Democracy is a system of
governance at a national level; or a system of management accommodating
incomparable views to proceed forward in pursuit of greater or higher cause
in an otherwise blocked road. It is a consent of the concerned involved enacted
as a law to be observed and/with the use of the instruments put in place when
and if needed. A law for one is a law for all. There is no such thing as local/
national law and international law.
That said democracy is a
law. So democracy for one is democracy for all. Democracy for many is democracy
for few as well. The views/wishes of the many are not intrinsically superior
and therefore biding the few must observe. They consent to observe the will of
the many it is because it would be in their best interest to do given the
circumstances they find themselves: nothing more nothing less.
Democracy is not a set of
numerical equation in an algebraic formulation where many rule the few.
Democracy is a fundamental human rights issue; it is a human rights issue for
one or few as it is for many any time any place in heaven or on Earth.
What is then wrong with the
dictatorship of the Proletariat? But if one agitates the dictatorship of
the Proletariat some would not hesitate to jump through the windows for fear of
being misrule! Be that as it may. But the dictatorship of the Proletariat is
synonymous as the dictatorship of the many/majority rule, which in turn us
democracy rule if the many. So the rule of the majority could be as unwelcome
as the rule of any form of dictatorship if is us imposed against the
will/consent the minority.
Then why wouldn’t the
minority, say in the USA for example reject the imposition of the majority will
foisted on them and form their own government? It could be because of one or
combination of the two higher or greater human needs/causes that led to
temporary surrender of their inalienable rights.
Let alone a large
minority’s even one individual can declare to set his/ her own government if
she/ he wishes to do so. But there are problems enacting this will, which
I must now address.
If two couple lives in
house, one is tidier than the other, the other may wish to continue living with
the person because there may be other things recompensing this weakness; that
is what I call greater or higher cause to take in to accounts. The second point
is the tidy person may not have anywhere else to go and force to put up with.
In a nation, the minority consents (if their minority status is based only on views they uphold) to abide the majority as long as it takes if they see they have an equal opportunity to empower their views once their views is endorsed by many.
But the single most important factor the minority consent, nolens volens to the majority in the USA as in every other democratic nations is because the minorities do not live in one defined geographic area with wholesome socioeconomic structure to live by. A 49.5minority that lives scattered and interspersed among 50.5% majority does not constitute a body of its own to form a government with its pennant flag waving. The same goes true to an individual in the middle of many in a city or a village to declare his/her home as State with its own flag. That too is true for minorities based on race, ethic or clan that they could not declare independence not because it is not their inalienable rights to do but because they lack the means to enact. If on the other hand minorities live in a defined geographic area and wish to firm their independent government even regardless the low percentage of its population. The majority cannot terrorize and dictate the minority’s as their inalienable rights to do so. If they could; if the law allows, then any one with strength, be it in number or muscles or armamentaria can dictate and subdue the lesser. No, this is not a universal law - the law for as the law for all.
