Does "Democracy" necessarily imply the suppression of Individual Interest for the good of Society as a Whole?

Democracy necessarily implies the suppression of some individual interests for the good of society as a whole.
Describe a specific situation in which a democratic government might place individual interests ahead of the good of the whole society. Discuss what you think determines when the good of society should take precedence over the interests of individuals.
___

The term "democracy" has been defined in myriad ways. Some refer to democracy in a morally pregnant sense--for example, equating it with freedom---a nation that respects the ability of individuals to make choices for themselves. Others refer to it from a strictly technical standpoint in which the nation's decision-making is determined by the majority and where there exists free and fair elections. Using the latter definition, democracy may be conceived as a system that restricts freedom---particularly individual and minority rights.

Democracy is essentially a collectivist system where decisions are made by the majority. In particular, the people choose their leaders in government by a majority vote and therefore, the needs and wishes of the majority are represented in policy and decision making. In this strict definition of a democracy, the power is held by the group--not by individuals; the wishes of the minority are not taken into account, and collective rights take precedence over individual rights.

In the US, however, the founding forefathers created various mechanisms that give a voice to individual and minority rights. The existence of the Bill of Rights is just one example in which the government protects individual and minority rights. This document lists several vague, amorphous rights including, among others, the freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc. The Bill of Rights, in particular, allows citizens to sue the government for infringement of freedoms. Judges (many of whom are not voted by the people) have the ability to "legislate from the bench" by creating public policy. Judicial creation of public policy is essentially anti-democratic in that the legislature has no say in those decisions. In turn, the majority of the people do not give their consent to the judicial decisions. Through judges and the Bill of Rights, however, minorities and individuals can seek protection from discrimination.

In general, the good of society should take precedence over individual interest. This is especially the case when the interests of the individual (if taken into account) would have adverse affects on the rest of the population. Even sections of the Bill of Rights have been interpreted in a way that do not allow for unlimited individual rights. Certain freedoms, for instance, are qualified by judges so that the recognition of individual and minority rights does not threaten the life, liberty and property of others . One example includes the limitations of freedom of speech where one may not be protected for expressing hateful speech.


Democratic governments are made for the people and by the people---that is, they allow the people (as a group) to decide the trajectory of public policy by voting representatives via majority rule. The United States, however, established various mechanism, such as the Bill of Rights, to provide a check on the majority. Indeed, the recognition of individual rights helps ensure that minorities are protected from the "tyranny" of the majority.