Mental health in China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_health_in_China 

 

Mental health in China is a growing issue. Experts have estimated that about 173 million people living in China are suffering from a mental disorder. The desire to seek treatment is largely hindered by China's strict social norms (and subsequent stigmas), as well as religious and cultural beliefs regarding personal reputation and social harmony. While the Chinese government is committed to expanding mental health care services and legislation, the country struggles with a lack of mental health professionals and access to specialists in rural areas.

History

China's first mental institutions were introduced before 1849 by Western missionaries. Missionary and doctor John G. Kerr opened the first psychiatric hospital in 1898, with the goal of providing care to people with mental health issues, and treating them in a more humane way.

In 1949, the country began developing its mental health resources by building psychiatric hospitals and facilities for training mental health professionals. However, many community programs were discontinued during the Cultural Revolution.

In a meeting jointly held by Chinese ministries and the World Health Organization in 1999, the Chinese government committed to creating a mental health action plan and a national mental health law, among other measures to expand and improve care. The action plan, adopted in 2002, outlined China's priorities of enacting legislation, educating its people on mental illness and mental health resources, and developing a stable and comprehensive system of care.

In 2000, the Minority Health Disparities Research and Education Act was enacted. This act helped in raising national awareness on health issues through research, health education, and data collection.

Since 2006, the government's 686 Program has worked to redevelop community mental health programs and make these the primary resource, instead of psychiatric hospitals, for people with mental illnesses. These community programs make it possible for mental health care to reach rural areas, and for people in these areas to become mental health professionals. However, despite the improvement in access to professional treatment, mental health specialists are still relatively inaccessible to rural populations. The program also emphasizes rehabilitation, rather than the management of symptoms.

In 2011, the legal institution of China's State Council published a draft for a new mental health law, which includes new regulations concerning the rights of patients to not to be hospitalized against their will. The draft law also promotes the transparency of patient treatment management, as many hospitals were driven by financial motives and disregarded patients' rights. The law, adopted in 2012, stipulates that a qualified psychiatrist must make the determination of mental illness; that patients can choose whether to receive treatment in most cases; and that only those at risk of harming themselves or others are eligible for compulsory inpatient treatment. However, Human Rights Watch has criticized the law. For example, although it creates some rights for detained patients to request a second opinion from another state psychiatrists and then an independent psychiatrist, there is no right to a legal hearing such as a mental health tribunal and no guarantee of legal representation.

Since 1993, WHO has been collaborating with China in the development of a national mental health information system.

Current

Though China continues to develop its mental health services, it continues to have a large number of untreated and undiagnosed people with mental illnesses. The aforementioned intense stigma associated with mental illness, a lack of mental health professionals and specialists, and culturally-specific expressions of mental illness may play a role in the disparity.

Prevalence of mental disorders

Researchers estimate that roughly 173 million people in China have a mental disorder. Over 90 percent of people with a mental disorder have never been treated.

A lack of government data on mental disorders makes it difficult to estimate the prevalence of specific mental disorders, as China has not conducted a national psychiatric survey since 1993.

The map of disability-adjusted life years shows the disproportionate impact on the quality of life for persons with bipolar disorder in China and other East Asian countries.

 

Conducted between 2001 and 2005, a non-governmental survey of 63,000 Chinese adults found that 16 percent of the population had a mood disorder, including 6 percent of people with major depressive disorder. Thirteen percent of the population had an anxiety disorder and 9 percent had an alcohol use disorder. Women were more likely to have a mood or anxiety disorder compared to men, but men were significantly more likely to have an alcohol use disorder. People living in rural areas were more likely to have major depressive disorder or alcohol dependence.

In 2007, the Chief of China's National Centre for Mental Health, Liu Jin, estimated that approximately 50 percent of outpatient admissions were due to depression.

There is a disproportionate impact on the quality of life for people with bipolar disorder in China and other East Asian countries.

The suicide rate in China was approximately 23 per 100,000 people between 1995 and 1999. Since then, the rate is thought to have fallen to roughly 7 per 100,000 people, according to government data. WHO states that the rate of suicide is thought to be three to four times higher in rural areas than in urban areas. The most common method, poisoning by pesticides, accounts for 62 percent of incidences.

Stigma related to cultural and folk beliefs

It is estimated that 18 percent of the Chinese population of over 244 million people believe in Buddhism. Another 22 percent of the population, roughly 294 million people believe in folk religions which are a group of beliefs that share characteristics with Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, and shamanism. Common between all of these philosophical and religious beliefs is an emphasis on acting harmoniously with nature, with strong morals, and with a duty to family. Followers of these religions perceive behavior as being tightly connected with health; illnesses are often thought to be a result of moral failure or insufficiently honoring one's family in current or past life. Furthermore, an emphasis on social harmony may discourage people with mental illness from bringing attention to themselves and seeking help. They may also refuse to speak about their mental illness because of the shame it would bring upon themselves and their family members, who could also be held responsible and experience social isolation.

Also, reputation might be a factor that prevents individuals from seeking professional help. Good reputations are highly valued. In a Chinese household, every individual shares the responsibility of maintaining and raising the family's reputation. It is believed that mental health will hinder individuals from achieving the standards and goals- whether academic, social, career-based, or other- expected from parents. Without reaching the expectations, individuals are anticipated to bring shame to the family, which will affect the family's overall reputation. Therefore, mental health issues are seen as an unacceptable weakness. This perception of mental health disorders causes individuals to internalize their mental health problems, possibly worsening them, and making it difficult to seek treatment. Eventually, it becomes ignored and overlooked by families.

