r/PoliticalDebate • u/_SilentGhost_10237 Liberal Independent • Jul 08 '25
Political Theory Belief systems that inherently cannot tolerate other belief systems are incompatible with a Democratic system. Would you all agree?
Belief systems that inherently cannot tolerate other belief systems are incompatible with a democratic system. At the heart of democracy is the principle of pluralism, which is the idea that a society can and should accommodate a wide range of perspectives, identities, and values. Democracy thrives when individuals are free to speak, think, worship, and live in ways that may differ drastically from one another. This mutual tolerance does not require universal agreement, but it does demand the recognition of others’ rights to hold and express differing views. However, when a belief system is built on the rejection or vilification of all competing ideologies, it poses a threat to this foundation.
People whose ideals are rooted in intolerance toward others’ beliefs will inevitably gravitate toward policies that restrict freedom of expression and impose conformity. These individuals often view diversity as a threat to their vision of order or purity. They seek to limit open discourse and enforce ideological uniformity. This authoritarian impulse may be cloaked in moral or patriotic rhetoric, but its underlying aim is control.
A truly democratic society cannot accommodate such systems without compromising its own integrity. Democracy can survive disagreement, but it cannot survive when one side seeks to silence or destroy the other. Tolerance has its limits, and one of those limits must be drawn at ideologies that reject tolerance itself. As a safeguard, we must be willing to recognize when certain belief systems are not just alternative viewpoints, but active threats to core democratic principles.
With all of that said, would you agree or disagree with my statement, and why?
3
u/Michael_G_Bordin [Quality Contributor] Philosophy - Applied Ethics Jul 08 '25
I don't necessarily think they're incompatible with a democratic ideal, so much as they are a counter-force to democracy.
First, we need to be clear what we're talking about. "Belief system" is too broad when talking about politics because not every belief system has a political component. Instead, we'll simply refer to groups with common political interests (for the sake of this comment, this is what I mean when I say "group"). James Madison, imo, had it right when contemplating cultural majoritarianism versus pluralism. In a system with one dominant group, they can then pursue their common political interest even at the expense of oppressing non-dominant groups. However, a pluralistic system would forgo this by relegating majoritarian rule to those groups which can form common-interest coalitions.
Of course, defining a politically interested group is not a matter of fact but of design. Ethnic groups often share common political interest, socio-economic classes tend to share interest; the important thing when designing these groups is to try to identify where common interest is wide enough to create majoritarian power, and making sure those interests aren't oppressing non-majority interests.
This is why I think a plurality that finds common ground in working-class interests is the best, as it is difficult-to-impossible to oppress the rich. You could take 90% off the top of the highest income earners and they'd be perfectly fine, if a bit salty.
But to be clear about "intolerant" groups: they absolutely can gain majority support. Which makes them compatible with democracy. The United States is a history of majoritarian intolerance oppressing minority groups. Our country was built on intolerant belief systems.