Minority Rights for Constitutionalism and Democracy -myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theMinority Rights for Constitutionalism and Democracy. Answer: This essay focuses on the discussion of the concept of minority rights proposed by John Mill and the criticism of his theory. Classical utilitarianism addresses the connection between majorities and the minorities on two levels. One is theoretical and another is practical. The traditional criticism of this relationship between these two classes proposed by Utilitarianism focusses on the alleged incapability to provide adequate theoretical foundation for securing individual right as well as the protection of the interests of minorities. This phrase the greatest happiness of the greatest number can be interpreted as an implicit declaration of majority ascendancy (Roach, 2017). This criticism can be traced to the heart of the utilitarianism in John Stuart Mills notion of the tyranny of majority. In discussing this, Mill has proposed a partial criticism pf the classical utilitarian theory of government which he inherited from James Mill and Bentham. The object of this essay is to discuss and examine the problem of majority rule as well as minority rights from the perception of the classical formulation of the theory of Utilitarianism, more particularly that of Bentham and J.S Mill. Mill recognizes individual rights but they are based on the concept of utility which he has insisted in his introduction to On Liberty. He regards utility to be the final application on all the ethical questions and it is essential be the utility in the largest sense, that is based on the enduring interests of man as one of the most progressive being. As prospered by Mill, the individual has limitations of power which is exercised by the society legitimately (Patten, 2014). He clearly defines that his concerns for liberty and rights do not extend to all the individuals as well as all the societies. Mill states that individual rights are always acceptable to harm oneself as long is not haring others. He argues that the individuals do not have rights to do lasting and serious harm to either themselves or the property because no one exists in isolation. To him the individual rights can affect others especially impact of the property which indirectly harm the collective rights (Morigiwa, Ishiyama Sakurai, 2017). To John Mill, the individual rights are the spirit of justice which is the most important part of ethics. According to the political theorists, the majority statute cannot be the exclusive manifestation of the supreme power in the democracy. However, there is always a threat of abuse of power which the majority enjoys. Democracy mandates minority rights just as the majority rules (Grigoriadis, 2015). As the democracy in this contemporary world is understood, the rights of the minorities must be secured no matter how estranged the minority or group is from the majority societies else the rights of the majorities miss their relevancy. The liberties of individual along with the privileges of the groups of the separate states now a day has been protected though the acts and bills of rights. In the country like America, the rights are measured as the most essential elements of liberal democracy (Dahl, 2017). These are embodied in the international human rights conventions. These enumerate the rights which may not be violated by any of the governments and safeguard the right of the minorities against the majority tyranny. John Mill Took the principle and wrote, The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others (Mill, 1966). The no harm principle by Mill, aims to avert the governments from becoming the medium for the tyranny of majority, that was viewed as not only a political but also a social tyranny which muffled the minority voices as well as impose regulation of through along with values (O'Nions, 2016). He separates the concerns about the tyranny of majority into two differ challenges for democracy. First, the institutional problem which he explains in detail. To him, even in the system of majority rule, the government may reflect the abuses regarding the majority tyrants (Kreitzer, Hamilton Tolbert, 2014). He argues that there is nothing inherent in the majority rule which prevent unjust results. The another challenge can be considered as the cultural problems. This issue refers to the distinct for m of despotism formed by the culture of the self-government. The rights of the majority have to be secured as the tyranny of the majority has been granted to be evil. The tyranny of evil like all other has been granted to be dreadful chiefly operating through the acts of the public authorities (Ayoub, 2015). According to the theorist, the society sometimes become tyrant itself. the majority of the society