Tyranny of the majority is a well known concept in political science. For example, initially the civil rights movement (both the civil war era, and the 1960s) and laws was quite unpopular. From a certain point of view, they were strong armed thru by activist judges and politicians who were violating the popular will.

> From a certain point of view, they were strong armed thru by activist judges and politicians who were violating the popular will.

Not just "from a certain point of view", Obi-Wan: The whole point of a constitutional system is to check the majority, to say that some laws are impermissible, no matter how much the majority wants them, because they violate some principle we regard as more important than majority rule.

But who is the "we" in this regard?

Still the majority of the population, as it happens. If serious percentages (say, 60%) of a democracy want something enough that they make it a voting issue, it'll happen eventually. You'll get a candidate who is happy to do 'everything the other guy would do + X'.

The big thing with constitutional changes is that they will normally require serious unity amongst the population, most of whom will likely by default agree with the constitution.

The majority isn't greedy and evil, they just don't put up much of a fight when the politicians 'misunderstand' and implement policy that favours the majority without accepting the damage to a minority. There are a lot of policies like that, and in many cases one suspects the politicians know exactly what they are doing but the public is intellectually lazy.

For instance, through supporting the most charismatic leader up to the point he gains enough power that not supporting him becomes dangerous.

You can’t fool all the people all the time. With the wrong political structure you only have to fool about half of them.

> Can you elaborate how popular will brings authoritarianism? Seems like a complete non-sequitur.

Someone once said, 'Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner'. Democracy, in its purest form, is arguably mob rule.

That's why constitutional democracy - democracy with limited government and the rule of law, including human rights - is the ideal and the foundation of modern government. The majority, the popular will, can't vote to take away your free speech and other rights, no matter how unpopular you are. Remember the foundation of the U.S. is the assertion that 'all men' have "inalienable rights", and that governments exist to protect those rights.

It's not proven that " constitutional democracy" is the ideal. The "foundation of modern government" says that a Black person as no rights, but counts as 3/5ths of a person for their master's voting rights.

Modern constitutional democracy and republicanism were developed during the 17th and 18th century by Enlightenment authors (Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu). They setup some fairly novel concepts for enabling representative government, including the idea that rights derive from the principle of authority (Locke) and the idea of separation of powers to limit authoritarianism (Montesquieu).

Ideal is hard to quantify here, but if we focus on maximizing representation and effectiveness at the same time, then it's fair to say that these forms of government were uniquely successful. Despite their flaws and failures, they still seem to be the best at maximizing those two variables. Prior to the U.S., people accepted Plato's sensibility that all forms of democracy devolve into authoritarianism -- which obviously is a meme that persists today. (It's worth pointing out that at the same time the U.S. was forming, France had its democratic revolution which ultimately settled into Napoleonic rule.)

The racism of the Enlightenment authors I mentioned is fairly staggering. It's hard to reconcile that with their work, even at the time it was written. Despite that, America now has 100% suffrage and managed to retain its government structure (via a civil war).

> It's not proven that " constitutional democracy" is the ideal. The "foundation of modern government" says that a Black person as no rights, but counts as 3/5ths of a person for their master's voting rights.

Great point; I agree that I shouldn't have used the word "ideal", because it's not at all ideal. Constitutional democracy sucks; it's just much better than any alternative. (I think Churchill said that.)

>...Constitutional democracy sucks; it's just much better than any alternative. (I think Churchill said that.)

He said something like that, but he didn't say he originated the thought. In the house of Commons, he once said:

"...Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government

I was under the impression that it was "liberal" democracy that gives rise to principles-over-majority rule in practice. The idea being that government authority is derived from the will of the majority just as strongly as it is derived from the rights of the minority.

This seems much more closely aligned with the principles of liberalism than it does constitutionalism. Any dictator can write a constitution and derive authority from it. They can't, however, practice authoritarianism through the practice of liberal principles.

> "liberal" democracy

I see this as a matter of terminology, not meaning. Here's what I know:

I've seen "constitutional democracy" used by experts, though not often enough to say it's a term of art in that field. Certainly I've seen experts say that the basic formula = (democracy) + (constitution that protects minority rights and limits government).

And certainly "liberal democracy" also is used to describe that form of government. Those liberal principles are enshrined in the constitutions; I don't know if that defines "liberal democracy".

> Any dictator can write a constitution and derive authority from it.

That would omit an essential component of the 'formula', democracy.

I think you're right, at least in an academic sense. I just associate "minority rights" with "liberal" by applying the principle that people should be allowed to do whatever unless there is a (relatively) objectively justifiable reason to do otherwise. So enshrining that principle in a constitution makes for a liberal and minority-rights protecting component, while the democracy makes for the authority-of-the-majority component which counterbalances it.

> enshrining that principle in a constitution makes for a liberal and minority-rights protecting component, while the democracy makes for the authority-of-the-majority component which counterbalances it

Very interesting way to think about it. Thanks.

Such blather just gives people a guaranteed argument in favor of their opinion. If the majority is in agreement, great--majority rules. If the majority isn't in agreement, great--they are suckers for fascists.

The devil's in the details. There isn't really such a thing as popular will - there are a lot of people who all want different things and who can change their minds. What can happen in practice is you have a referendum like the brexit one where there is a lot of misinformation and the vote goes 48-52 one way or the and then the more fascist tabloids go on that the result is the will of the people and anyone who questions it is an enemy of the people etc. Much of the language originates with Hitler and Stalin who used that stuff in worse ways.