In addition, many of these philosophies teach followers to accept one's fate. Consequently, people with mental disorders may be less inclined to seek medical treatment because they believe they should not actively try to prevent any symptoms that may manifest. They may also be less likely to question the stereotypes associated with people with mental illness, and instead agreeing with others that they deserve to be ostracized.

Lack of qualified staff

China has 17,000 certified psychiatrists, which is 10 percent of that of other developed countries per capita. China averages one psychologist for every 83,000 people, and some of these psychologists are not board-licensed or certified to diagnose illnesses. Individuals without any academic background in mental health can obtain a license to counsel, following several months of training through the National Exam for Psychological Counselors. Many psychiatrists or psychologists study psychology for personal use and do not intend to pursue a career in counseling. Patients are likely to leave clinics with false diagnoses, and often do not return for follow-up treatments, which is detrimental to the degenerative nature of many psychiatric disorders.

The disparity between psychiatric services available between rural and urban areas partially contributes to this statistic, as rural areas have traditionally relied on barefoot doctors since the 1970s for medical advice. These doctors are one of the few modes of healthcare able to reach isolated parts of rural China, and are unable to obtain modern medical equipment, and therefore, unable to reliably diagnose psychiatric illnesses. Furthermore, the nearest psychiatric clinic may be hundreds of miles away, and families may be unable to afford professional psychiatric treatment for the afflicted.

Physical symptoms

Multiple studies have found that Chinese patients with mental illness report more physical symptoms compared to Western patients, who tend to report more psychological symptoms. For example, Chinese patients with depression are more likely to report feelings of fatigue and muscle aches instead of feelings of depression. However, it is unclear whether this occurs because they feel more comfortable reporting physical symptoms or if depression manifests in a more physical way among Chinese people.

Chinese Military Mental Health

Overview

Military mental health has recently become an area of focus and improvement, particularly in Western countries. For example, in the United States, it is estimated that about twenty-five percent of active military members suffer from a mental health problem, such as PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury, and depression. Currently, there are no clear initiatives from the government about mental health treatment towards military personnel in China. Specifically, China has been investing in resources towards researching and understanding how the mental health needs of military members and producing policies to reinforce the research results.

Background

Research on the mental health status of active Chinese military men began in the 1980s where psychologists investigated soldiers' experiences in the plateaus. The change of emphasis from physical to mental health can be seen in China's four dominant military academic journals: First Military Journal, Second Military Journal, Third Military Journal, and Fourth Military Journal. In the 1980s, researchers mostly focused on the physical health of soldiers; as the troops' ability to perform their services declined, the government began looking at their mental health to provide an explanation for this trend. In the 1990s, research on it increased with the hope that by improving the mental health of soldiers, combat effectiveness improves.

Mental health issue can impact active military members' effectiveness in the army, and can create lasting effects on them after they leave the military. Plateaus were an area of interest in this sense because of harsh environmental conditions and the necessity of the work done with low atmospheric pressure and intense UV radiation. It was critical to place the military there to stabilize the outskirts and protect the Chinese citizens who live nearby; this made it one of the most important jobs in the army, then increasing the pressure on those who worked in the plateaus. It not only affected the body physically, like in the arteries, lungs, and back, but caused high levels of depression in soldiers because of being away from family members and with limited communication methods. Scientists found that this may impact their lives as they saw that this population had higher rates of divorce and unemployment.

Comparatively, assessing the mental health status of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is difficult, because military members work a diverse array of duties over a large landscape. Military members also play an active part in disaster relief, peacekeeping in foreign lands, protecting borders, and domestic riot control. In a study of 11,000 soldiers, researchers found that those who work as peacekeepers have higher levels of depression compared to those in the engineering and medical departments. With such diverse military roles over an area of 3.25 million miles, it is difficult to gauge its impacts on soldiers’ psyche and provide a single method to address mental health problems.

Researches have increased over the last two decades, but the studies still lack a sense of comprehensiveness and reliability. In over 73 studies that together included 53,424 military members, some research shows that there is gradual improvement in mental health at high altitudes, such as mountain tops; other researchers found that depressive symptoms can worsen. These research studies demonstrate how difficult it is to assess and treat the mental illness that occurs in the army and how there are inconsistent results. Studies of the military population focus on the men of the military and exclude women, even though the number of women that are joining the military has increased in the last two decades.

Chinese researchers try to provide solutions that are preventative and reactive, such as implementing early mental health training, or mental health assessments to help service members understand their mental health state, and how to combat these feelings themselves. Researchers also suggest to improve the mental health of the military members, programs should include psychoeducation, psychological training, and attention to physical health to employ timely intervention.

Implementation

In 2006, the People's Republic Minister for National Defense began mental health vetting at the beginning of the military recruitment process. A Chinese military study consisting of 2500 male military personnel found that some members are more predisposed to mental illness. The study measured levels of anxious behaviors, symptoms of depression, sensitivity to traumatic events, resilience and emotional intelligence of existing personnel to aid the screening of new recruits. Similar research has been conducted into the external factors that impact a person's mental fortitude, including single-child status, urban or rural environment, and education level. Subsequently, the government has incorporated mental illness coping techniques into their training manual. In 2013 leak by the Tibetan Center for Human Rights of a small portion of the People's Liberation Army training manual from 2008, specifically concerned how military personnel could combat PTSD and depression while on peacekeeping missions in Tibet. The manual suggested that soldiers should:

“...close [their] eyes and imagine zooming in on the scene like a camera [when experiencing PTSD]. It may feel uncomfortable. Then zoom all the way out until you cannot see anything. Then tell yourself the flashback is gone.”

In 2012, the government specifically addressed military mental health in a legal document for the first time. In article 84 of the Mental Health Law of the People's Republic of China, it stated, “The State Council and the Central Military Committee will formulate regulations based on this law to manage mental health work in the military."

