Authors: Nohlen
Summary: In about 750 words the entry traces the historical roots of this decision-making rule and specifies it, distinguishes it from others that require unanimity or proportionality, and overviews the continuing debate on the merits of majority rule for harmonizing increasingly divergent interests within democratic societies. While referring to ancient Greek and mediaeval church and state examples, the entry focuses on John Locke s role in popularizing majority rule while emphasizing the central democratic idea of the need for minority acceptance and protection. An extensive overview of the 19th century debate between proponents and critics of majority rule illuminates the conditions contributors felt necessary for majority rule to function democratically, and the justifications for alternatives such as proportionality or unanimity. The existence of many cultural and social minority groups is identified as the main obstacle for majority rule to harmonize political controversies. Therefore, the entry argues, proportionality has become the dominant representation principle in most Western democracies, and decision-making structures based on compromise and bargaining (corporatism) supplement the formally accepted majority rule. The entry closes by reflecting on the late 20th century critique of majority rule by Western social movements, which renounced majority rule not in general but only in central political decisions on issues such as nuclear energy, war making or genetic engineering.