Democracy (aka, Republicanism), by definition, is the rule of the majority. Does, then, democracy protect the minority from the majority?

In the United States, at least idealistically, the minority is protected from the majority insofar as their rights are concerned. For example, in the US no laws can be made which would forbid certain types of speech, no matter how offensive to the majority they may be. (See, for example, The National Socialists vs, The Village of Skokie). Does this mean that the US is not, at least by strict definition, a Democracy?

So, do/should democracies protect minorities?

Protect? Yes.

Be ruled by? No.

It was John Stuart Mill who, I think, best raised the issue of the tyranny of the majority (On Liberty) in a modern world. Fortunately, pure democracy does not exist, and society has placed safeguards in the form of laws that protect minority rights. In the case of England, it is common law; in the United States, it is the Constitution and in particular the Bill of Rights which attempts to protect the individual.
However, the sway of the majority is not limited to the poliical sphere of life, but can be so insiduous that, "He who thinketh differently goeth voluntarily to the madhouse." So invisible is this way, so deeply imbedded in the construction of the lived world, that it reinforces whatever majority opinion is current at the moment.
Z

No, Democracy is not rule by the majority, nor is it the same as Republicanism.

Majority rule, where the biggest group dominates the others, is Mobocracy. The majority rule found in a Democracy is not its defining feature, rather a concession to the practical because expecting unanimity would stall the whole system. That is not to say that a deterioration into Mobocracy isn't a problem for Democracy. I believe this was seen as the big flaw of Democracy (then the same as Direct Democracy) which turned your Founding Fathers to Republicanism with a representative government in search for the best form of government for the US. It was only later that it became known as Representative Democracy. Keeping one group from dominating over the others was, I believe, what James Madison saw as the biggest threat to be averted in his essay in Federalist No. 10.

Exactly how minorities are treated varies in the different forms of Democracy. At least Liberal Democracy list the protection of minorities as one of its main points.

The United States is not and never should be a democracy. The U.S. was founded as a constitutional Republic. All people were to be afforded the same privileges and protections. It has since devolved into a plutocracy - rule by, of, and for the rich. And if we don't keep the Left in check, it will soon devolve further into socialism. Add that to the insanity of multiculturalism, which is viewed by historians as a red flag on the downslide towards a country's eventual fall, and many of us will see the United States cease to be before we die. Unless, of course, we die during the period of anarchy that will accompany the fall. Just look to the fall of the Greek and Roman Empires to see what the future holds for this country. Hell, look to the dissolution of the British Empire, for that matter. Great Britain exists still - the British Empire is long dead.

All one has to do is look back through history to find long-dead empires that followed the same course that this country is following now.

No, United States is a Democracy by modern definition. In fact, something cannot be a Republic without being some form of a Democracy.

I doubt we will see the end of the US empire in our lifetime. Baring WWIII it think it will be a long, drawn out, painful process. Remember, it took two world wars to sunder the British Empire.

No, the United States is a plutocracy, by any definition.

America is not a plutocracy, but a mediocracy.
Z

The greatest country in the world is a mediocracy?

Wow!

What does that say about the rest of the world?

Sorry, Z, but I must disagree.

Democracy, in the sense of being "total rule of the people", only defends the minority if the people allow it to. I have a hard time seeing how total rule by the people, however, does not eventually turn into majority rule (feel free to educate my tiny soul).
The United States, as far as I am concerned, is just a constitutional Republic. The people themselves govern little to nothing.

When was the last time a not "well-to-do" person was elected to any kind of office? It doesn't happen, except perhaps in very small towns where no one is "well-to-do". The only ones that are elected to public office are the ones hat can afford to pay the price, and once elected, they look out primarily for the interests of the rest of the rich. Plutocracy - rule of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

You can try to deny it all you want, but that's how things work in this country.

Jefferson's probably spinning so fast that his grave is humming.

Actually in my hometown/county my neighbor was elected 3 years ago. He was not "well do to" (upper middle class if I had to guess) but he represented a large group of us who had been walked on by the wealthier people who (frankly) didn't belong to the community but were trying to run it as they had "back home" (95% of the wealthy are from above the Mason/Dixon and wanted nothing to do with our little "hicktown" besides the lake). BTW the housing rate has escalated there in the last 5 years to the point that I cannot afford to live there. (Seen and acre of land for for 1 million and it wasn't even close to level)

The greatest country in the world is a mediocracy?

Wow!

What does that say about the rest of the world?

Sorry, Z, but I must disagree.


Isn't that a bit like saying might is right?.

Actually, I believe you are disagreeing with me, blusejunior.

Even if I change my statement to "One of the greatest countries in the world is a mediocracy, what does that say about the rest of the world?", the basis of my statement still stands.

I have to ask this question:

Why do you assume that the main thing that makes a country great is it's "might"?

Well, based on the previous responses I guess the answer to the initial question "Does democracy defend the minority?" depends on your definition of democracy. There seems to be some disagreement as to the meaning and an idea by some that the definition has changed. I will use the classical definition of democracy, rather than allow people like Bush to redefine it. I will likewise continue to say "nuclear" rather than "nukular". True Democracy hasn't existed seen since ancient Greece. It is "two wolves and a sheep voting over what's for dinner". The US (bringing democracy to the world) has never been a democracy, and with the immoral, doped-up, multicultural, brainwashed, and ignorant state of society today, the USA couldn't handle democracy. But of course our electees come from this same society of corruption and greed (and homosexual prostitutes and sex slaves, come here you little page...), so Republicanism isn't working out too well either. And the US Constitution is considered irrelevant and has been interpreted away, so even a decent system is doomed when the people aren't decent. I don't put all of the blame on the individual; Social engineers have created this situation intentionally through social programs that encourage broken families by subsidizing them. And "education", which has become a euphemism for indoctrination and propaganda (go through the metal detector, child, and do what the man in uniform says or you will be tasered). Training to live in prison. But I digress...

There is nothing inherent in a democracy to force the majority defend the rights of the minority; in fact, the "rights" of the minority are defined outside the strictly political form as such. Certainly it is quite possible to conceive a majority that would NOT recognise minority rights at all, even if it were in their best interest, and human history is strewn with dictatorial majorities who crush any opposite thinking.
Cheers,
John