Besides screening, assessments and an excerpt of the manual, not much is known about the services that are provided to active military members and veterans. Analysis of more than 45 different studies, moreover, has deemed that the level of anxiety in current and ex-military personnel has increased despite efforts of the People's Republic due to economic conditions, lack of social connects and the feeling of a threat to military livelihood. This growing anxiety manifested in both 2016 and 2018, as Chinese veterans demonstrated their satisfaction with the system via protests across China. In both instances, veterans advocated for an increased focus on post-service benefits, resources to aid in post-service jobs, and justice for those who were treated poorly by the government. As a way to combat the dissatisfaction of veterans and alleviate growing tension, the government established the Ministry of Veteran Affairs in 2018. At the same time, Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, promised to enact laws that protect the welfare of veterans.

Majority rule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule 

 

Majority rule is a decision rule that selects alternatives which have a majority, that is, more than half the votes. It is the binary decision rule used most often in influential decision-making bodies, including all the legislatures of democratic nations.

Distinction with plurality

Though plurality (first-past-the post) is often mistaken for majority rule, they are not the same. Plurality makes the option with the most votes the winner, regardless of whether the fifty percent threshold is passed. This is equivalent to majority rule when there are only two alternatives. However, when there are more than two alternatives, it is possible for plurality to choose an alternative that has less than fifty percent of the votes cast in its favor.

Use

Majority rule is used pervasively in many modern western democracies. It is frequently used in legislatures and other bodies in which alternatives can be considered and amended in a process of deliberation until the final version of a proposal is adopted or rejected by majority rule. It is one of the basic rules prescribed in books like Robert's Rules of Order. The rules in such books and those rules adopted by groups may additionally prescribe the use of a supermajoritarian rule under certain circumstances, such as a two-thirds rule to close debate.

Many referendums are decided by majority rule.

Properties

May's Theorem

According to Kenneth May, majority rule is the only reasonable decision rule that is "fair", that is, that does not privilege voters by letting some votes count for more or privilege an alternative by requiring fewer votes for its passing. Stated more formally, majority rule is the only binary decision rule that has the following properties:

• Fairness: This can be further separated into two properties:
  • Anonymity: The decision rule treats each voter identically. When using majority rule, it makes no difference who casts a vote; indeed the voter's identity need not even be known.
  • Neutrality: The decision rule treats each alternative equally. This is unlike supermajoritarian rules, which can allow an alternative that has received fewer votes to win.
• Decisiveness: The decision rule selects a unique winner.
• Monotonicity: The decision rule would always, if a voter were to change a preference, select the alternative that the voter preferred, if that alternative would have won before the change in preference. Similarly, the decision rule would never, if a voter were to change a preference, select a candidate the voter did not prefer, if that alternative would not have won before the change in preference.

Strictly speaking, it has been shown that majority rule meets these criteria only if the number of voters is odd or infinite. If the number of voters is even, there is the chance that there will be a tie, and so the criterion of neutrality is not met. Many deliberative bodies reduce one participant's voting capacity—namely, they allow the chair to vote only to break ties. This substitutes a loss of total anonymity for the loss of neutrality.

Other properties

In group decision-making it is possible for a voting paradox to form. That is, it is possible that there are alternatives a, b, and c such that a majority prefers a to b, another majority prefers b to c, and yet another majority prefers c to a. Because majority rule requires an alternative to have only majority support to pass, a majority under majority rule is especially vulnerable to having its decision overturned. (The minimum number of alternatives that can form such a cycle (voting paradox) is 3 if the number of voters is different from 4, because the Nakamura number of the majority rule is 3. For supermajority rules the minimum number is often greater, because the Nakamura number is often greater.)

As Rae argued and Taylor proved in 1969, majority rule is the rule that maximizes the likelihood that the issues a voter votes for will pass and that the issues a voter votes against will fail.

Schmitz and Tröger (2012) consider a collective choice problem with two alternatives and they show that the majority rule maximizes utilitarian welfare among all incentive compatible, anonymous, and neutral voting rules, provided that the voters’ types are independent. Yet, when the votersʼ utilities are stochastically correlated, other dominant-strategy choice rules may perform better than the majority rule. Azrieli and Kim (2014) extend the analysis for the case of independent types to asymmetric environments and by considering both anonymous and non-anonymous rules.

Limitations

Arguments for limitations

Minority rights

Because a majority can win a vote under majority rule, it has been commonly argued that majority rule can lead to a "[tyranny of the majority]". Supermajoritarian rules, such as the three-fifths supermajority rule required to end a filibuster in the United States Senate, have been proposed as preventative measures of this problem. Other experts argue that this solution is questionable. Supermajority rules do not guarantee that it is a minority that will be protected by the supermajority rule; they only establish that one of two alternatives is the status quo, and privilege it against being overturned by a mere majority. To use the example of the US Senate, if a majority votes against cloture, then the filibuster will continue, even though a minority supports it. Anthony McGann argues that when there are multiple minorities and one is protected (or privileged) by the supermajority rule, there is no guarantee that the protected minority won't be one that is already privileged, and if nothing else it will be the one that has the privilege of being aligned with the status quo.

Another way to safeguard against tyranny of the majority, it is argued, is to guarantee certain rights. Inalienable rights, including who can vote, which cannot be transgressed by a majority, can be decided beforehand as a separate act, by charter or constitution. Thereafter, any decision that unfairly targets a minority's right could be said to be majoritarian, but would not be a legitimate example of a majority decision because it would violate the requirement for equal rights. In response, advocates of unfettered majority rule argue that because the procedure that privileges constitutional rights is generally some sort of supermajoritarian rule, this solution inherits whatever problems this rule would have. They also add the following: First, constitutional rights, being words on paper, cannot by themselves offer protection. Second, under some circumstances, the rights of one person cannot be guaranteed without making an imposition on someone else; as Anthony McGann wrote, "one man's right to property in the antebellum South was another man's slavery". Finally, as Amartya Sen stated when presenting the liberal paradox, a proliferation of rights may make everyone worse off.

