A reading sample from Tyranny of the Majority? Implications of Direct Democracy for Oppressed Groups in Europe by Anna Krämling, a snippet from chapter “Conceptual Frame and Definitions”.
2 Conceptual Frame and Definitions
To prepare the ground for my analysis of direct democratic bills and outputs for oppressed groups, this chapter presents the conceptual frame and most important terms I use. First, starting with the new conceptual ground this thesis touches upon, I present the concept of “oppressed groups” defined by Iris M. Young, outline why it is useful for investigating patterns of direct democracy, and describe how I apply it in this dissertation. Second, the chapter contains the definition of direct democracy used in this thesis. I introduce the differentiation between pro- and contra-bills as well as between pro- and contra-outputs in more detail and define different direct democratic instruments. Third, the chapter deals with theoretical reasons given in the literature for why direct democracy might result in a Tyranny of the Majority – or why it could empower oppressed groups instead. I outline the characte-ristics of oppressed groups that I expect to influence a group’s fate in direct democratic votes. In addition, I present theoretical assumptions about the effects of direct democratic instruments, quora and a binding vote result, as well as the effects of the education levels, economic growth and ethnic fractionalization in the country and year of a vote.
2.1 The Concept of Oppressed Groups
Why is the concept of oppressed groups useful for the purpose of this dissertation? The following section presents the concept, reasons for applying it, criticism and use of the concept in the social sciences, and its application in this thesis.
Most of the literature on the possible tyrannical effects of direct demo-cracy uses the term “minorities” to refer to groups that might be in particular danger (e.g., Christmann & Danaci, 2012; Haider-Markel et al., 2007; Lewis, 2013; Vatter & Danaci, 2010). For example, in Lewis’ (2013) analysis of direct democracy in the U.S., he refers to “the concept of ‘political mino-rities’ that focusses on discrimination and political rights […]. […] These widely protected classes include minority groups defined by race, color, reli-gion, ethnicity, and national origin. More recently other groups have also gained recognition as valid ‘political minorities’, including groups defined by their sexual orientation, gender identity, age, gender, and disabilities.” (Lewis, 2013, p. 13). The term (political) minorities contains the conception of a group that differs from the majority of the population due to a certain characteristic, excluding for example women (as they do not represent a numerical minority). In addition, low SES groups in particular have been proven to be disadvantaged in case studies on direct democratic votes (Schäfer & Schoen, 2013; Töller & Vollmer, 2013). Yet, these groups are usually excluded when research on direct democracy refers to its impact on minorities. Finally, being a minority does not necessarily mean that a group is in a disadvantaged position – resourceful minorities are often influential, very likely to mobilize voting majorities and thereby able to benefit from direct democracy. Besides these major downsides, there has been no discussion of nor presentation of alternatives to the concept of minorities in research on direct democracy so far.
Therefore, I am using the concept of an “oppressed social group” as coined by Iris Marion Young (1990) to identify relevant groups that can be expected to be especially vulnerable in direct democracy. For Young, “it is identification with a certain social status, the common history that social status produces, and self-identification that define the group as a group” (Young, 1990, p. 44). For my purposes, it is crucial that others perceive its members as a group and judge them accordingly – or, as Young puts it, “our identities are defined in relation to how others identify us, and they do so in terms of groups which are always already associated with specific attributes, stereotypes, and norms” (Young, 1990, p. 46). For example, she explicitly includes poor people and women (Young, 1989). Applying her concept to research on direct democratic votes thereby allows for an investigation of their implications for a wider variety of groups which can be assumed to be disadvantaged by direct democracy.
For Young, oppression has five faces: exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence (Young, 1990). Young ex-plains the focus on these five aspects pointedly in her own words as follows: On exploitation: “The injustice of exploitation consists in social processes that bring about a transfer of energies from one group to another to produce unequal distributions, and in the way in which social institutions enable a few to accumulate while they constrain many more.” (Young, 1990, p. 53). On marginalization: “Marginals are people the system of labor cannot or will not use. […] A whole category of people is expelled from useful participation in social life and thus potentially subjected to severe material deprivation and even extermination.” (ibid.) “Two categories of injustice beyond distribution are associated with marginality in advanced capitalist societies. First, the pro-vision of welfare itself produces new injustice by depriving those dependent on it of rights and freedoms that others have. Second, even when material deprivation is somewhat mitigated by the welfare state, marginalization is unjust because it blocks the opportunity to exercise capacities in socially defined and recognized ways.” (ibid., 54) “…it also involves the deprivation of cultural, practical, and institutionalized conditions for exercising capacities in a context of recognition and interaction.” (ibid., 55). On powerlessness: “The powerless are those who lack authority or power even in this mediated sense, those over whom power is exercised without their exercising it; the powerless are situated so that they must take orders and rarely have the right to give them.” (ibid., 56) “I have discussed several injustices associated with powerlessness: inhibition in the development of one’s capacities, lack of decisionmaking power in one’s working life, and exposure to disrespectful treatment because of the status one occupies.” (ibid., 58). On cultural im-perialism: “To experience cultural imperialism means to experience how the dominant meanings of a society render the particular perspective of one’s own group invisible at the same time as they stereotype one’s group and mark it out as the Other.” (ibid., 58-59). On violence: “Members of some groups live with the knowledge that they must fear random, unprovoked attacks on their persons or property, which have no motive but to damage, humiliate, or destroy the person. […] I also include in this category less severe incidents of harassment, intimidation, or ridicule simply for the purpose of degrading, humiliating, or stigmatizing group members.” (ibid., 61) “The oppression of violence consists not only in direct victimization, but in the daily knowledge shared by all members of oppressed groups that they are liable to violation, solely on account of their group identity. Just living under such a threat of attack on oneself or family or friends deprives the oppressed of freedom and dignity, and needlessly expends their energy.” (ibid., 62).
