Tyranny of the Minority

Tyranny of the Minority

The elapse of years and learning from our past mistakes as humans have instigated substantial changes in the way people all around the globe live today. For instance, today, vast organizations and programs advocate for human rights and protest against discrimination of any kind. When we look back at history, such kinds of initiatives would have been impossible to execute; however, with people receiving awareness, everything today looks doable. It is also imperative to acknowledge that such interventions would not have been possible without the help of policy framers who sought to level the plan for everyone. Laws and the constitutions today are vital components that guide and regulate every one of us, ensuring that no one takes advantage of the other.

As far as it is concerned, policy developers’ idea of developing these laws was to safeguard the rights of the minority against the indulgence of the majority. In essence, the framers sought to establish a structural system that would protect the political ambitions of the minority from the majority. At the time, the minority were individuals with power and resources, and safeguarding such aspects was more essential than addressing what the majority required. Although back then it seemed like the right approach, such action has influenced people’s lives later negatively. The minority groups utilize the implemented policies or even acquire new ones that help them do things in their own way. They end up ignoring the needs of the majority of people.

Bishin (2009) refers to it as the Tyranny of the Minority. The author comprehensively tackles and outlines the implications of the power that minority groups have over the majority in politics. Benjamin explores vivid examples of the rule of minority groups in America and how it hinders the actualization of the majority’s preferences. Bishin’s analysis of the topic also reiterates the fundamentality of history. For example, Cuban Americans living in Florida have always been sensitive to Fidel Castor’s name and even went to extreme actions such as murder when people showed support of any kind towards him (Bishin 2). As a result, minority groups were formed to reduce and restrict Castro’s influence on Cuba, thus leaving Florida free-living Cuban Americans. However, as years pass by, the majority view these approaches as irrelevant. It includes the restriction of trade and travel, which impacts the lives of common families living in Florida who are not Cuban.

The intensity and sensitivity of those events have gradually come to influence Florida’s political activities. Despite the Cuban community in the said State being only about 5% of the total population, politicians today, before making any decision, have to consult with the heads of these minority groups for approval of any activity or policy (Bishin 2). Failing to get approval from these minority groups would possibly result in direct opposition to the politician. Since these groups represent the larger Cuban community, the whole community would be against you. Bishin (2009) documents that even prominent leaders such as Senator Bill Nelson and Governor Bob Graham, known for their political acumen, consulted these groups before associating with Cuba or traveling to Cuba. One would wonder how such events occur, especially with the current constitution that advocates for democracy and the promotion of the needs of the majority.

 How the Minority Groups Acquire the Policy to Face Majority Opposition and Institutional Designs

Before the establishment of the Constitution, America faced many cases that promoted the discrimination and oppression of marginalized communities. Subsequently, the development of the constitution led to the formulation and promotion of democracy, whose essential components include equality and liberalism. As a result, the realization of those two aspects instigated representative politics (Bishin). An individual would vie for a position such as Mayor or Senator in Congress, and the community would vote for them in approval. Such an approach ensured that all communities were duly represented, thus promoting liberalism and equality.

Bishin (2009) points out that although the democratic constitution of America did its best to ensure people exercised their rights, it also influenced the emergence of minority groups in societies. The author’s evaluation of the Cuban community in the State of Florida is a perfect example of how representation gifted minority groups the power to dismiss the overall needs of the majority. For instance, the events between Fidel Castro and the Cuban community instigated the American government to ensure that the Cuban society in America was comprehensively represented (Bishin 2). Consequently, the issues of the Cuban community in the State of Florida became the most sought out compared to the needs of the larger community, which also included non-Cuban families.

Such circumstances made it hard to implement changes that would benefit the whole community instead of particular individuals. For example, in 2002, Annie Betancourt, a Democratic representative, sought to oppose the regulations placed by the Cuban minority groups, which included lifting the ban on travel to Cuba. Betancourt’s stance represented the needs of the majority. However, she was still lost because she went against the wishes of the Cuban heads, thus missing out on the support of the whole Cuban community. Similarly, her loss could also be attributed to the fact that over the years, since the practice of political representation, only prominent Cuban individuals who came from a particular royal lineage represented the Cuban community (Bishin 3). In essence, despite Betancourt being a Cuban, she was not from the royal family of Diaz-Balart, who were known all over Florida to represent Cubans. As a result, any word against her by Mario Diaz-Balart meant that the whole Cuban community was against her proposals.

Subsequently, the acquisition of political positions by a particular royal Cuban lineage meant that they could manipulate the law as much as they wanted, thus gaining power over the majority. For example, the Diaz-Balart family had been in political seats since 1954. When Rafael Diaz-Balart was the majority leader of the Cuban House of Representatives and came in 2002, Mario Diaz-Balart was now the representative. Consequently, their over-presence in political positions gave them an upper hand in influencing the formulation and implementation of policies. One perfect example of the minority groups’ grasp on framers includes the fact that Diaz-Balart was the one who created the then newly formulated 25^th district for himself (Bishin 3). Since Diaz-Balart’s family was the one that created the 25^th district upon which the Miami Congress seat elections were being held, Annie Betancourt always had a very slim chance of emerging victorious against Mario.