Erroneous priorities

The erroneous priorities effect (EPE) states that groups acting upon what they initially consider important are almost always misplacing their effort. When groups do this they have not yet determined which factors are most influential in their potential to achieve desired change. Only after identifying those factors are they ready to take effective action. EPE was discovered by Kevin Dye after extensive research at the Food and Drug Administration. The discovery of EPE led to the recognition that even with good intentions for participatory democracy, people cannot collectively take effective actions unless they change the paradigm for languaging and voting. EPE is a negative consequence of phenomena such as spreadthink and groupthink. Effective priorities for actions that are dependent on recognizing the influence patterns of global interdependencies, are defeated by the EPE, when priorities are chosen on the basis of aggregating individual stakeholder subjective voting that is largely blind to those interdependencies. Dye's work resulted in the discovery of the 6th law of the science of structured dialogic design, namely: "Learning occurs in a dialogue as the observers search for influence relationships among the members of a set of observations."

Other arguments for limitations

Some argue that majority rule can lead to poor deliberation practice or even to "an aggressive culture and conflict". Along these lines, some have asserted that majority rule fails to measure the intensity of preferences. For example, the authors of An Anarchist Critique of Democracy argue that "two voters who are casually interested in doing something" can defeat one voter who has "dire opposition" to the proposal of the two.

Voting theorists have often claimed that cycling leads to debilitating instability. Buchanan and Tullock argue that unanimity is the only decision rule that guarantees economic efficiency.

Supermajority rules are often used in binary decisions where a positive decision is weightier than a negative one. Under the standard definition of special majority voting, a positive decision is made if and only if a substantial portion of the votes support that decision—for example, two thirds or three fourths. For example, US jury decisions require the support of at least 10 of 12 jurors, or even unanimous support. This supermajoritarian concept follows directly from the presumption of innocence on which the US legal system is based. Rousseau advocated the use of supermajority voting on important decisions when he said, "The more the deliberations are important and serious, the more the opinion that carries should approach unanimity."

Arguments against limitations

Minority rights

McGann argues that majority rule helps to protect minority rights, at least in settings in which deliberation occurs. The argument is that cycling ensures that parties that lose to a majority have an interest to remain part of the group's process, because the decision can easily be overturned by another majority. Furthermore, if a minority wishes to overturn a decision, it needs to form a coalition with only enough of the group members to ensure that more than half approves of the new proposal. (Under supermajority rules, a minority might need a coalition consisting of something greater than a majority to overturn a decision.)

To support the view that majority rule protects minority rights better than supermajority rules McGann points to the cloture rule in the US Senate, which was used to prevent the extension of civil liberties to racial minorities. Ben Saunders, while agreeing that majority rule may offer better protection than supermajority rules, argues that majority rule may nonetheless be of little help to the most despised minorities in a group.

Other arguments against limitations

Some argue that deliberative democracy flourishes under majority rule. They argue that under majority rule, participants always have to convince more than half the group at the very least, while under supermajoritarian rules participants might only need to persuade a minority. Furthermore, proponents argue that cycling gives participants an interest to compromise, rather than strive to pass resolutions that only have the bare minimum required to "win".

Another argument for majority rule is that within this atmosphere of compromise, there will be times when a minority faction will want to support the proposal of another faction in exchange for support of a proposal it believes to be vital. Because it would be in the best interest of such a faction to report the true intensity of its preference, so the argument goes, majority rule differentiates weak and strong preferences. McGann argues that situations such as these give minorities incentive to participate, because there are few permanent losers under majority rule, and so majority rule leads to systemic stability. He points to governments that use majority rule which largely goes unchecked—the governments of the Netherlands, Austria, and Sweden, for example—as empirical evidence of majority rule's stability.

Dictatorship of the proletariat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat 

 

In Marxist philosophy, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a state of affairs in which a proletarian party holds political power. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the intermediate stage between a capitalist economy and a communist economy, whereby the post-revolutionary state seizes the means of production and compels the implementation of direct elections on behalf and within the confines of the ruling proletarian state party. Instituting elected delegates into representative workers' councils that nationalise ownership of the means of production from private to collective ownership. (Though the concept of workers councils originated in Russia) During this phase the administrative organizational structure of the party is to be largely determined by the need for it to govern firmly and wield state power to prevent counterrevolution and to facilitate the transition to a lasting communist society.

The socialist revolutionary Joseph Weydemeyer coined the term "dictatorship of the proletariat", which Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels adopted to their philosophy and economics. The term "dictatorship" indicates full control of the means of production by the state apparatus. The planning of material production would service the social and economic needs of the population, such as the right to education, health and welfare services, public housing.

The Paris Commune (1871), which controlled the capital city for two months, before being suppressed, was an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In Marxist philosophy, the term "Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" is the antonym to "dictatorship of the proletariat".