Applied to this dissertation, every group that suffers from one or more of these faces of oppression or has done so in the recent past is considered to be potentially vulnerable in majoritarian decision-making. Given that the focus of this dissertation is on democracies, oppression of violence should be less common. However, forms of exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, and cultural imperialism can and do persist in democracies.
2.1.1 Criticism and Use in the Social Sciences
The publication of Young’s Justice and the Politics of Difference with its definitions of oppression and social groups as well as the five faces of oppression and the policies she recommends sparked a debate in Political Theory. In the following, I provide a short overview of the major critiques and explain why I nevertheless use her conceptualization here. Afterwards, I summarize previous operationalizations of the concept in the social sciences.
Nancy Fraser, for example, has criticized Young for differentiating too strictly between cultural and political-economic phenomena when it comes to groups, the forms of oppression they suffer, and therefore the remedies for oppression – thereby often favoring the cultural dimension (Fraser, 1997a, 1997b). Instead, Fraser calls for a more “differentiated view of difference” (Fraser, 1997b, p. 204). According to her, the roots of the oppression expe-rienced are decisive for defining the remedy – for example, cultural forms of oppression might have economic roots, resulting in redistribution being the right remedy rather than recognition of the group’s difference. In some cases, such redistribution might even lead to the abolishment of the group as such. Therefore, rather than always applying a politics of difference, one should differentiate between differences that need to be erased, those that should be universalized, and those that should be enjoyed (Fraser, 1997b). Yet this interpretation of Young’s concept has also been called into question, with Lima e Silva and Silva arguing that Young (1990, 2000) does address econo-mic injustices to the same degree as cultural ones, for example by focusing on the role of distribution and division of labor (Lima e Silva & Silva, 2019).
As a reaction to Young’s concept, Melissa Williams developed her own concept of marginalized groups. According to her, these have four characte-ristic features: “(1) patterns of social and political inequality are structured along the lines of group membership; (2) membership in these groups is not usually experienced as voluntary; (3) membership in these groups is not usually experienced as mutable; and (4) generally, negative meanings are assigned to group identity by the broader society or the dominant culture.” (M. S. Williams, 2000, pp. 15–16). Who counts as a marginalized group may be the subject of political disagreement, as it depends on their history of ex-clusion from citizenship and state-sponsored discrimination, changing social circumstances and intergroup relations (M. S. Williams, 2000). Compared to Young’s concept, this concept of marginalized groups therefore allows for greater flexibility. Yet while this concept has a great value in itself, the last point especially makes it difficult to use for the purpose of this dissertation. Although one can expect changes over space and time in terms of which groups are oppressed and which are not, political disagreement as implied by the concept itself would disable any clear-cut operationalization and appli-cation in quantitative comparative analysis.
Given the diverse faces of oppression and the numerous groups that have since been defined as oppressed (see below), Kymlicka (1995) criticizes the breadth of the concept, stating that applying the concept to the U.S. would result in about 80 percent of its population being classed as oppressed. I build on this critique by analyzing whether a concept as broad as this is useful in investigating the implications of direct democratic votes.
Another point of potential criticism might be whether describing a group as oppressed is not too harsh a word, describing the group as an object rather than a subject of actions, and posing the question of who the oppressor is. While I especially agree with the second point, one focus of this dissertation is to investigate whether these groups really are oppressed in direct demo-cratic votes, i.e., whether groups that are worse off regarding the topic of a bill are put at further disadvantage by its adoption or rejection at the ballot box. A finding of more bills being brought to and adopted in a vote that support a group’s interests would support the claim that calling that group oppressed does not hold in the context of direct democracy. I also do not question the ability of so-called oppressed groups to stand up against op-pression – they do so every day, often encountering numerous barriers in the process. Rather, this dissertation will specifically offer insights into whether said groups are successful in taking action via the direct democratic route. Finally, the existence of oppressed groups requires the existence of an oppressor as well. However, who constitutes an oppressing group depends on the oppressed group and the circumstances of their oppression. Therefore, for the purpose of this dissertation, oppressing groups are diverse coalitions of different people aiming at disadvantaging oppressed groups even further or inhibiting improvements in their situation via direct democratic votes.
Young’s concept has since been used to refer to several different groups in different contexts. She herself provides an encompassing list of oppressed social groups in the U.S. today, including women, Blacks, Native Americans, Chicanos, Puerto-Ricans and other Spanish-speaking Americans, Asian Americans, gays and lesbians, working-class people, poor people, old people, people with mental health issues, and those with physical disabilities. In addition, she points to the historical exclusion of Jews in Europe (Young, 1989). Recently, several studies have focused on LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, queer persons), women, people with disabilities and low SES groups as oppressed groups (Mancenido-Bolaños, 2020; Pineda, 2020; Tempels et al., 2020; C. C. Williams et al., 2020).
***
Would you like to continue reading?
Order “Tyranny of the Majority? Implications of Direct Democracy for Oppressed Groups in Europe” in our shop
Implications of Direct Democracy for Oppressed Groups in Europe
by Anna Krämling
About “Tyranny of the Majority?”
Does direct democracy result in a Tyranny of the Majority for Oppressed Groups? This first analysis of over 500 referenda shows that on the contrary, Oppressed Groups were often able to benefit from direct democracy. However, the interests of LGBTQ+ groups, groups of low socioeconomic status, and foreign nationals are under pressure. To protect them, the book develops ways to design direct democratic votes that support Oppressed Groups.
Do you have any questions? Get in touch!
