Justice and Democracy

"Democracy is not about the minority obeying the majority, but about the people having the right to choose what to do and what not to do."

I wonder if anyone has heard this saying before, and whether it gave you any insights. Here, I'd like to share my perspective on it:

Although we are taught from childhood that the minority should obey the majority, this is undeniably a mistake. In situations where there are only two options, and we have no other choice, we are forced to accept the majority rule. However, in this world, it is impossible for a person to exist in a situation where there is only one or two options.
[separator]
Let's first look at the principle of "majority rule." When a team encounters conflicting decisions, discussion and analysis are necessary. When time is short and there are no other options, a vote is held, with the minority abiding by the majority's decision. However, you might notice that in this situation, the rights and interests of the majority are guaranteed, while the minority's right to choose is taken away. They are forced to accept decisions that contradict their wishes. Can this be considered fair?

Some say this is the best approach when conflict arises. But how can we ignore another method commonly used in our country: seeking common ground while reserving differences, and reaching a consensus through consultation? As mentioned earlier, in this complex society, no issue is simply black and white. Wouldn't it be unwise to hastily apply the principle of majority rule in such situations? When we implement majority rule, we are making the minority do things they don't want to do. Can we deprive them of their rights?

When decisions are made, those in the minority should not be forced to obey unconditionally, but should have the right to choose not to participate. This guarantees their rights and ensures true fairness. You can try to persuade them, you can conduct ideological education, you can use gentle persuasion, but you must never force them to comply.

Our unified thinking, unified strategy, and the system of people's representatives are all based on the principle of majority rule. Personally, I believe that while majority rule is sometimes unavoidable, minimizing its use requires that the distance between the grassroots and the central decision-making level be as close as possible. The more layers there are, the harder it is to guarantee rights. Take the system of people's representatives, for example. We elect representatives layer by layer upwards. Perhaps the representatives elected by the people at the grassroots level might represent their thoughts (in reality, the people don't know their representatives at all, perhaps because it's still in its early stages). But as the selection process progresses upwards, representativeness gradually weakens. No one's thoughts are completely identical, and various biases accumulate. When it reaches the central level, shouldn't we stop calling them people's representatives altogether?

Chinese politics is quite strange; becoming a representative is very difficult, even if you're a celebrity or have enough popular support. Li Chengpeng, known for his outspokenness, announced his candidacy for National People's Congress representative earlier this year. Now he's completely silent.

People—justice, democracy?

These are just my naive thoughts, expressed from the heart; I hope someone more knowledgeable can offer guidance.