There are multiple popular trends for this political thought, all of which believe the state will be retained post-revolution for its enforcement capabilities:

• Marxism–Leninism follows the ideas of Marxism and Leninism as interpreted by Vladimir Lenin's successor Joseph Stalin. It seeks to organise a vanguard party, as advocated by Marx, and to lead a proletarian uprising to assume power of the state, the economy, the media, and social services (academia, health, etc.), on behalf of the proletariat and to construct a single-party "socialist state" representing a dictatorship of the proletariat, governed through the process of democratic centralism, which Lenin described as "diversity in discussion, unity in action". Marxism–Leninism forms the official ideology of the ruling parties of China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam, and was the official ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from the late 1920s, and later of the other ruling parties making up the Eastern Bloc.
• Libertarian Marxists criticize Marxism–Leninism for perceived differences from orthodox Marxism, opposing the Leninist principle of democratic centralism and the Marxist–Leninist interpretation of vanguardism. Along with Trotskyists, they also oppose the use of a one-party state which they view as inherently undemocratic, although Trotskyists are still Bolsheviks, subscribing to democratic centralism and soviet democracy, seeing their ideology as a more accurate interpretation of Leninism. Rosa Luxemburg, a Marxist theorist, emphasized the role of the vanguard party as representative of the whole class, and the dictatorship of the proletariat as the entire proletariat's rule, characterizing the dictatorship of the proletariat as a concept meant to expand democracy rather than reduce it - as opposed to minority rule in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

In The Road to Serfdom (1944), the economist Friedrich Hayek wrote that the dictatorship of the proletariat likely would destroy personal freedom as completely as does an autocracy. The European Commission of Human Rights found pursuing the dictatorship of the proletariat incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights in Communist Party of Germany v. the Federal Republic of Germany (1957).

Theoretical approaches

Karl Marx

Karl Marx did not write much about the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but in The Communist Manifesto (1848) he and Engels said that "their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions". In light of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, Marx said that "there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror".

On 1 January 1852, the communist journalist Joseph Weydemeyer published an article entitled "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in the German language newspaper Turn-Zeitung, where he wrote that "it is quite plain that there cannot be here any question of gradual, peaceful transitions" and recalled the examples of Oliver Cromwell (England) and Committee of Public Safety (France) as examples of "dictatorship" and "terrorism" (respectively) required to overthrow the bourgeoisie. In that year, Marx wrote to him, saying:

Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society

— Karl Marx, 1852

Marx expanded upon his ideas about the dictatorship of the proletariat in his short 1875 work, Critique of the Gotha Program, a scathing criticism and attack on the principles laid out in the programme of the German Workers' Party (predecessor to the Social Democratic Party of Germany). The programme presented a moderate, evolutionary way to socialism as opposed to revolutionary, violent approach of the "orthodox" Marxists. As a result, the latter accused the Gotha program as being "revisionist" and ineffective. Nevertheless, he allowed for the possibility of a peaceful transition in some countries with strong democratic institutional structures (such as the case of the Great Britain, the US, and the Netherlands), suggesting however that in other countries in which workers can not "attain their goal by peaceful means" the "lever of our revolution must be force", on the principle that the working people had the right to revolt if they were denied political expression.

Marx stated that in a proletarian-run society the state should control the "proceeds of labour" (i.e. all the food and products produced) and take from them that which was "an economic necessity", namely enough to replace "the means of production used up", an "additional portion for expansion of production" and "insurance funds" to be used in emergencies such as natural disasters. Furthermore, he believed that the state should then take enough to cover administrative costs, funds for the running of public services and funds for those who were physically incapable of working. Once enough to cover all of these things had been taken out of the "proceeds of labour", Marx believed that what was left should then be shared out amongst the workers, with each individual getting goods to the equivalent value of how much labour they had invested. In this meritocratic manner, those workers who put in more labour and worked harder would get more of the proceeds of the collective labour than someone who had not worked as hard.

In the Critique, he noted that "defects are inevitable" and there would be many difficulties in initially running such a workers' state "as it emerges from capitalistic society" because it would be "economically, morally and intellectually... still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges", thereby still containing capitalist elements.

In other works, Marx stated that he considered the Paris Commune (a revolutionary socialism supporting government that ran the city of Paris from March to May 1871) as an example of the proletarian dictatorship. Describing the short-lived regime, he remarked:

The Commune was formed of the municipal councilors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible, and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally workers, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive, and legislative at the same time.

This form of popular government, featuring revocable election of councilors and maximal public participation in governance, resembles contemporary direct democracy.

Friedrich Engels

Force and violence played an important role in Friedrich Engels's vision of the revolution and rule of proletariat. In 1877, arguing with Eugen Dühring, Engels ridiculed his reservations against use of force:

That force, however, plays yet another role in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, it is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one, that it is the instrument with the aid of which social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilised political forms

— Friedrich Engels, Anti-Duhring, 1877

In the 1891 postscript to The Civil War in France (1872) pamphlet, Engels said: "Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat"; to avoid bourgeois political corruption:

[...] the Commune made use of two infallible expedients. In this first place, it filled all posts—administrative, judicial, and educational—by election on the basis of universal suffrage of all concerned, with the right of the same electors to recall their delegate at any time. And, in the second place, all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers. The highest salary paid by the Commune to anyone was 6,000 francs. In this way an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up, even apart from the binding mandates to delegates [and] to representative bodies, which were also added in profusion.

In the same year, he criticised "anti-authoritarian socialists", again referring to the methods of the Paris Commune:

A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois?

— Friedrich Engels, On Authority, 1872

Marx's attention to the Paris Commune placed the commune in the centre of later Marxist forms.

This statement was written in "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League", which is credited to Marx and Engels:

[The workers] must work to ensure that the immediate revolutionary excitement is not suddenly suppressed after the victory. On the contrary, it must be sustained as long as possible. Far from opposing the so-called excesses – instances of popular vengeance against hated individuals or against public buildings with which hateful memories are associated – the workers’ party must not only tolerate these actions but must even give them direction.

— Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League", 1850

Vladimir Lenin

In the 20th century, Vladimir Lenin developed Leninism—the adaptation of Marxism to the socio-economic and political conditions of Imperial Russia (1721–1917). This body of theory later became the official ideology of some Communist states. 

The State and Revolution (1917) explicitly discusses the practical implementation of "dictatorship of the proletariat" through means of violent revolution. Lenin denies any reformist interpretations of Marxism, such as the one of Karl Kautsky's. Lenin especially focused on Engels' phrase of the state "withering away", denying that it could apply to "bourgeois state" and highlighting that Engels work is mostly "panegyric on violent revolution". Based on these arguments, he denounces reformists as "opportunistic", reactionary and points out the red terror as the only method of introducing dictatorship of the proletariat compliant with Marx and Engels work.

In Imperial Russia, the Paris Commune model form of government was realised in the soviets (councils of workers and soldiers) established in the Russian Revolution of 1905, whose revolutionary task was deposing the capitalist (monarchical) state to establish socialism—the dictatorship of the proletariat—the stage preceding communism.

In Russia, the Bolshevik Party (described by Lenin as the "vanguard of the proletariat") elevated the soviets to power in the October Revolution of 1917. Throughout 1917, Lenin argued that the Russian Provisional Government was unrepresentative of the proletariat's interests because in his estimation they represented the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie". He argued that because they continually put off democratic elections, they denied the prominence of the democratically constituted soviets and all the promises made by liberal bourgeois parties prior to the February Revolution remained unfulfilled, the soviets would need to take power for themselves.

Proletarian government

Lenin argued that in an underdeveloped country such as Russia the capitalist class would remain a threat even after a successful socialist revolution. As a result, he advocated the repression of those elements of the capitalist class that took up arms against the new soviet government, writing that as long as classes existed a state would need to exist to exercise the democratic rule of one class (in his view, the working class) over the other (the capitalist class). He said:

[...] Dictatorship does not necessarily mean the abolition of democracy for the class that exercises the dictatorship over other classes; but it does mean the abolition of democracy (or very material restriction, which is also a form of abolition) for the class over which, or against which, the dictatorship is exercised.

— Vladimir Lenin

The use of violence, terror and rule of single communist party was criticised by Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg and Mikhail Bakunin. In response, Lenin accused Kautsky of being a "renegade" and "liberal" and these socialist movements that did not support the Bolshevik party line were condemned by the Communist International and called social fascism in early 30's.

Soviet democracy granted voting rights to the majority of the populace who elected the local soviets, who elected the regional soviets and so on until electing the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. Capitalists were disenfranchised in the Russian soviet model. However, according to Lenin in a developed country it would be possible to dispense with the disenfranchisement of capitalists within the democratic proletarian dictatorship as the proletariat would be guaranteed of an overwhelming majority.

The Bolsheviks in 1917–1924 did not claim to have achieved a communist society. In contrast the preamble to the 1977 Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the "Brezhnev Constitution"), stated that the 1917 Revolution established the dictatorship of the proletariat as "a society of true democracy" and that "the supreme goal of the Soviet state is the building of a classless, communist society in which there will be public, communist self-government".

Banning of opposition parties and factions

During the Russian Civil War (1918–1922), all the major opposition parties either took up arms against the new Soviet government, took part in sabotage, collaboration with the deposed Tsarists, or made assassination attempts against Lenin and other Bolshevik leaders. When opposition parties such as the Cadets and Mensheviks were democratically elected to the Soviets in some areas, they proceeded to use their mandate to welcome in Tsarist and foreign capitalist military forces. In one incident in Baku, the British military, once invited in, proceeded to execute members of the Bolshevik Party (who had peacefully stood down from the Soviet when they failed to win the elections). As a result, the Bolsheviks banned each opposition party when it turned against the Soviet government. In some cases, bans were lifted. This banning of parties did not have the same repressive character as later bans under Stalin would.

Internally, Lenin's critics argued that such political suppression always was his plan. Supporters argued that the reactionary civil war of the foreign-sponsored White movement required it—given Fanya Kaplan's unsuccessful assassination of Lenin on 30 August 1918 and the successful assassination of Moisei Uritsky the same day.

After 1919, the Soviets had ceased to function as organs of democratic rule as the famine induced by forced grain requisitions led to the Soviets emptying out of ordinary people. Half the population of Moscow and a third of Petrograd had by this stage fled to the countryside to find food and political life ground to a halt.

The Bolsheviks became concerned that under these conditions—the absence of mass participation in political life and the banning of opposition parties—counter-revolutionary forces would express themselves within the Bolshevik Party itself (some evidence existed for this in the mass of ex opposition party members who signed up for Bolshevik membership immediately after the end of the Civil War).

Despite the principle of democratic centralism in the Bolshevik Party, internal factions were banned. This was considered an extreme measure and did not fall within Marxist doctrine. The ban remained until the Soviet Union's dissolution in 1991. In 1921, vigorous internal debate and freedom of opinion were still present within Russia and the beginnings of censorship and mass political repression had not yet emerged. For example, the Workers Opposition faction continued to operate despite being nominally dissolved. The debates of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union continued to be published until 1923.

Stalinism and "dictatorship"

Elements of the later censorship and attacks on political expression would appear during Lenin's illness and after his death, when members of the future Stalinist clique clamped down on party democracy among the Georgian Bolsheviks and began to censor material. Pravda ceased publishing the opinions of political oppositions after 1924 and at the same time, the ruling clique (Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev and Joseph Stalin) admitted large numbers of new members into the party in order to shout down the voices of oppositionists at party meetings, severely curtailing internal debate. Their policies were partly directed by the interests of the new bureaucracy that had accumulated a great deal of social weight in the absence of an active participation in politics by the majority of people. By 1927, many supporters of the Left Opposition began to face political repression and Leon Trotsky was exiled.

