STAGE 1

The first stage in political development of a society comes about when a governing
individual (be it from the leading tribe or caste), gains a position of rulership through
inheritance, conquest or betrayal. The rulership of this individual is therefore not
decided in any significant way by the actions of the people he will be ruling; there
was no election or vote. This is often not questioned either, sometimes due to the
mask of a religious connotation, such as a God given right.
The ever present problem in any society is the protection of the weaker members
from the stronger faces in society. Weaker members are in a position to be abused,
whether they are in that position by fault of their own, or circumstances conspiring
against them. One of the key roles for this ruler to take is the strongest member of the
society, so that he can protect the weaker member. However, It is obviously very
dangerous to have an individual in this position, as the power he wields is
theoretically limitless within the confines of his state. This power can just as easily be
used to oppress his subjects as to protect them. This ruler is the most powerful person
in society, and no single other individual can stand against him.
There are however, two ways in which the state can protect itself. The first is by
rebellion, or fear of rebellion. Combined, even the ruler cannot match the power of
the citizens, and this ruler would be quickly disposed of. If the ruler breaches his duty
and abuses his subjects beyond the threshold that is deemed unacceptable, then
society has every right to rise up and overthrow him.
The second method is where society establishes a body that is supposed to
represent the people, and forces the ruler to consider their views, or even make
them a required part of law. The danger here is that, unless the threat of rebellion is
imminent, the ruler could dissolve this council permanently, and with no side effects.
The second can however come about as a product of the first: If the ruler is not
dispossessed of completely in a revolution, then the citizens may agree to let the
ruler continue, but force them to abide by the wishes of this council. This is a
borderline between stage one and stage two, where an advisory body is elected,
but there is still a permanent ruler.
STAGE 2
In most societies, a time will eventually come where this system is questioned. Why
should we be governed by a power that is independent and sometimes opposed to
our interests? Instead, a power should be chosen from the people. This is a
democracy, where the persons in charge are representative of the desires and
wishes society. This gets around the problem of the ruler tyrannising over the people,
as these rulers can be replaced effortlessly, and no single person makes the laws.
The switch between stage one and stage two is often bloody, examples of the
French revolution and the beheading of Charles the first spring to mind.

In this way, a greater trust of power can be given to this body as a nation should not
need to be protected against its own will.
There are problems with this, however. The people that exercise these powers are
not always the same people as to who it is affected. This problem is called the
tyranny of the majority, and I will explain it here.
In a democracy, the voting system ensures that the most popular wishes of society
are made law (effectively). The most numerous views of the people are what are
decided upon. The problem here is that most numerous or active proportion of the
population are going to get their wills expressed legally even if they are to oppress
the minorities. In this way the minorities can see the entire system turn against them,
making the situation just as bad as it was with stage one: but this time there is no king
to protect them.
This is legal tyranny of the majority. Another form of tyranny of the majority is social
tyranny.
Tyranny of the majority is therefore something that all societies should be on their
guard to halt, as it can be extremely dangerous. In this case, the majority of societys
wishes are what is considered socially normal. Although the penalties for
breaking this social law are usually less extreme than legal penalties, this form of
tyranny leaves fewer forms of escape for a person. It can penetrate into the most
detailed areas of life, and force a person to conform to ways that they would not
otherwise. This form of tyranny can be more oppressive, unless the person in question
is of particularly strong character.
EXAMPLES OF THIS
Social and sometimes legal tyranny: The Muslim practice of not eating pork. This
could be enforced legally, and indeed is in some countries. This would not be a
legitimate exercise of public opinion, as the personal tastes people are not a case in
which legality has a position to interfere. Social tyranny of this is also unacceptable,
although there is a difference between oppressive tyranny and mild public distaste,
which will vary depending on where you are.
Social and Legal tyranny: In Spain, it was illegal to be anything but a Catholic
Christian. It is also terribly frowned upon to be any other religion. This is an area that
the state has no right to go, as someones religion should be their choice.
Social: Pleasures. If a Puritan believes that it is wrong to have fun, then they would
oppress and treat unfairly people that enjoyed themselves. They have no right to do
this, as what people do for fun is not something that others should govern.
Social: If someone is despised by those of smaller incomes for spending affluently,
then this is social tyranny, as they have no right to influence a private choice.

legal: If a prohibitionist wants to ban alcohol, then they are infringing on the rights of
the seller and the drinker, as people should have the freedom to make their own
choices. Just because the prohibitionist thinks it is wrong, gives no reason for it to be
banned.
Social and Legal: Illegitimate interference would be the state trying to force shops to
close on Sundays. This oppresses people of other religions and atheists who happen
to live in the same country.
Social: This one is tricky. If someone considers bigamy wrong, then Mormonism would
generally be illegal in most countries; and it is. Technically however, if it is made
illegal, this infringing on someones freedom, as if the woman in question is willing,
there is no harm done in Mormonism.
The question here is, where should the limit be placed? How can we adjust form
social control to total independence? It depends on the individual and it can affect
some people more than others. What sort of restraints might be put in place to
counteract the tyranny of the majority?