Democratic Dictators

The idea that the majority rules gives those numbered among the majority comfort, and those in the minority little hope for anything but the crumbs that fall from their table. Sometimes the majority will do the right thing, but generally when it is only of benefit to them. If a community democratically elects to do the wrong thing – an unjust thing, then a democracy is no more admirable than a dictatorship that does the same. There is no honor in doing the wrong thing, simply because it has been dictated by the majority – in a ‘democratic’ way.

Had those communities been allowed to

There are times when a community must be forced into doing the right thing, even if and when it contradicts the desires and demands of the majority. That is, if the political power structure at the time is so arranged to, (by a majority vote). There are towns, cities and States all across the South that would still be fully segregated to this day, had those communities been allowed to wield ‘the tyranny of the majority.’ On September 23, 1957, police escorted nine African American children into Little Rock’s all-white Central High School – against and in the face of an armed majority’s will. Just over sixty years later, apart from those who have inherited that majority’s hate, there can’t be many people left who would dare suggest that the right thing wasn’t done.

The tyranny of the majority

The French political thinker and historian, Tocqueville, wrote, “If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them.” Tyranny of the Majority, Chapter XV, Book 1, Democracy in America.

The evils of injustice can be just as easily wrought by the hands of a democracy as by a tyrannical dictator.

What we really mean is what’s best for us

In a city and county’s efforts to consider, or even solicit the mainstream community’s opinions and input on how to address homelessness, we must be committed to doing the right thing, even if it runs contrary to the majority’s will. We must resist the idea that we are seeking the welfare of the community, for there are two communities – we the majority who live inside the margins, and those in the minority who’ve been pushed beyond. When we in the mainstream hide behind the suggestion that we are pursuing what’s best for our community, what we really mean is what’s best for us – what can we do with those who are homeless to make things better for us. Like criminalizing them out of the majority’s view in order to hide the failures of our democratic and capitalistic systems. A democracy that distinguishes itself from a dictatorship must guarantee that the majority will not abuse its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority. The minority’s rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society, otherwise, the majority’s rights lose their meaning.

James Madison, alluding to slavery, wrote, “It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustices of the other part.”

A solution that mends the torn fabric

Only when we seek a solution that genuinely pursues the welfare of their community can we say that we are doing the right thing. Only when we seek a solution that mends the torn fabric of our two communities can we cultivate peace. And only when we see the day that a homeless shelter is as foreign to us as a water fountain labeled, “for whites only,” can we say that we have surpassed compassion and achieved justice.