Some modern critics of the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat"—including various anti-communists, libertarian Marxists, anarcho-communists and anti-Stalinist communists and socialists—argue that the Stalinist Soviet Union and other Stalinist countries used the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to justify the monopolisation of political power by a new ruling layer of bureaucrats, derived partly from the old Tsarist bureaucracy and partly created by the impoverished condition of Russia.

However, the rising Stalinist clique rested on other grounds for political legitimacy rather than a confusion between the modern and Marxist use of the term "dictatorship". Rather, they took the line that since they were the vanguard of the proletariat, their right to rule could not be legitimately questioned. Hence, opposition parties could not be permitted to exist. From 1936 onward, Stalinist-inspired state constitutions enshrined this concept by giving the various communist parties a "leading role" in society—a provision that was interpreted to either ban other parties altogether or force them to accept the Stalinists guaranteed right to rule as a condition of being allowed to exist.

This justification was adopted by subsequent communist parties that built upon the Stalinist model, such as the ones in China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba (initially the 26th of July Movement).

Post-Stalin

At the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev declared an end to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the establishment of the "all people's government".

Tyranny of the majority

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority 

The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own interests at the expense of those in the minority. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot, argued John Stuart Mill in his 1859 book On Liberty.

The scenarios in which tyranny perception occurs are very specific, involving a sort of distortion of democracy preconditions:

• Centralization excess: when the centralized power of a federation make a decision that should be local, breaking with the commitment to the subsidiarity principle. Typical solutions, in this condition, are concurrent majority and supermajority rules.
• Abandonment of rationality: when, as Tocqueville remembered, a decision "which bases its claim to rule upon numbers, not upon rightness or excellence". The use of public consultation, technical consulting bodies, and other similar mechanisms help to improve rationality of decisions before voting on them. Judicial review (e.g. declaration of nullity of the decision) is the typical way after the vote.

In both cases, in a context of a nation, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, and the introduction of a Bill of Rights have been used to counter the problem. A separation of powers (for example a legislative and executive majority actions subject to review by the judiciary) may also be implemented to prevent the problem from happening internally in a government.

Term

A term used in Classical and Hellenistic Greece for oppressive popular rule was ochlocracy ("mob rule"); tyranny meant rule by one man—whether undesirable or not. 

While the specific phrase "tyranny of the majority" is frequently attributed to various Founding Fathers, only John Adams is known to have used it, arguing against government by a single unicameral elected body. Writing in defense of the Constitution in March 1788, Adams referred to "a single sovereign assembly, each member…only accountable to his constituents; and the majority of members who have been of one party" as a "tyranny of the majority", attempting to highlight the need instead for "a mixed government, consisting of three branches". Constitutional author James Madison presented a similar idea in Federalist 10, citing the destabilizing effect of "the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority" on a government, though the essay as a whole focuses on the Constitution's efforts to mitigate factionalism generally. 

Later users include Edmund Burke, who wrote in a 1790 letter that "The tyranny of a multitude is a multiplied tyranny." It was further popularised by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty (1859). Friedrich Nietzsche used the phrase in the first sequel to Human, All Too Human (1879). Ayn Rand wrote that individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities and "the smallest minority on earth is the individual".In Herbert Marcuse's 1965 essay "Repressive Tolerance", he said "tolerance is extended to policies, conditions, and modes of behavior which should not be tolerated because they are impeding, if not destroying, the chances of creating an existence without fear and misery" and that "this sort of tolerance strengthens the tyranny of the majority against which authentic liberals protested". In 1994, legal scholar Lani Guinier used the phrase as the title for a collection of law review articles.

Examples

The "no tyranny" and "tyranny" situations can be characterizated in any simple democratic decision-making context, as a deliberative assembly.

Abandonment of rationality

Herbert Spencer, in "The Right to Ignore the State" (1851), pointed the problem with the following example:

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that, struck by some Malthusian panic, a legislature duly representing public opinion were to enact that all children born during the next ten years should be drowned. Does anyone think such an enactment would be warrantable? If not, there is evidently a limit to the power of a majority.

Usual no-tyranny scenario

A collective decision of 13 voters in a deliberative assembly. Result: 8 votes for X (purple) and 5 votes for Y (brown). X option wins, because it has a majority (more than half).

 

Suppose a deliberative assembly of a building condominium with 13 voters, deciding, with majority rule, about "X or Y", 

X: to paint some common rooms (as game room, lobby and each floor's hall) with purple color.

 

Y: to paint with brown color.

 

Suppose that the final result is "8 votes for X and 5 votes for Y", so 8, as a majority, purple wins. As collectively (13 voters) the decision is legitimate. 

It is a centralized decision about all common use rooms, "one color for all rooms", and it is also legitimate. Voters have some arguments against "each room with its color", rationalizing the centralization: some say that common rooms need uniform decisions; some prefer the homogeneous color style, and all other voters have no style preference; an economic analysis demonstrates (and all agree) that a wholesale purchase of one color paint for all rooms is better.

Federated centralization excess

Centralization excess is the most usual case. Suppose that each floor has some kind of local governance, so in some aspects the condominium is a "federation of floors". Suppose that only on the third floor the majority of residents manifested some preference to "each floor with different color" style, and all of the third floor residents likes the red color. The cost difference, to purchase another color for one floor, is not significant when compared with the condominium contributions.

In these conditions some perception of tyranny arrives, and the subsidiarity principle can be used to contest the central decision.

Tyranny emerging

Minority and tyranny characterized: a coherent subset of voters with some collective action; a central decision; the subsidiarity principle can be used by minority group decision.

