Direct democracy can itself enable the tyranny of a majority
Evidence
The commonwealth or republican position, by contrast, sees the people as trustor, both individually and collectively, and sees the state as trustee: in particular, it sees the people as trusting the state to ensure a dispensation of non-arbitrary rule. For this position direct democracy may often be a very bad thing, since it may ensure the ultimate form of arbitrariness: the tyranny of a majority. Democratic instruments of control will certainly be desirable and indispensable, but they are not the be-all and end-all of good government. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 77
Categorization
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 77
- XREF: connects to: Popular sovereignty can itself become a collective tyranny indistinguishable from a single tyrant; Modern democracy’s checks weaken but do not remove genocidal potential; Illiberal democracy enables nationalist preferences that democracy’s own norms would reject — Neil DeVotta, Sinhalese Buddhist Nationalist…, 145 (+6 more)