Institutional designs such as the constitution are meant to help ensure that every citizen exercises their rights accordingly with no restriction. However, over the years, policies created by minority individuals in political seats, such as the minority groups of the Cuban community, have impacted the legitimacy of such rights. The norm is that the majority should have a higher voice over the minority, but that is exactly the opposite. The minority today utilizes the constitutional powers vested in them to manipulate policies to always be on their side. Diaz-Balart’s creation of the 25^th district is a perfect example of how political individuals misuse the power to establish things meant to benefit them specifically other than the larger society.

Sub-constituency Politics Theory and its Impact on the Constitution and Policies

Sub-constituency Politics theory often opines how the political class seeks to appeal to impress the different demands of the various social groups. It often entails identifying the various identities of these social groups and conforming to them to be a fit (Bishin 19). All these public relations exercises by politicians to identify with these groups always aim to advance their political millage and influence. Additionally, this theory seeks to discuss the classification of the players in this scenario: the politicians, the different interest groups, and the legislators. All the themes addressed in theory are discussed in the three groups. The sub-constituency politics theory will explain why individuals separate into various interest groups and how the classification happens (Bishin 19). Further, it explains how the political class put efforts to suppress some interest groups while they try to make those that align with their interests thrive

According to the sub-constituency theory, interest groups can be defined as either organized or not. Still, they share common interests or goals they want to achieve and their choice of how to achieve them. Additionally, groups can be defined as formally organized groups of individuals with the same interests or who work towards a common goal. Many a time, some groups in society are referred to as the minority group. Often, politicians and legislators may downplay their interests since their numbers are often of political insignificance.  However, there are several methods by which the minority group can get their policies and interests addressed. Over the years, methods have been devised in various democracies to give leeway to minority groups to achieve and overcome the hurdles presented to them by the constitution on policymaking. Since interest groups can constitute individuals with just a few common interests, minority groups can align with other groups with majority votes or say to have their policies passed and implemented.

The constitution is a powerful document as it consists of laws and regulations that guide and advise any political aspirations of individuals. Any deviation from what it requires would lead to the imprisonment of the offender. As a result, politicians always have to behave and act concerning the constitution’s guidelines. Such conditions, in a way, can become an obstacle to minority groups that seek to formulate policies that would favor them. Although they want to achieve particular aspects, these groups certainly do not want to be on the wrong side of the Constitution’s regulations. The Sub-constituency policy theory plays a fundamental role in helping minority groups evade any hurdles set by the Constitution.

In any electoral process, the vying party or individual has to build a coalition that involves people or groups that agree with his or her objectives. Having substantial support often guarantees success in any political pursuit. Consequently, here is where the Sub-constituency theory helps politicians gain the upper hand against their opponents. The theory helps them identify which groups and sections of the community agree with their mission, thus gaining massive support compared to their opponents (Bishin 20). Coalition building through Sub-constituency theory also helps them identify needs that a community requires more quickly than any other approach.

To conclude, over the years, the minority members of society have been considered the disadvantaged and vulnerable members of society. However, with the advanced democracies where the constitutions bear the absolute power, the reverse has been confirmed to be true. In most countries, minority groups have a greater say in terms of policies and by-laws, and thus, they are considered to bear the tyranny of the minority. In several democracies, the policies and provisions of the constitution give the minority an irrevocable mandate, which gives them a strong political say. Additionally, in most democracies, the interests of the minority groups align with many other formal and informal groups; thus, they become great assets in gaining political mileage.

Often, a politician seeks to gain the favor of the minority first to gain political credibility and favor from the many political influencers. It is, therefore, conclusively imperative to point out that minority groups have greatly gained tyranny in policymaking. Frequently, the minority has the resources and the goodwill influence that the politicians need to get their elected positions. Politicians trade their loyalty to decision-making with finances for the campaigns, swaying the goodwill of the minority who control the economic blocks of different amongst many others. Whereas the majority have the votes and the numbers to get their politicians of choice to represent them, the minority have harnessed the resources to influence the outcome of their constitutional and policy legislation.

Work Cited

Bishin, Benjamin G. Tyranny of the Minority: The Subconstituency Politics Theory of Representation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2009.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Tyranny of the Minority

The Framers created a system that protected political minorities from majority tyranny—in order to prevent the majority from limiting the rights of the minority. This is accomplished by creating institutions that share power in order to make it difficult to change policy. This outlook assumes that the minorities that need protection are those that have power or resources. Minorities today often lack these resources. Consequently, the democratic values of equality and liberty may require the majority to share power with the minority. Building on this idea, Tyranny of the Minority offers an explanation for how and under what circumstances members of minority groups can obtain a policy. Drawing on course readings and class lectures, please write an essay that answers the following question(s):

How can minority groups lacking power get the policy they want in the face of both majority opposition and an institutional design that seeks to thwart change? Does Subconstituency Politics Theory allow the marginalized to overcome the hurdles that the Constitution (i.e., Madisonian democracy) erects? If so, under what conditions? If not, why not? In answering, be sure to explain sub-constituency politics theory and identify the specific institutional hurdles that the Framers erected that limit minority groups’ ability to obtain a policy. Use those as building blocks for explaining how and under what circumstances minorities can prevail in American politics.