people grows weary of internal strife and decides to deal with it by instituting a system of voting.
Now let’s look at the question in the body of the OP: When is it the duty of government (or of individuals) to resist the will of the majority?
I will not speak to duty of government, but it is always the duty of every individual to follow his conscience. An individual should resist the will of the majority when it defies his personal moral code.
“Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”-James Madison.
Regards.
I don’t agree with what Spain did, but I would certainly not call it “mob rule”. Mob rule is fundamentally lawless. It does not bother to go through the legal niceties, even if the legal niceties have been corrupted (as in the Jim Crow South). Likewise, it recognizes no constraints beyond brute force. Mob rule in Spain would have been for the people to ignore the ballot box and violently overthrow the government. Spain did not abandon civilization and civilized methods.
I’m not sure how things are progressing in New Zealand since they rejected the institution of a Senate, though I know that Australia has relatively recently undergone massive Senate reform for exactly that problem–parliamentary democracy without an effective Senate results in a “Democratic dictatorship.” I’d suggest a similar transformation is soon to come in Canada.
The people do not have significant input into the government in most parliamentary systems, is really the point, which is why Senate reform occurred in Australia, and why it is (hopefully) soon to occur in Canada. MPs vote with the party, not with their constituents, and without a Triple-E Senate (Elected, Equal, Effective), there is neither check nor balance to stop them, excepting incidents that run roughshod over the rights of individuals. (America, of course, has exactly the opposite problem, being somewhat more prone to “mob rule” than most parliamentary systems).
As such, it’s not really a good analogy for non-parliamentary governments–it’s comparing apples and oranges. There is a significantly higher level of “trust,” for lack of a better term, in parliamentary systems.
None of this, of course, answers you’re question regarding when the New Zealand government should ignore the masses. I’m not sure that there is a hard and fast line that needs to be adhered to–more of a case-by-case assessment needs to be made (and probably is, though again I’m not sure what the current state of affairs in NZ is).
“The disposition of all power is to abuses, nor does it at all mend the matter that its possessors are a majority.”-James Fenimore Cooper.
Regards.
I believe that by “mob rule” he’s referring to the “tyranny of the majority.”
Regards.
A true democracy doesn’t mean the majority rules absolutely. But, even when that’s the case, how do you conclude that segregation and slavery would still be extant?
Examples?
How will adding an additional chamber in the legislature help, when this new chamber is also popularly elected?
Senators work exactly the same way as MP’s…
MPs are required to vote along party lines. What their constituents think of any given issue is largely superfluous. A triple E senate would have no such encumberment.
Kyoto was an excellent example. Most Canadians opposed it–in the West, it was overwhelmingly opposed–yet Liberal MPs, even in the west, were obligated to vote in favor of it, despite the fact that it wasn’t what their constituents wanted. The decision to ratify was made without consultation with even the Federal Environment Minister, yet despite the complete absence of any democratic process in the decision, Liberal MPs were required to vote along the party lines.
No they don’t. First of all, Senators in Canada are appointed, not elected. Secondly, it’s been decades since the Senate has made any notable decision on any bill passed in Canada. They answer to no one. Once a bill is passed the house there’s nothing stopping it. Canada’s parliamentary system is only remotely democratic on election day, and then only until the polls close in Ontario.
The point of a Triple E Senate is a body that answers directly to the people influencing the legislative process, rather than only a body that answers directly to the Prime Minister, which is the way most parliamentary democracies are assembled.
Regards.
Just to clarify, and so as not to result in long rants about how good/bad Kyoto is (though I fear I’m too late), the question I’m trying to raise is not whether or not Kyoto is the “right” decision.
The question, instead, is whether or not the decision to ratify should have been made by one man–Jean Chretien–without any consultation with his cabinet, which is exactly what happened. Perhaps, more specifically, whether or not a Triple E Senate would have forced the debate on the matter that I’d suggest should have occurred to begin with.
Regards.
I must have been asleep when this happened. What exactly are you talking about?
1948, Commonwealth Electoral Act, which attempts to ensure proportional representation in the Senate–elections were good to begin with, something Canada could stand to learn from, but keeping the Senate equal is at least as important. This is probably the key strength of the Australian parliamentary system over the Canadian. The Senate was always elected, and is now elected proportionately, at least in theory.
And the Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, which clarifies both the role and the responsibilities of the Senate to the Australian Legislative process. The aim of the Odger’s is summarized aptly on the Parliament of Australia’s site
“You must have an independent legislature, an independent executive, and an independent judiciary, and you can have only a mutilated government if you deprive it of any one of these branches”
Without a Triple E Senate, the legislative and executive branches of government become intertwined. Next thing you know, Jean Chretien can single-handedly ratify an international treaty. Australia, however, seems to run a bit too far in the other direction–the Senate is too powerful, rather than the House, though much of the current demand for Senate reform seems a little too much like an attempt to strip the Senate of any legislative power.
In 1983, the Australian senate changed their voting procedures, from a single-transferrable vote, to a proportional representation model. This has a much more profound effect than was generally reported. Political Scientist Iain McLean elaborated on this at length:
For what it’s worth, most of us in Western Canada would delight in seeing a Senate modelled after Australia’s here, as Western Canada has all the money, and none of the pull, because of disproportionate populations. Though I’d agree that perhaps the Australian Senate has a little too much power. It’s a tenuous balance.
Regards.
Firstly, I know you said “relatively” recently, but it was more than 20 years ago.
Secondly,
I read the paper, and I respectfully submit that Mr McLean is full of shit. Single transferrable vote is the same thing as proportional representation:
There were two changes made in 1983. The number of senators for each state was increased from 10 to 12, and voters were no longer required to nominate a sequential preference from 1 to n for all n candidates. Neither of those two changes fundamentally altered the nature of the system.
I have a problem with iamme99’s source of information. Not enough of an issue to start another thread, or to interject it here uninvited, since I have not been part of this discussion so far. I think my comments concerning the link provided by iamme99 are relevant to the discussion, but I am often wrong. So unless any interest is expressed by those who have been involved in this discussion I will just STFU. 
I read a comment by Portuguese Literature Nobel Winner Saramago this weekend that I think is very relevant to this discussion. He basically says that democracy has little to do with power of the people. That voters don’t govern in democracy. They only have the ability and right to determine a change of those currently in power. That economic power above all has been more determinant on how govt. works.
A Political Cientist teacher said we in fact have indirect elections... since parties determine who the candidates are. We just make a referendum to determine which on is more palatable to us the voters.
Add to the fact that campaigns that have a lot of money are more able to influence voters through ads (see Bush war chest)... and we see a not very pretty picture of modern democracy. Certainly economic power has become too important.I’m surprised no one’s raised the whole gay marriage issue. If you’ll forgive my citelessness, I seem to recall that one of Bush’s arguments for the Constitutional amendment was that it was wrong for the courts to impose judgments that run contrary to the will of the majority; IOW, that the “people should decide” (somewhat ironic, considering the events surrounding the 2000 election).
On a purely democratic basis, gay marriage would be banned in a heartbeat. What the courts in Massachusetts and elsewhere have ruled is that based on current laws gay marriage cannot be banned. That the issue is yet to be resolved is irrelevant; that the courts act as a check against the whim of the “mob” is entirely so.