The basic principle of democracy is that the minority obeys the majority and makes decisions based on the opinion of the majority. But where are the boundaries and limits of such decision-making? For example, in a lavish gathering, eight civilian attendees voted to have two wealthy attendees pay for the meeting. So, is such a decision reasonable? It seems obvious to the onlooker, who presumably find it unreasonable.
However, if you flip the situation of the problem, the situation can become more complicated. For example, a large country has 100 million voters, of which 80 million are low- and middle-income voters, and 20 million are wealthier voters. In a referendum, the vast majority of the 80 million ordinary voters supported a bill to impose a highly progressive income and property tax on 20 million wealthy voters. So, is this a reasonable decision? It doesn't seem so easy to answer. In fact, this is the problem that many countries are facing today.
These two seemingly simple examples actually contain the core questions of modern democracy: where should the scope and boundaries of democratic decision-making be? To put it simply, there are two questions: first, which matters should be decided democratically? Which matters should not be decided democratically? Second, should democratic decision-making be set in those matters that should be decided democratically? These two questions are directly related to whether a society can achieve good governance through democratic means.
As we all know, policies related to property and income are important issues in modern politics. Often, in single-ethnic democracies, wealth and income are also a major source of voter disagreement. The higher-income strata tend to favor economic liberalization and weakened redistributive policies, while the lower-income strata tend to favour government intervention and intensified redistributive policies.
The issue of property and income is often at the heart of the divide between the rich and the poor. Although modern democracy in Europe and the United States is often referred to as "peaceful class struggle", if there is no consensus on the scope and boundaries of democratic decision-making, democratic politics may degenerate into a "violent class struggle". In this case, political stability and the effectiveness of governance will be greatly reduced, and even political turmoil will be headed.
In fact, the conflict between the rich and the poor has plagued democratic politics for a long time. The ancient Greek thinker Aristotle noted that under the plebeian government, "there is a constant partisan struggle between the common people and the bourgeoisie". Since the poor hold the majority of votes in the plebeian government, in order to win the political support of the poor, demagogic mass leaders are prone to "incite the masses to attack the entire wealth class", including "imposing heavy taxes", "confiscating property", and "falsely accusing and framing" the rich, and many rich people lose their wealth or even go bankrupt. In such a situation, democratic politics may soon turn into a fierce class struggle. Faced with such a scenario, the wealthy class may unite to subvert the commoner form of government.
Since the Industrial Revolution, the process of democratization in European and American countries has also been accompanied by conflicts between the rich and the poor. In this regard, Marx's views are thought-provoking. He was adamant that capitalist democracy must be hypocritical. If democracy were real, the proletariat, with its head in the majority, would politically expropriate the bourgeoisie of its property, which the bourgeoisie would not have agreed to in any case. Not only Marx saw it this way, but also many conservative thinkers in the 19th century. For example, during the electoral reform initiated in Britain in the thirties of the 19th century, many conservative thinkers were very worried that once the common class gained the right to vote, it would have an impact on the British free market and property system. In the history of Western Europe as a whole, the process of the plebeian class's struggle for universal suffrage and the attainment of universal suffrage did put a great deal of pressure on the politics of these countries. However, the subsequent further economic development of Western European countries, the increase in the income of the common class, the narrowing of the gap between the rich and the poor, and the construction of the welfare state, eventually led to the gradual easing of the conflict between the rich and the poor.
Today, a key political compromise has been reached between the majority of voters in Europe and the United States: the common class accepts that the socialization of property rights and the direct redistribution of property rights are no longer included in political issues, while the wealthy class accepts progressive tax arrangements and transfer payments on property and income. If we go back to the discussion at the beginning, this means that the majority of voters agree that the socialization of property rights or the direct redistribution of property is no longer an issue within the scope of democratic decision-making;
This political equilibrium is also in keeping with the tradition of constitutionalism. The tradition of constitutionalism has at least a few meanings:
First, constitutional authority should be higher than that of specific political powers, and public decisions and policies should not conflict with the Constitution.
Second, the power of government should have definite boundaries and not be extended indefinitely, i.e., the principle of limited government.
Third, the fundamental rights of citizens are clearly protected.
Thus, constitutionalism is both a tradition that constrains the power of government and a tradition that constrains democracy itself. By defining the scope and boundaries of democratic decision-making, constitutionalism can prevent the abuse of power by those who are temporarily in the majority against those who are temporarily in the minority, i.e., the "tyranny of the majority".
The marriage of constitutionalism and democracy also means that the fundamental rights of all citizens – including, of course, property rights – are protected by the Constitution, and that even majority decisions cannot infringe upon these legitimate rights. Thus, if the principles of constitutionalism were to be put into practice, the common people would not covet the direct redistribution of property through democratic decision-making, and the wealthy would not have to go to the opposite side of democracy for fear of being dispossessed. Of course, it is by no means easy for countries that lack a tradition of constitutionalism to truly implement the principles of constitutionalism. In addition to the letter of the Constitution, what is more important is whether the main political forces in the country can truly respect the Constitution?
In addition to constitutionalism, many modern states have a mechanism for de-escalating conflicts between rich and poor. At the heart of this mechanism is the design of specific institutions that balances as much as possible the actual influence between the common people and the wealthy, or between the general public and the social elite. The experience of some countries is that the rules of the game should be designed to ensure the political sovereignty and participation of the masses and the appropriate influence of the elites, so as to achieve a balance of power between the two. Otherwise, a fierce conflict between rich and poor will emerge, powerful populism will rise, radical extremist ideas will rise, moderate conservative ideas will have nowhere to hide, and democratic stability will be threatened.
Historic Chile, for example, is an example. Chile in the mid-20th century was a highly unequal country. From the 50s to the 70s, the number of civilian voters who received the right to vote expanded rapidly. Due to the lack of a political balance between the rich and the poor, the voices of ordinary voters for land redistribution and corporate socialization have become increasingly loud, and class conflicts have intensified, and the whole society has increasingly split into two opposing groups. As a result, the wealthy class opted for an alliance with the military, and Chile's democracy was upended by a military coup in 1973.
In contrast to the Chilean story, the United States, at the beginning of its founding, paid attention to how to balance real power between the masses and the elites. For example, the Constitution's original provision that the president should be elected through the electoral college, the establishment of the Senate and the indirect election of senators, and the establishment of the Supreme Court and the arrangement of judicial review powers, were largely designed to balance the influence of a numerically disadvantaged elite on the political agenda and to moderate actual policy. As Yale professor Robert Dahl points out, one of the most important features of the American Republican Constitution is that it is not so "democratic" – presumably the arrangement made by the founding fathers of the United States to balance the real power of the masses and the elites. This arrangement is often opposed by populist thinkers, but is seen by many other thinkers as key to maintaining the long-term stability of the American republic.
One of the main properties of modern politics is class politics. So, how to alleviate the conflict between the rich and the poor in modern politics is a challenge for all emerging countries in transition, especially for countries with a huge disparity between rich and poor. Whether or not this issue can be properly handled has a direct bearing on the political destiny of a modern country.