In many democratic and wealthy countries, democracy is widely valued. Yet, what exactly is meant by democracy is not always clear. Is it simply the rule of the majority? Or is it something more nuanced?

At the Munich Security Conference in 2025, the U.S. Vice President criticized parts of Europe for what he considered a “lack of democracy,” pointing to cases like alleged election manipulation in Romania or the legal and institutional challenges faced by right-wing parties such as the AfD in Germany. His remarks seemed to imply a majoritarian understanding of democracy—that democratic legitimacy comes primarily from aligning with the will of the majority.

However, this understanding raises deep philosophical and practical concerns.

The Problem of “Who Should Rule?”

As Karl Popper argued in The Open Society and Its Enemies, the fundamental political question is often framed incorrectly. Asking “who should rule?” assumes that any group or individual should be granted unchecked authority. Popper suggests instead that we should design institutions that minimize the damage that rulers can do—regardless of who they are. The real question becomes: How can we prevent power from being used arbitrarily and destructively?

Democracy as the rule of the majority may sound appealing, but it can paradoxically lead to the abolition of democracy itself. For instance, a majority could vote to concentrate power in the hands of a dictator. This echoes the paradox of freedom: if absolute freedom allows people to enslave themselves or others, then freedom itself is destroyed.

A well-designed constitution, therefore, must limit the scope of majoritarian rule. It must contain principles that prevent any group—including the majority—from having unchecked power, especially power over others’ fundamental rights and freedoms.

Liberty and the Limits of Majority Rule

John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty, warns against what he calls the “tyranny of the majority.” Even in democratic systems, majorities can impose their preferences, beliefs, and ways of life on minorities. Mill argues for a clear distinction between self-regarding actions and other-regarding actions. Individuals should be free to live as they choose unless their actions directly harm others.

This means that laws protecting minorities—whether ethnic, religious, or political—are not exceptions to democracy but essential components of a just democratic order. A constitution must ensure liberty for all, not just the prevailing majority.

Avoiding Arbitrary Power

This concern is not new. Already in the 17th century, John Locke emphasized in Two Treatises of Government that a legitimate political order must avoid granting arbitrary power. Locke believed in a government with limited powers, operating under the rule of law, and accountable to the people.

Some may argue for anarchy as a solution—if no one rules, there can be no oppression. But history and political theory suggest that anarchy often leads to a “state of nature,” where the strong dominate the weak. This too is a form of arbitrary power, just without formal institutions.

Instead, the challenge is to design institutions that distribute power carefully, prevent domination from any quarter, and preserve individual freedoms while maintaining collective order.

The Deeper Problem with Tyranny

It is often said that power corrupts. Some believe this is the strongest argument against tyranny or dictatorship—that those who gain unchecked power eventually become bad people. This may indeed be true. There are several possible explanations: perhaps those drawn to absolute power are more likely to be reckless or self-interested in the first place. Or perhaps even people with good intentions are gradually changed by the temptations of absolute control.

But even this is not the most decisive argument against dictatorship. The real problem lies elsewhere: once power is handed over, everything depends on fortune. Even if today’s dictator is wise and benevolent, there is no guarantee that tomorrow’s will be. Even if the current ruler governs justly, there is nothing to prevent future abuse. It’s the same with freedom: a slave may have a kind master today, but they have no guarantee of kindness tomorrow. They have given away their freedom, and their fate now depends on the will of another.

Good governance cannot rely on luck or hope—it must be built on structures that ensure freedom, accountability, and limits to power.

Principles to Consider

Based on these reflections, here are some principles that could serve as the foundation for a constitution:

  • Rule of Law: No one is above the law—not individuals, not groups, not even the majority.
  • Checks and Balances: Power must be divided and constrained to prevent abuse.
  • Protection of Minorities: Rights and liberties of minorities must be upheld even against majority preferences.
  • Transparency and Accountability: Institutions must be visible and answerable to the public.
  • Freedom with Boundaries: Individual liberty should be maximized as long as it does not infringe on the liberty of others.
  • Prevention of Arbitrary Power: No group, including the majority, should be able to impose unchecked authority.

These principles offer more than a formal structure—they are a safeguard against domination, a framework for sustainable freedom, and a commitment to the dignity of all.