why?
Should minorities have a veto?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
why?
I agree with the idea of a veto power for minorities. A few questions come to mind when considering this addition to the system of checks and balances in a democracy, particularly the representative democracy of America. First, what constitutes a minority? 20%? 2%? It brings a favorite quote of mine to mind:
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
Second, how would these minorities vote? Would they be elected to office or would they simply speak out on every issue that passes through the system and tally up the votes?
Finally, if such a power were installed in the governing system, is there an override for such veto powers? Using a minority veto would essentially bring the democracy toward the function of an oligarchy. How would the majority prevent tyranny from the minority? That seems to be one basic principle of a democracy - to allow the citizens to have freedom from a few ruling members of society.
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
Second, how would these minorities vote? Would they be elected to office or would they simply speak out on every issue that passes through the system and tally up the votes?
Finally, if such a power were installed in the governing system, is there an override for such veto powers? Using a minority veto would essentially bring the democracy toward the function of an oligarchy. How would the majority prevent tyranny from the minority? That seems to be one basic principle of a democracy - to allow the citizens to have freedom from a few ruling members of society.
That question, as is, isn't well posed. Vetos are not held by demographic groups, but by specific government officials. So absent some suggestion for how each particular group is going to be represented (which is itself a much bigger can of worms than the veto question), it's impossible to even discuss.
Most places that have pursued confessionalism have ended up regretting it, by the way (see Lebanon). It tends to be a recipe for gridlock, as well as corrosive to the rights of individuals (as opposed to confessional groups). And on top of all that, it ends up heightening conflict between the groups anyway.
As spidergoat already mentioned, rights are supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution, and so not subject to majoritarian whims in the first place. The trouble in California is that we have this idiotic practice whereby the Constitution can be amended by a majority popular vote. Which is to say that we don't actually have anything that merits the term "Constitution" at all.
This is currently being argued in the CA Supreme Court, BTW, and the ruling could overturn not only Prop. 8 itself, but also the ability to revise the CA Constitution via referendum.
All good points worth considering. And you are right, there are drawbacks even with the veto. e.g. if we to use, for example, a representative scientist group to override the objections for scientific developments when the majority opposed them, we'd be held hostage to the changes that these scientists could impose without discussion. Another example is the UN security council veto.
Which is why I clarified my point as proportional representation. ie the minority should have a veto when the rights already enjoyed by the majority are being denied to the minority.
Perhaps, but I did not choose the question. It was asked in a conference to a friend who is a politician working on ethnic diversity and globalisation. The friend answered no, but I disagreed.
A veto only works on proposed legislation, but it couldn't deal with existing situations where discrimination might exist as the default position.
Like if a state normally doesn't allow gay marriage, you can't simply use veto power to change things.
So then which minority gets the veto? If legislation were proposed to allow gay marriage, could Christian fundies veto it?
Only if they stopped getting married themselves.
Sure, but if that's all you want to accomplish, it's simpler and more effective to rely on a Supreme Court to enforce Constitutional protections of equal rights for all, rather than try to construct some kind of multi-confessional veto system. If none of the groups are to enjoy special rights or protections, then why do they need to be represented explicitly in the first place?
As difficult as it is to arrive at an impartial Supreme Court with the power to enforce such equal protections, it remains the most practical, realistic option. Pursuit of a confessional system, with its attendant squabbling for recognized group status and divisiveness, is more likely to bring a government down than to advance anyone's rights.
Which conclusion? And which Supreme Court?
They're supposed to apply the Constitution, so provided the Constitution calls for equal rights, they ought to end up overturning any law that violates equal protection. That glosses over a lot of politics, of course, but that's the idea...
So you first need a constitution. Where do you get that?
Minorities shouldn't even have rights in their respective states.
A bunch of rich, powerful old farts who think they know a lot sit down and decide what's best for all of the people, then they write it out on a couple of pieces of paper. Voila' ....instant consti-fuckin-tution.
Baron Max
How would you define minority? Just by race? Obviously not, since you've already mentioned homosexuals. Well, what about people who make over $250k/year. They're a minority. Should they have a veto over Obama's planned tax increase on "the wealthy'? What about people who own businesses that emit carbon? Could they veto Obama's proposed "cap and trade" system? This idea of yours has potential!
Right, and you also need a Supreme Court, and in reality these things have to be created by some political (and, presumably) democratic process. Which leaves open the possibility that a craven majority could remove equal protection from the Constitution, or appoint judges to the Supreme Court that would not uphold it. To avoid bad outcomes like this, you typically include mechanisms to make it more difficult to alter the Constitution or appoint justices to the Supreme Court than it is to pass a regular law. For example, amendments usually require some kind of supermajority in the legislature, ratification by a supermajority of states, etc. and Supreme Court nominees are vetted by Congress and appointed for life (to shield them from the types of political considerations that those who must worry about reelection suffer from).
In the end, there's no way that a system can be both democratic AND rule out any particular outcome. Provided enough voters want something badly enough, any democratic system will eventually produce it. What you CAN do is to make it more difficult to produce bad outcomes, and hope that creates enough space for the better lights of the citizenry to prevail.