regulate the norms and when the wrong issues are followed instead of right (Koenig, 2017). The institutional problems centers on the possibilities which records the idea that the majorities can have the capability to violet rights of the others. Charles Taylor was one of the greatest thinkers of post-world war era. He is basically known for proposing a liberal theory of multiculturalism that identifies the collective cultural rights of the minorities within the Federation of Canada. He is the proposer of the theory named, deep diversity that calls for liberalism which is dedicated to collectivist survival as well as improvement of the Quebecois, Aboriginals and the visible minorities of the state. This particular theory has been employed effectively by the academics as well as media elites (Mitnick, 2018). This is because this theory has efficiently transformed Canada into a diverse country in one hand and representing the Canadian Multiculturalism as the successful model to this world. This theory of deep diversity, proposed by Charles Taylor, directly opposes the theory of J.S. Mill because it entails cultural requirement of the minorities unpredictable with liberal norm. It states that all the citizens must enjoy the same rights as enjoyed by the individuals (Burchardt, 2016). In such case, one can support the idea of Taylor that the theory of individual rights covered within it the concept that the humans must have the right to showcase their ethno-cultural identities and get recognized. This is because of the fact that such recognition is mandatory to the self-fulfillment of the individuals (Shorten, 2016). Taylors ideology argues that the individuals can grow only as the members of the community. He states that the mainstream liberalism to advocate a disjointed idea of the individuals existing outside as well as apart from one particular society. Traditionally, John Mill has been depicted to be self-contradictory as well as failure to concept a coherent and united social theory. The recent scholars have however defied this view. To them, the work of John Mill is creatively systematic in linking the antinomies inherent in the liberal democratic thoughts. This revisionist clarification as well as understanding, of the concept of Mill is progressive by the study of his theory of justice as well as its role in determining his policy points on the issues like welfare voting rights, education, government intervention, taxation and the future of capitalism. Therefore, it can be concluded that the ideology that was introduced by the theorist like John Mill has a far reaching effect on the legislative, administrative and economic aspects just like the social facet. Despite the fact that there has been a number of contradictions in the theory of Mill, it has been greatly followed by the scholars still in this contemporary world. References: Ayoub, P. M. (2015). Contested norms in new-adopter states: International determinants of LGBT rights legislation.European Journal of International Relations,21(2), 293-322. Burchardt, M. (2016). Does religion need rehabilitation? Charles Taylor and the critique of secularism.Working with a Secular Age. Boston and Berlin: de Gruyter, 137-158. Dahl, R. A. (2017). Decision-making in a democracy: The Supreme Court as a national policy-maker. InConstitutionalism and Democracy(pp. 137-154). Routledge. Escamilla, M. (2018).Rights and Utilitarianism. John Stuart Mills Role in its history.Journals.openedition.org. Retrieved 10 April 2018, from https://journals.openedition.org/etudes-benthamiennes/192 Grigoriadis, I. N. (2015). On the Europeanization of minority rights protection. InThe Europeanization of Turkish Public Policies(pp. 154-166). Routledge. Koenig, M. (Ed.). (2017).Democracy and human rights in multicultural societies. Routledge. Kreitzer, R. J., Hamilton, A. J., Tolbert, C. J. (2014). Does policy adoption change opinions on minority rights? The effects of legalizing same-sex marriage.Political Research Quarterly,67(4), 795-808. Mill, J. S. (1966). On liberty. InA Selection of his Works(pp. 1-147). Palgrave, London. Mitnick, E. J. (2018).Rights, groups, and self-invention: group-differentiated rights in liberal theory. Routledge. Morigiwa, Y., Ishiyama, F., Sakurai, T. (2017). Universal Minority Rights? A Transnational Approach.Proceedings of the 5th Kobe Lectures. Tokyo and Kyoto. O'Nions, H. (2016).Minority rights protection in international law: The Roma of Europe. Routledge. Patten, A. (2014).Equal recognition: The moral foundations of minority rights. Princeton University Press. Roach, S. C. (2017).Cultural autonomy, minority rights and globalization. Routledge. Shorten, A. (2016). Alan Patten Equal Recognition: The Moral Foundations of Minority Rights Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014, 344 pp. 30.95 hbk.