Question

distinguish democracy and majoritarianism

Answer 1

Hi there ⭐️⭐️

DEMOCRACY :- Democracy is the form of government in which rulers elected by the people.
Ex - India is a democratic country.

MAJORITARIANISM :- It is the form of government in which govt. favours only majority community..Don't focus on minority community ..
Ex- Srilanka is a majoritarisnism form of government.

Thanks ⚛️⚛️

Moderator out here ☑️

Answer 2

Majoritarianism is often the negative result of democracy. It is when a majority uses their voting rights to vote for parties, groups, or politicians that snatch the right of the minority, and/or does not act in the interests of the minority altogether. 

True, pure democracy is known as direct democracy, a system used in Ancient Greece. It is a system in which all or at least a large percent of the population makes the decisions for a region or country. Examples of modern direct democracy can be found in town hall meetings, where all the members (or at least a large percent of them) of a town discuss with city government officials to make decisions for the town. Many Swiss cities have complete direct democratic systems. People can be found congregating in public places making decisions for their town or city. True democracy (direct democracy) will not have the problem of majoritarianism, since all of the citizens (or all those who care) are directly involved a region's policy making and government. True democracy is when the people are the government.

Majoritarianism is mainly a problem in modern democratic systems. Modern democratic systems do not implement direct democracy on a large scale, because it would be inefficient in trying to get the entire population directly involved in government affairs. In addition, most of the population knows little about policy and how to run a national government, so this responsibility is entrusted to politicians. Most systems which we call "democracies" are actually more "republics", as there is an intermediary between the people and the government, and the people are indirectly involved in the government. In order to have the people somewhat involved in government, voting systems and elections are established. With this system corms the problem of the majority of the electorate voting to abuse the rights of the minority. Again, in true, direct democracies, since all the people or all the people who care are directly involved, there is no problem of a majority or a minority. In a republic, since people are indirectly involved and have to vote, such problems exist. In a direct democracy, if there are majorities and minorities, they can debate and solve the problem, since the people are the government. In a republic, the majority is unlikely to debate with the minority, because the people are not directly involved in government and thus will not voluntarily congregate to decide who to vote for, as voting was designed to be a passive thing, which, as a result, is more efficient. 

Fortunately, democratic republics, as they are called, have safeguards against majoritarianism. America, for example, has the electoral college, which can allow for Presidents to be elected despite winning a minority in the popular vote, so that there's not a tyranny of one party or another. Parliamentary systems often have disparities between the seats allocated and the popular vote to prevent this outcome as well, thigh the consort of Proportional Representation has proven to be successful and had not yet had this problem. 

So in short, majoritarianism is often the result of democratic-republican voting systems, as in a true democracy, the people are the government, so there are safeguard from the majority overtaking the minority. Modern systems are not really democracies, but democratic-republics, which, fortunately, have some safeguards against a tyranny of the majority