Is Majority a Fair Guide?

By saying, Government of the People, by the People, and for the People
Abraham Lincoln, the former President of the United States, means that it is
the people who counts and their opinion an opinion of the majority, must
be given importance in every issue that the government decides. Since then,
wherever democracy has taken firm roots, there is always a rule that
majority takes up the governmental reins in its hands, and applies its policies
disregard of the dissenting minority. However, the argument that majority
just jeers and pokes fun at the wisdom and sagacity does not hold much
weight, because various democratic governments have proved that majority
is a sagacious guide. In fact, majority is not a poor guide because it has more
minds to think, more time to consult and more people to force its opinion.

The history is replete with examples that democracy is the best form of
government where majority is sagacious, because there are more minds to
think on an issue. Even if there is a dictator ruling a country, he also holds
consultation with many minds before going to war or declaring a truce.
However, in case of a democracy and majority in rule, there are certainly
several heads to roll over an issue. That is why several laws in the UK
Parliament are not passed merely because the majority does not approve,
because there are many minds to find faults with them. Ultimately, it proves
that the move has some benefit. Same is the case of other parliaments
where decisions are delayed because some defects are found in the
enforcement of some laws. This shows that more minds are better than a
single mind or just a few minds.

The second argument is that when there are a lot of people that means a
majority, it takes time to gather them, and then consultation starts that also
takes a great amount of time. Either the critical period passes or arrives
when full consultation to cope with it is made. The decisions made after this
consultation proves sound and stabilizing instead of taken by smaller
minorities just in time. Churchill was known to take the Parliament into
confidence when confronting Hitler. He ultimately won. However, it is also
know that Hitler used to hide things even from his close aides. Therefore, he
lost because he did not consult the majority in a reasonable timeframe.
Hence, time is of prime importance when it is the question of the rule of
majority.

It is also that, in democracies, the laws passed by the majority are valid. No
king or queen can pass the laws or issue directives with a handful of cronies
now. This is a modern period and everybody is educate enough to
understand his own welfare as well as that of his community. Hence, he can
vote for the party having majority, and this majority has legitimacy over the
dictatorial minority, which does not have any legitimacy. Therefore, when
there is a majority, not only the opinion formation is easy, but also the
enforcement of this opinion is easily done through legislation. Therefore,
wherever there is a majority, there is a power of the state behind laws, and
things get legalized through the support of the majority. The war on terror
would not have been possible without the UN mandate, which has the full
support of the majority of the countries, which ultimately means the people
of all the countries.

In nutshell, majority is a strong, sagacious, legitimate and valid force, and

not only force, but also a strong and robust guide. It is because now following
the industrial revolution and proliferation of education, majority has become
saner than ever before. Now there is no rule of religion, creeds, dogmas and
beliefs. Now rationality rules the roost, and despite brouhaha of nationalism,
the sane majority rises up for sane decisions, as is the case of antiwar rallies
in the United Kingdom and the United States, which prompted both the
governments to start drawdown and leave Afghanistan and Iraq.