Kathy Brock (Queen's University, School of Policy Studies) , Andrea Migone (TMU, Politics and Public Administration)
Using a normative framework, this paper explores the possibility that an increasing focus on minority protection coupled with a strong political agenda towards the promotion of those protections in law and administrative practices – often with the intent of ‘locking-in’ these gains because of opposition to these protections by parts of society and of the political opposition – may have a negative effect on the perception of the ability of the state to deliver on a ‘fair’ method for the representation and resolution of contrasting public goods.
Two conflicting images of ‘democratic process’ are presented in these situations. One, there is a ‘general’ notion of liberal democracy where minority rights are protected but tempered by majority rule. Here, an important corollary (especially in Westminster/White Hall models) stresses the relevance of the majority will as the basis of political legitimacy for elected officials and as a tool to contain authoritarian tendencies.
The second image of liberal democracy is evoked by opposition parties and groups over proposals to ‘lock-in’ processes for minority protections. This image stresses the contradiction between majority rule and the top-down imposition of extra protections for minorities.
In some cases, this narrative can reduce the perceived legitimacy of a political party and a public sector associated with the party decisions. The specific nexus between political accountability and liberal democracy must practically balance the sometimes dissonant couplet of minority protections and democratic accountability or both political and public sector legitimacy suffer as traditional public sector values are questioned.