History of Political Thought - Paper Exam Date: 29/3/2019
Roan Buma (2647113) Dr. P. Overeem
POPULISM and TYRANNY
Populism is a recurrent topic in the 21st century. A large group of voters in liberal democracies
experience a loss of popular sovereignty and resent the political elite, who they blame for not
representing them and not listening to them. Right-wing populist parties offer an alternative political
view, but they also follow what some would call a ‘politically incorrect’ discourse. The rise of populist
parties in the Netherlands raises two questions, namely, to which extent should the people have ultimate
sovereignty, and where can we draw the line between freedom of speech and vulgar bigotry? In this
essay, I will discuss the views of John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville on the concept of tyranny
of the majority, in order to assert in which ways the majority is able to tyrannize society. I will then
present solutions Tocqueville offers to diminish the threat of tyranny of the majority. I will then present
arguments by Mill on freedom of speech and compare them to common populist arguments and
discourse.
TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY
According to Tocqueville, one of the great dangers of democracy is the so-called tyranny of the
majority, which can be described as the self-interested rule of the majority over minorities (Cahn, 2015,
p.646). Mill also expresses his fear for tyranny of the majority, arguing that the supposed ‘will of the
people’ in democracies, is in fact the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people
(Cahn, 2015, p.749). Mill adds that while classic tyranny acts only through public authority, the tyranny
of the majority also acts through social tyranny, where means of tyrannizing are not restricted to acts
thereof by political functionaries, where society itself is the tyrant and “can and does execute its own
mandates” (Cahn, 2015, p.749). According to Mill, social tyranny oppresses more effectively than other
kinds of political oppression, since “it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply
into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself” (Cahn, 2015, p.749). Tocqueville argues that under
absolute government of one alone, despotism struck the bodies of the oppressed, to reach their soul.
This was not effective though, as the soul kept free and rose ‘gloriously’ above it. In democracies,
however, tyranny “leaves the body and goes straight for the soul” (Cahn, 2015, p.663).
Based on the arguments of Mill and Tocqueville we can identify and assert two ways through
which the majority is able to coerce society. The first is legal coercion through public authority. It
happens through the legislative process of democracy, where legislation is made according to the will
of the majority. After a bill has become legislature, by law every individual must comply to it. Physical
coercion also falls within this category, since the modern state has a legal monopoly on violence. The
physical coercion under despotism, described by Tocqueville, would also fall under legal coercion. The
second is social or moral coercion and happens through the shaping of public opinion by the majority,
by group standards, shared norms and values. As both philosophers beautifully put it, the majority
reaches directly for the souls of the people, instead of needing the use of legislation or physical coercion.
As the Netherlands is a country of minorities, with the largest percentage of votes ever received by a
party being 35,3 percent (Andeweg & Irwin, 2014), ultimate popular sovereignty or tyranny of the
majority, both legal and moral, clearly is not desirable and should therefore be avoided.
Roan Buma (2647113) Dr. P. Overeem
POPULISM and TYRANNY
Populism is a recurrent topic in the 21st century. A large group of voters in liberal democracies
experience a loss of popular sovereignty and resent the political elite, who they blame for not
representing them and not listening to them. Right-wing populist parties offer an alternative political
view, but they also follow what some would call a ‘politically incorrect’ discourse. The rise of populist
parties in the Netherlands raises two questions, namely, to which extent should the people have ultimate
sovereignty, and where can we draw the line between freedom of speech and vulgar bigotry? In this
essay, I will discuss the views of John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville on the concept of tyranny
of the majority, in order to assert in which ways the majority is able to tyrannize society. I will then
present solutions Tocqueville offers to diminish the threat of tyranny of the majority. I will then present
arguments by Mill on freedom of speech and compare them to common populist arguments and
discourse.
TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY
According to Tocqueville, one of the great dangers of democracy is the so-called tyranny of the
majority, which can be described as the self-interested rule of the majority over minorities (Cahn, 2015,
p.646). Mill also expresses his fear for tyranny of the majority, arguing that the supposed ‘will of the
people’ in democracies, is in fact the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people
(Cahn, 2015, p.749). Mill adds that while classic tyranny acts only through public authority, the tyranny
of the majority also acts through social tyranny, where means of tyrannizing are not restricted to acts
thereof by political functionaries, where society itself is the tyrant and “can and does execute its own
mandates” (Cahn, 2015, p.749). According to Mill, social tyranny oppresses more effectively than other
kinds of political oppression, since “it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply
into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself” (Cahn, 2015, p.749). Tocqueville argues that under
absolute government of one alone, despotism struck the bodies of the oppressed, to reach their soul.
This was not effective though, as the soul kept free and rose ‘gloriously’ above it. In democracies,
however, tyranny “leaves the body and goes straight for the soul” (Cahn, 2015, p.663).
Based on the arguments of Mill and Tocqueville we can identify and assert two ways through
which the majority is able to coerce society. The first is legal coercion through public authority. It
happens through the legislative process of democracy, where legislation is made according to the will
of the majority. After a bill has become legislature, by law every individual must comply to it. Physical
coercion also falls within this category, since the modern state has a legal monopoly on violence. The
physical coercion under despotism, described by Tocqueville, would also fall under legal coercion. The
second is social or moral coercion and happens through the shaping of public opinion by the majority,
by group standards, shared norms and values. As both philosophers beautifully put it, the majority
reaches directly for the souls of the people, instead of needing the use of legislation or physical coercion.
As the Netherlands is a country of minorities, with the largest percentage of votes ever received by a
party being 35,3 percent (Andeweg & Irwin, 2014), ultimate popular sovereignty or tyranny of the
majority, both legal and moral, clearly is not desirable and should therefore be avoided.
