The majority-minority view can be deleterious for a country

Summary

The article discusses the potential negative impacts of a majority-minority approach in policymaking, particularly in democratic societies, and emphasizes that the mere support of a policy by the majority does not ensure its fairness or correctness.

Abstract

The article argues that basing policies solely on majority opinion can lead to detrimental outcomes for a country, as evidenced by recent vaccination mandates and historical regressive policies. It highlights the shift from a carrot to a stick approach in dealing with the unvaccinated, where governments are increasingly restricting their rights and freedoms. The piece reflects on the nature of democracy, noting that while it allows for the implementation of policies supported by the majority, it also has the potential to overlook the rights of minorities. This is exemplified by the Indian Supreme Court's initial upholding of Section 377, which criminalized same-sex relationships based on majority views, and its subsequent overturning of the judgment, recognizing that constitutional rights should not be determined by popular opinion. The article suggests that democracy should protect fairness and individual rights, even if they conflict with the majority's stance.

Opinions

Governments are increasingly making life difficult for unvaccinated individuals to coerce them into getting vaccinated.
The majority's support for restricting the unvaccinated's movements is acknowledged, but the article refrains from debating the appropriateness of this policy.
There is a concern that democracy can lead to regressive policies when based solely on majority support, as seen with anti-immigration sentiments and religious appeasement.
The Indian Supreme Court's 2014 decision to criminalize same-sex relationships based on minority-majority logic is criticized.
The article commends the Indian Supreme Court's later stance that the majority's opposition to same-sex relationships does not justify their criminalization.
It is emphasized that democracy should not only reflect the majority view but also ensure what is fair and protect the rights of all individuals, including minorities.

Governments bowing to numbers

It’s getting tough for unvaccinated to move around. Australia deported Novak Djokovic. Italy, France, and other countries are making it difficult for people to remain unvaccinated.

Earlier countries allowed the unvaccinated to visit public spaces if they had a negative RT-PCR report — the carrot approach — but now countries have shifted to a stick approach. They have banned unimmunised people from sharing public spaces like restaurants, theatres, etc.

Governments globally are making it inconvenient for the unvaccinated to take part in the day to day affairs; they want to make it inconvenient to the extent that the unvaccinated are impelled to get the vaccine.

Majority and democracy

The majority of the population are backing the governments’ move to restrict the movement of the unvaccinated. I am not debating the propriety of this policy.

That’s the upside of Democracy. If a considerable segment of the population wants the government to implement a policy or withdraw a policy, they can get it done because numbers matter — leaders want to stay in power for as long as they can.

Leaders will side with the majority, especially if elections are approaching, and It matters little whether the majority is right or wrong.

Regressive policies and numbers

If numbers decide the policies, the countries can spiral downwards. We are already seeing regressive policies getting the support of a large population, for example, anti-immigration policy, the lynching of people belonging to a particular community (not direct support but the silence of the majority), policies appeasing the majority’s religion etc.

It’s the downside of democracy.

The Indian Supreme Court

Just because you have numbers doesn’t mean the policy is right. In 2014, The Indian Supreme Court had upheld the criminalisation of same-sex relationships based on the minority-majority logic. In 2014, the Supreme Court denied the right, stating, “ a minuscule fraction of the country’s population constitutes lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgenders.”

The Indian Supreme Court overturned its 2014 judgment

In 2017, the Indian Supreme court, during the hearing of decriminalising same-sex relationships (Section 377 I.P.C), stated that the majoritarian view in India opposes same-sex relationships but that itself doesn’t justify criminalising same-sex relationships.

Democracy is not only about upholding the majoritarian view but also protecting what’s fair, even if it means securing a single person’s right.

An excerpt from the judgment of one of the judges in 2017 points out that popular acceptance can be flawed in democracy, and democracy goes beyond pandering to the majoritarian view,

“The test of popular acceptance does not furnish a valid basis to disregard rights which are conferred with the sanctity of constitutional protection. Discrete and insular minorities face grave dangers of discrimination for the simple reason that their views, beliefs or way of life does not accord with the ‘mainstream’. Yet in a democratic Constitution founded on the rule of law, their rights are as sacred as those conferred on other citizens to protect their freedoms and liberties,”