The difficulty in balancing the interests of opposing sides is highlighted on occasions when the minority is unwilling to accept the decision of the majority, and the majority rejects the objection of the minority on the grounds of being proposed only by the minority. Elements of this were visible in the now more-than-three-week protest against COVID-19 mandates in New Zealand.
The Minority
More than three weeks have passed since the protesters from all over the country began the occupation of the Parliament grounds and surrounding area, including portions of major roads and university campuses in Wellington. Reports indicate rising aggression from the protesters while the Police continue to stand their ground protecting Wellingtonians while refraining from the use of force even when faeces and chemicals had been thrown at them by some of the protesters. One protester even drove at Police officers on duty.
Freedom—this seems to be what the protesters think they are fighting for. They call themselves anti-mandates because they demand that the Government cancel restrictions imposed to control the spread of COVID-19. The mandates, it is claimed, have resulted in jobs lost and other undesirable consequences for many despite them being ineffective against the spread of the Omicron strain, which today infected about 15000 people, the highest rate in New Zealand since the start of the pandemic in 2020.
The Majority
The majority of New Zealanders do not agree with the protesters. A poll shows 61 per cent of New Zealand oppose the occupiers while 30 per cent support them. Another reports that 51 per cent of New Zealanders feel the mandates are balanced, while 21 per cent think more is necessary. Furthermore, it can be argued that the fact that 95 per cent of the eligible population has been fully vaccinated is a de facto approval of Government mandates on vaccines. A growing number of residents is also voicing condemnation against the protesters, and an online petition for them to leave as "They are NOT the majority" has been initiated, and it now has more than 141,000 signatures.
"Is the majority decision always best?" If not, should the majority decision be preferred over the "best" decision?
There is growing resentment at the nasty antics that some protesters employ. Reports of intimidation and harassment only intensify public disapproval, with many telling them to go home. Their aggression is also so evident in the words on their signs and their actions that it is difficult to classify the protest as entirely 'peaceful.' The Government refuses to engage in negotiations, claiming it is unwilling to listen to a party that engages in violence and harassment and that the protesters are not interested in policy development. Indeed, there is much reason to dismiss the protesters' side, especially on the grounds of unruly conduct and apparent unwillingness to negotiate.
Majority Decision and Best Decision
However, as with the online petition, there is also a tendency to use "majority rule" as justification to dismiss the protest altogether. The question that bothers me much with this phrasing is, "Is the majority decision always best?" If not, should the majority decision be preferred over the "best" decision?
From the perspective of the Government, the majority's decision is, without a doubt, the "best" decision, i.e., best for political stability, unless it is able to convince the public otherwise. After all, in a democracy, the Government is the embodiment of the will of the people. The elected leaders swear allegiance to the electorate. Should it be the case that the Government and the people who elected it have strongly opposing views, the Government will be replaced if the democracy is properly functioning. Therefore, there is no point in posing such questions to the Government, for it is only begging the question, "How should a citizen in a properly functioning democracy make decisions?"
Insufficiency of the Majority
That the majority's decision is the best or correct is a demonstrably false proposition. For instance, when the majority of scientists in the past decided, based on available empirical evidence at the time, that geocentrism was correct, they were wrong despite being in the majority opinion. In the same manner, even if the majority of the world condemns Putin's attack on Ukraine, that majority condemnation alone is not sufficient to make Putin wrong. Likewise, even if most countries were to side with Putin's invasion of Ukraine, that would have not made Putin right, either. If numbers do not determine correctness, what does?
The Goodness of Decisions is a Function of the Known
To determine the correctness of ideas, one employs logic and empirical evidence. To assess the goodness of decisions, one must consider all available information and, given those, the likelihood of outcomes occurring. And although debate is encouraged to reveal more information, sound arguments, and different perspectives on the matter, the number of proponents on either side must not contribute to the decision process: that is to say that each participant must think independently.
For example, on the issue of whether the Government must impose mandates to control the spread of the pandemic, it is helpful to hear both positions to gather information, which is then used to evaluate options based on their necessity, beneficiality, and practicability. However, how many people support the option must be excluded from consideration.
In this case, scientific evidence supports the claim that mass vaccination had been necessary to significantly reduce transmission of the Delta strain and reduce strain on the health care system, beneficial for the health of individuals even with the risks associated with vaccines, and practicable given the resources and prevailing mindset. The imposition of a vaccine mandate is, therefore, a good decision.
In assessing the goodness of a decision with hindsight, one must not be tempted to use the actual outcome as a criterion for such an actual outcome would not have been knowable with certainty at the time of the decision. Therefore, it is wrong to claim that it was a good decision to impose vaccine mandates because, in the end, it saved lives. In the same manner, it is incorrect to claim that the vaccine mandates decision is wrong because no one knew for sure what the effects of the vaccines would have been.
Herodotus took the same position when he wrote, "A well-laid plan is always to my mind most profitable; even if it is thwarted later, the plan was no less good, and it is only chance that has baffled the design; but if fortune favor one who has planned poorly, then he has gotten only a prize of chance, and his plan was no less bad. "
The Challenge
Given the best information available, can it be demonstrated that vaccination mandates are unnecessary, not beneficial, nor practicable? This challenge is for the protesters. The Government has already shown that it was a good policy for controlling the Delta strain, so it is on the challengers of the mandates to overturn this.
For the majority, the challenge is to learn to evaluate the merits of the ideas of the minority without reference to the fact that they are the minority opinion and be willing to change positions should the arguments be persuasive enough.
It is very likely that on both sides, there are unreasonable minds, who are impervious to logical and empirical evidence and who are unwilling to change minds no matter what, and are, therefore, unwilling to listen but eager to respond even to ideas and questions they do not entirely understand. To them, no amount of convincing works. No amount of articles, videos, or truth will be sufficient, and while the effort to change their minds is commendable, I am pessimistic about the results.
When the unreasonable minds outnumber the open and reasonable minds, democracy will be in danger. The challenge for reasonable minds is to remain reasonable, not succumb to the temptation of emotion-based decision-making that often pushes one to be unreasonable, and perpetuate reasonability by teaching it to children and even adults who exhibit the eagerness to learn and show genuine concern for the state of society.
To change the minds of the unreasonable is a miracle. It rarely happens. But often, it is possible to remain reasonable and influence the people around us to see how appealing reasonability is. This is what sustains democracy. The strength of a functioning democracy does not rest on "majority rule" but on "reasonable majority rule."■
Comments
Post a Comment