 Hi all, Salvatore here with a quick video on majoritarianism and majoritarian democracy. India's intellectual class has embraced the western liberal notion that majority rule is somehow a bad thing in a democracy. If you look to the encyclopedia definition of majoritarianism, it is the idea that the numerical majority of a population should have the final say in an election, in other words, majority rule. Now, the encyclopedia Britannica notes that from the time of the classical Greek philosophers through the 18th century, majoritarianism has had a pejorative connotation, and that pejorative connotation continues today. A typical political philosophy notion is that the problem of majoritarian democracy is that it enables the majority to tyrannize minorities. Today the idea is that in a multicultural country, the majority will use the principle of majority rule to secure their interests at the expense of minority cultures and impose their values and way of life on them. But the opposition to majoritarianism has been a liberal shibboleth ever since the time of Aristotle. The difference is that in Aristotle's time the concern wasn't about the majority culture, it was about the majority of people being poor. And Aristotle thought that poor people would inevitably in a democracy simply pass laws to steal from the rich. In fact, he said there are three bad kinds of constitutions, tyrannies, oligarchies, and extreme democracies. Unless you wonder how extreme you have to be to be an extreme democracy, all you have to be is a democracy with universal suffrage. In other words, one person, one vote is the worst form of government of all. Fast forward 23 centuries in the American founding father John Adams, born of the propensity of a majority to monopolize the whole government to themselves by the total exclusion of the minority, whom they might drive into exile, confiscate behead, and oppress in every way. Actually, Adams, who coined the term the tyranny of the majority. Adams, Aristotle, Indian intellectuals, Western liberals, all had different priorities, but they've all shared one idea. The idea that the numerical majority of a population should not have the final say in a democracy.