In the absence of effective checks on government power, all governments tend towards tyranny. This explains why John C. Calhoun defended the constitutional principle of limited government, emphasizing the importance of restraining the power of the majority. Calhoun argued that the aim of a constitution is not merely to confer power, but also to restrain it, hence a constitution that fails to limit the power of the majority has failed in its essential purpose. As Professor Clyde Wilson puts it, Calhoun defined the Constitution as a compact “by which society limits and restrains those who are entrusted with government. It is not an open-ended charter of their powers. When a government is unrestrained, there is no constitution, by whatever name called.”
In this context, the defense of minority interests serves as an important restraint on majority power. Calhoun’s “doctrine of the concurrent majority” describes a situation where the majority of a political minority—a sectional majority—defends its own interests in situations where there is a conflict between sectional interests and the policy preferences of the majority. The concurrent majority thereby acts as a restraint on the exercise of government power. As Calhoun explains in his 1845 Disquisition on Government, the concurrent majority operates as a form of “negative power”:
It is this negative power,—the power of preventing or arresting the action of the government,—be it called by what term it may,—veto, interposition, nullification, check, or balance of power,—which, in fact, forms the constitution. They are all but different names for the negative power. In all its forms, and under all its names, it results from the concurrent majority. Without this there can be no negative; and, without a negative, no constitution.
Gordon Post, in his Introduction to Calhoun’s Disquisition, describes the doctrine of the concurrent majority as “a balance of majority and minority interests.” This emphasis on minority interests reflects the importance of individual liberty. Unrestrained enforcement of the majority view, without regard to the importance of individual liberty, would risk ushering in a tyranny of the majority. Post explains that, “Calhoun thought in terms of the individual, and not in terms of mass-man; he thought in terms of man as he is, not as he ought to be or as Calhoun would have liked him to be; he thought in terms of principle, and not in terms of expediency.”
Calhoun saw the principle at stake as “how best to safeguard the interests and way of life of a minority against the will of democratic majorities.” His reasoning was that the ability of each section to protect its own interests would serve as a check on the ability of the majority to be “tyrannical and oppressive,” and would thereby “enlarge and secure the bounds of liberty.” Post explains that this protection of minority interests is an important part of Calhoun’s legacy.
The great significance of Calhoun’s major works is that they comprise a memorial and guide to the age-old problem of minorities… The framers of the Constitution of the United States were fully aware that a government supported by democratic majorities could be as tyrannous and as arbitrary as any absolute monarch or dictator…
The enduring influence of this idea is reflected in a 1952 Time article cited by Post, titled “Democrats: The Negative Power,” which argues that what it calls “Calhounism”—the defense of sectional interests—is not an antagonistic attempt to promote sectional interests to the detriment of the common good, but rather a method of working towards political compromise. Political pressure to achieve a compromise serves as a restraint on majority power when the majority, compelled to take into account the concerns of the minority, lacks free rein to do whatever it pleases.
Such attempts to balance majority and minority interests are, of course, politically controversial. A powerful sectional lobby may sometimes be seen by the majority as a threat to the national interest, if it is perceived as a mischievous attempt to obstruct and subvert majority decision-making. A good example of this is seen in the debates surrounding the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom, which was won by a narrow margin with the country split along regional lines. As the post-Brexit debates show, although the majority voted to leave the European Union, a determined and persistent minority soon launched a campaign against the outcome. Such minority campaigns, especially if they are well-funded, well-organized, and prepared to pay any price to achieve their goals, may powerfully influence the legal and political order despite lacking majority support. In the Brexit example, those who lost the vote (popularly derided as “Remoaners”) were accused by those who voted to “Leave” of attempting to reverse the outcome of the referendum in all but name, which would defeat the point of having held the referendum in the first place. In “The Labour Plot to Reverse Brexit” the Telegraph recently reported that “a group of vocal Remainers, with Alastair Campbell a key member, are urging Keir Starmer to rejoin the customs union – or the EU itself.”
A cabal of what used to be termed Remoaners is trying to convince Sir Keir Starmer that he should commit to re-entering the EU customs union. Some even think a second referendum on EU membership would be a good idea.
Others in Number 10 are appalled at the suggestion, arguing that it would alienate working class Leave voters and drive them into the hands of Reform UK.
The serious political implications of such minority campaigns are obvious, and Post also highlights some historical examples where the veto power of a minority was perceived as a bid to derail the wishes of the majority. It is therefore important to emphasize that Calhoun’s doctrine of the concurrent majority is not merely about acquiring a disruptive veto power or fomenting revolt, but on the contrary seeks to encourage social cooperation and political compromise. Compromise, not disunion, was his goal. It is sometimes forgotten that his message in defending the sectional interests of the South was not to argue against the Union but, on the contrary, to warn against the growing hostility of the New England states that, if unchecked, risked precipitating the breakup of the Union. His warning turned out to be prophetic. When Jefferson Davis defended the Confederate cause over two decades later, he too explained that their cause was “not that of the South only, but the cause of constitutional government.” As Calhoun explained in his Disquisition, the balance of majority and minority interests aims to enhance, rather than undermine, unity.
By giving to each interest, or portion, the power of self-protection, all strife and struggle between them for ascendancy is prevented; and thereby, not only every feeling calculated to weaken the attachment to the whole is suppressed, but the individual and social feelings are made to unite in one common devotion to the country.
This should not be taken to mean that sectional interests are not important in their own right. Post argues that Calhoun led “a group of men representative of a conscious and defensive minority” who “sensed danger to the South in the constantly increasing population, the increasing financial, industrial, and political power of the North.” They believed that the interests of the South could be defended by putting pressure on the majority to seek compromise and restore harmony between North and South.
At the same time, it must be remembered that, as a statesman and philosopher, Calhoun’s aim in defending minority interests was not only the practical imperative of defending the immediate sectional interests of the South—displaying his personal talent for what the Time article describes as, “The American genius for practical politics”—but also reflected his principled commitment to safeguarding the liberty on which the Union was founded: “to prevent government from passing beyond its proper limits, and to restrict it to its primary end,—the protection of the community.” The doctrine of limited government is essential in achieving that goal. The constitutional doctrine of the concurrent majority retains its enduring political value, and represents an important aspect of Calhoun’s legacy which is often forgotten in contemporary political discourse.
