Minarets: democratic, but unlibertarian
The people of Switzerland have voted, democratically, to ban the building of minarets. More than 57% of voters and 22 of the 26 Swiss cantons voted in favour of the ban, in defiance of the government (although in support of the largest party in parliament) as “a vote against minarets as symbols of Islamic power.”
Democratically, this is a decision made by the people of Switzerland. The Swiss people can hold a referendum on any law passed by its government if they can get enough signatures – they are the only country in the world to have such a high level of direct democracy.
But what it does show that democratic decisions aren’t necessarily the right decisions – it is entirely unlibertarian to ban the building of any particular style of building and, to look at a more historical example, Switzerland did not give the vote to women (on the federal level) until 1971!
In the end, it comes down to an almost impossible decision: what is more important, the democratic process or the outcome? Is an unlibertarian decision reached through democracy more right than an a libertarian decision decided on by a dictator?
This is the “tyranny of the majority” issue with democracy – and I don’t think that it can ever be unequivocally resolved.
Categories: All WW, Politics, We The People
Tyranny of the majority – ‘voting is violence’, more to the point it is the initiation of violence. Personally Voluntaryism (AKA Anracho-Capitalism) is the ‘answer’ to the problem, but on a practical level it presents some problems.
Excellent post!
There is no doubt that this example will set back supporters of direct democracy. Intellectually though, I’m not sure the case stacks up.
There are plenty of examples of countries which have passed illiberal legislation without an initiative and referendum system. In any democratic system, whether direct or representative, you tend to get what you vote for. And for each Minaret ban, one could cite a vote for gay marriage. Lest we forget that the Republic of Ireland managed to ban the death penalty by referendum.
Speaking personally, I wouldn’t go as far as the Swiss system. I would certainly want to see a popular veto power, recall and a Douglas Carswell system of “People’s Bills” but I would like to see any initiative system sitting within Parliament rather than aside from it.
Although their system is non-binding, I like what I’ve seen of the New Zealand approach. There, referendums are fairly rare. What tends to happen is that if a petition looks like it might result in a public vote, Parliament will typically nip the issue in the bud by legislating for the issue on its own terms.
The perfect system involving referendums is one in which no referendums are actually held in my view because Parliament does a good enough job at representing the public. Giving the public the ability to call a referendum would be a key motivating factor, and of course no system can ever work “perfectly” but holding public votes every few months doesn’t really serve anybodies’ interests.
James Graham´s last blog ..Comment on Clegg’s Claimed Calamitous Camaroon Coalition – Crap!
I’d agree that it doesn’t, intellectually, stack up as a reason to prevent direct democracy. Rather, it just shows how direct democracy can give illiberal results as easily as liberal ones. That illiberal laws can be passed without direct democracy is neither here nor there, the difference is that anything voted in though referenda is usually seen as “the will of the people” rather than the decision of representatives, and so philosophically an easier law to have overturned at a later date.
I would like to see a greater use of direct democracy in our political system, but I haven’t really put enough thought into precisely how to really say more than that!
Chris´s last blog ..Banning minarets: democratic, but unlibertarian
“But what it does show that democratic decisions aren’t necessarily the right decisions” – Hmm says who? Oh You do!
So if you do not agree with it, it is not the right decision then? You are of course entitled to believe whatever it is you wish to believe, but who made you the determiner of what is right? And by what inherent sense of superiority do you instruct those of us who may disagree that we have got it wrong?
Democracy means that the wishes of the majority take precedence; and I bet you are now trying to work out a way that ‘democracy’ means that the right opinion (according to you) will overturn the will of the people. Dictators do that too you know.
I’m arguing that it is wrong from on a libertarian viewpoint. It’s not a defintive statement. And neither am I arguing that it should be overturned.
This post is a very basic start of an intellectual exercise to look at the potential downsides of democracy – ie. the tyranny of the majority.
Is anything decided democratically always right? Would it be right if it was decided by a vote that any group of people lost their right to vote? No. But it was decided democratically!
I am a democrat, but we have to look at the potential downsides of democracy too rather than just celebrate its good sides – and hopefully use the knowledge to develop a political system that is democratic, but prevents tyranny from the majority.
Chris´s last blog ..The Nazi bombs didn’t cause THIS much damage, Bercow