(Éirigh, March 1969, pp. 14-15)
The principle of majority rule, which is of such fundamental importance in a democracy, has been described as “the divine right of fifty-one per cent”. It is an accepted democratic principle that if fifty-one per cent of citizens vote for a particular measure and forty-nine per cent vote against it, the fifty-one per cent deserve to have their way. We recently had an example of this in our own country. In the General Election of 1965, two Dáil deputies, one from Dublin, the other from Mullingar, were declared elected after several recounts, in the last of which each won his seat by less than ten votes.
Is the principle of majority rule to be accepted absolutely and without restriction? Where do minority rights enter into the picture? We may ask whether minority rights are inherent in democracy or merely a generally accepted addition to it. If democracy is in its essence a government by the people, does it mean that the minority can be consistently ignored or even suppressed in the name of the majority?
Could Hitler be called a democrat?
An example may be of assistance here. Hitler had the support of a substantial majority of the German people and in their name he expressed minorities. Can he still be called a democrat? It would be a travesty of democracy to affirm that he was. Only by the narrowest interpretation of the democratic ideal could this be justified. Any government, be it democratic or otherwise, must aim at the good of the community, and this is not synonymous with the good of the majority.
England is regarded as the country which has carried the principle of majority rule to its furthest conclusions. There is no legal force superior to Parliament, and its acts are not subject to revision by any other authority. There is, however, a very powerful check on any abuse of this power by Parliament in the moral consensus of the people who would be unwilling to accept any authoritarianism. Americans pride them-selves, and justly so, on what they refer to as a system of “checks and balances.” This ensures that no one individual or group in government will have excessive power.
The Irish Constitution
What of our own country? In the Irish Constitution, a special section entitled Fundamental Rights is devoted to providing for protection of personal liberty, under the heading of Personal Rights, The Family, Education, Property and Religion. The President, too, can send any Bill to the Supreme Court for review. If it is found to be unconstitutional it has no binding force. This has been done on a number of occasions. Likewise, any citizen can question the constitutionality of any Bill in the Courts. This has been quite common in recent years.
Two other provisions of the Irish Constitution help to protect minority rights. One is the provision of Article 27 that if a sufficient number of Dáil deputies and Senators obtain the President’s consent, any Bill can be presented to the people in a referendum. The second provision is for a Senate whose function it is to review and, if necessary, amend Bills passed by the Dáil. As provided for in the Constitution the Senate could fulfil a useful purpose, but in its present condition it is simply an expensive rubber stamp, costing the country roughly £100,000 a year. The most it can do is to delay the passage of a Bill for ninety days.
However, in spite of these defects, we must say in justice that minority rights are adequately safeguarded in democratic Constitutions. If a minority feels that it is being treated unjustly it can air its grievances publicly, it can state its case and enlist support. If it fails to do this, it has only itself to blame. If it is impossible for it to do this, then the majority must, in conscience, lay aside the claim to being a democracy. The essence of democracy does not lie in “The divine right of fifty-one per cent.”