The protection of minority rights in society has always been a long-standing issue faced by democratic governments. In countries as ethnically, religiously, and politically diverse as Canada and the United States, there are always minorities that feel their rights are not being met in society, Sometimes it is select groups of people who infringe on the rights of others, and other times it is the government itself that does not uphold minority rights, due to the democratic process. In this case, some of society feels that the will of the majority is more important than that of the minority, as the majority holds the greater power. Yet again, it can be argue that if minorities play a vital role in democracy, and if they do no have their rights ensured, the democratic system as we know it may fall apart. This each democratic government faces the question of to what extent should the government ensure all citizens are treated equally by upholding the rights of the minority but also without compromising majority rule.

    In Canada, arguably the most culturally diverse country in the world, the rule of the majority is not always the majority at all. With an increase in voter apathy and lack of interest, the number of Canadians who actually vote in elections is just a small percent of our overall population. This leads to that small percentage electing the leaders of our country, which then really means that the rule of the ‘minority’ not the majority has exerted their influence. In instances such as a minority government, the line between minority and majority is further blurred. Out of the already small population of people voting, their votes were split enough to ensure that no party, in this case the Liberals and Conservatives, won enough seats to form a majority government. In this situation, the ‘majority’ which the government would normally make decisions based on is not a majority at all but a very small percentage of the population. Therefore the government must be very careful not to play any special favour to one group of people and ignore the needs of others. The needs and rights of citizens in both the minority and majority should be upheld by the government to ensure that each individual and group is equal, a main principle that democracy is based on.

    The United States s facing some of the same issues as Canada when it comes to upholding the rights of minorities; however, with the way their political system works the problems can be intensified. With only two parties to choose from in the U.S, the Democrats of the Republicans, there is less political choice and more polarization. In the 2000 election where President Bush was elected, he did not actually win the popular vote of the majority. He was voted into office by the Electoral College, which assigns a winter to every state in the nation, instead of looking at the popular vote. In the 2004 election, the difference between the majority and minority votes were within 3% of each other, showing that the minority was almost as large as the majority. Again in this case, the government needs to take specific actions to make sure that the minority does not feel neglected, and their rights are being upheld. This can be a huge issue in the justice system, as Justices are nominated by the President to serve in the Supreme Court If both Senate and Congress are filled with a majority of one party, this may spell disaster for the other party’s supporters, as whatever appointments are made will be in the favour of only a select group of citizens. This same can be said for passing laws; if both houses have a majority of one party, a bull benefiting one or more minorities may not be passed into law due to the rule of the majority. It is the job of a democratic and accountable government, however, to ensure that this power stays balances and does not go so far as to forget altogether citizens in minority groups, however large or small they may be.

    Sweden does not face the same diversity as Canada or the United States in the makeup of their population. Largely more homogeneous, their democratic system encourages different political parties, between which the vote is split. Using the proportional representation electoral system, the distribution of seats in Sweden is not tailored so that there will be only the major parties holding seats, but so that each minority party receives seats and had a voice within the government according to the percentage of their popular vote. Since there is no real ‘majority’ or ‘minority’, without taking into consideration the coalition governments that form, the needs of far more people in Sweden, whatever party or group they may belong to, are more apt to be met. Which can, however, lead to problems of coalition governments staying in power for shorter times because it requires compromising between two or more parties to form any sort of majority to get laws passes. The number of parties represented may better represent the views of people of Sweden, but may also not get as much done as agreements and bartering must be done to pass any sort of legislation. This system does better represent minorities; but can be highly ineffective as a whole which leas to a whole new set of problems in democratic systems.

    If the rights of a minority are not being met in a country, they may feel it necessary to take action on their own. In France this past month, a small minority o ethnic students from former colonies of France were rioting in the streets in protest, because they felt their rights were not being upheld. The protest of a minority who feels their rights are not being met are normally peaceful and democratic in nature, but if the government fails to address their complaints, then the minority may be forced to take a more forceful approach. This anarchy is seldom faces by democratic governments because they manage to find balance between the rights of the majority and minority, but sometimes this is not always possible. If the minority is upset enough, it can become a very powerful group, however big or small, in any country and challenge the majority rule to ensure those in power hear its voice.

    Democratic governments are faced with hundreds of choices every day; each determines how the lives of its citizens in the country they govern will be. It is a fine balancing act, prioritizing and understanding just what all citizens need and want. But in this quest to give people what they want, minority groups within a country can be overshadowed due to the ‘rule of the majority’. Further, as in Canada the rule of the ‘majority’ is not the majority at all but only the largest percentage of the population that voted. With only two parties in the United States, the difference between the majority and minority is not always definitive or clear, which leaves room for a very large minority to be ignored. If that minority does go ignored, a situation like that in France, where a minority group rose up to have itself heard and noticed may happen. Sometimes, as in Sweden’s case, the minority may be better represented by the electoral system they choose to employ, bur may not work better overall. These governments are all faced with having to figure out whether they should ensure that all citizens are treated equally by protecting minority rights at any cost, or forgoing some minority rights in favour of the majority of citizens. The role of a democratic government, however, is to rule ‘for the people’ whatever that group of people may be. The ‘majority’ of people may have more political say in government, but that should never mean that the rights of the minority are not upheld. Every citizen in every democratic country in the world is equal, and should thus be treated as such by their governments.