In the above no-tyranny scenario, suppose no floor federation, but (only) a room with some local governance. Suppose that the gym room is not used by all, but there is a "community" of regulars, there is a grouping of voters by its activity as speed-cyclists (illustrated as spiked hair), that have the gym room key for some activities on Sundays. They are acting collectively to preserve the gym room for a local cyclists group.

In this situation the following facts hold:

• There is a subset of voters and some collective action, uniting them, making them a cohesive group.
• There is some centralization (a general assembly) and some central decision (over local decision): there is no choice of "each room decision" or "each regulars' community decision". So it is a central decision.
• The subsidiarity principle can be applied: there is an "embryonic local governance" connecting the cyclists, and the other people (voters) of the condominium recognise the group, transferring some (little) responsibility to them (the keys of the gym room and right to advocate their cycling activities to other residents).

There is no "enforced minoritarianism"; it seems a legitimate characterization of a relevant (and not dominant) minority. This is a tyranny of the majority situation because:

• there is a little "global gain" in a global decision (where X wins), and a good "local gain" in local decision (local Y preference);
• there is relevant voting for a local decision: 6 voters (46%) are gym room regulars, 5 that voted Y. The majority of them (83%) voted Y.

In this situation, even with no formal federation structure, the minority and a potential local governance emerged: the tyranny perception arrives with it.

Concurrent majority

Secession of the Confederate States of America from the United States was anchored by a version of subsidiarity, found within the doctrines of John C. Calhoun. Antebellum South Carolina utilized Calhoun's doctrines in the Old South as public policy, adopted from his theory of concurrent majority. This "localism" strategy was presented as a mechanism to circumvent Calhoun's perceived tyranny of the majority in the United States. Each state presumptively held the Sovereign power to block federal laws that infringed upon states' rights, autonomously. Calhoun's policies directly influenced Southern public policy regarding slavery, and undermined the Supremacy Clause power granted to the federal government. The subsequent creation of the Confederate States of America catalyzed the American Civil War.

19th century concurrent majority theories held logical counterbalances to standard tyranny of the majority harms originating from Antiquity and onward. Essentially, illegitimate or temporary coalitions that held majority volume could disproportionately outweigh and hurt any significant minority, by nature and sheer volume. Calhoun's contemporary doctrine was presented as one of limitation within American democracy to prevent traditional tyranny, whether actual or imagined.

Viewpoints

Critique by Robert A. Dahl

Robert A. Dahl argues that the tyranny of the majority is a spurious dilemma (p. 171):

Critic: Are you trying to say that majority tyranny is simply an illusion? If so, that is going to be small comfort to a minority whose fundamental rights are trampled on by an abusive majority. I think you need to consider seriously two possibilities; first, that a majority will infringe on the rights of a minority, and second, that a majority may oppose democracy itself.
Advocate: Let's take up the first. The issue is sometimes presented as a paradox. If a majority is not entitled to do so, then it is thereby deprived of its rights; but if a majority is entitled to do so, then it can deprive the minority of its rights. The paradox is supposed to show that no solution can be both democratic and just. But the dilemma seems to be spurious.
Of course a majority might have the power or strength to deprive a minority of its political rights. [...] The question is whether a majority may rightly use its primary political rights to deprive a minority of its primary political rights.
The answer is clearly no. To put it another way, logically it can't be true that the members of an association ought to govern themselves by the democratic process, and at the same time a majority of the association may properly strip a minority of its primary political rights. For, by doing so the majority would deny the minority the rights necessary to the democratic process. In effect therefore the majority would affirm that the association ought not to govern itself by the democratic process. They can't have it both ways.
Critic: Your argument may be perfectly logical. But majorities aren't always perfectly logical. They may believe in democracy to some extent and yet violate its principles. Even worse, they may not believe in democracy and yet they may cynically use the democratic process to destroy democracy. [...] Without some limits, both moral and constitutional, the democratic process becomes self-contradictory, doesn't it?
Advocate: That's exactly what I've been trying to show. Of course democracy has limits. But my point is that these are built into the very nature of the process itself. If you exceed those limits, then you necessarily violate the democratic process.

Trampling the rights of minorities

Regarding recent American politics (specifically initiatives), Donovan et al. argue that:

One of the original concerns about direct democracy is the potential it has to allow a majority of voters to trample the rights of minorities. Many still worry that the process can be used to harm gays and lesbians as well as ethnic, linguistic, and religious minorities. ... Recent scholarly research shows that the initiative process is sometimes prone to produce laws that disadvantage relatively powerless minorities ... State and local ballot initiatives have been used to undo policies – such as school desegregation, protections against job and housing discrimination, and affirmative action – that minorities have secured from legislatures.

Public choice theory

The notion that, in a democracy, the greatest concern is that the majority will tyrannise and exploit diverse smaller interests, has been criticised by Mancur Olson in The Logic of Collective Action, who argues instead that narrow and well organised minorities are more likely to assert their interests over those of the majority. Olson argues that when the benefits of political action (e.g., lobbying) are spread over fewer agents, there is a stronger individual incentive to contribute to that political activity. Narrow groups, especially those who can reward active participation to their group goals, might therefore be able to dominate or distort political process, a process studied in public choice theory. 

Class studies

Tyranny of the majority has also been prevalent in some class studies. Rahim Baizidi uses the concept of "democratic suppression" to analyze the tyranny of the majority in economic classes. According to this, the majority of the upper and middle classes, together with a small portion of the lower class, form the majority coalition of conservative forces in the society.

Vote trading

Anti-federalists of public choice theory point out that vote trading can protect minority interests from majorities in representative democratic bodies such as legislatures. They continue that direct democracy, such as statewide propositions on ballots, does not offer such protections.