Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty - Institute of Economic Affairs

h ay e k ’ s t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o f l i b e r t y
m a j o r i t y r u l e a n d l i m i t e d g o v e r n m e n t
of majority rule by the community or by a legislative body. The
liberal and the democratic traditions agree that ‘whenever state
action is required, and particularly whenever coercive rules have
to be laid down, the decision ought to be made by the majority’
(106). Hayek accepts this requirement, but it does not specify the
level or levels at which majority rule should occur. In the present
chapter, Hayek seems mostly to have in mind the formation of
majority opinion within community itself, which will then ‘guide’
or ‘direct’ the actions of government (109). Implicitly he takes the
view that community opinion, as determined by the majority, is
binding on government.
Limited and arbitrary government
The liberal tradition, following ancient writers, had identified
several alternative forms of government. The ancients taught
that these forms differ fundamentally from each other, since they
empower different types of human beings; and their primary
concern was to decide which form is best in itself as well as best
under given conditions. With the advent of liberalism, attention
shifted from essential or qualitative differences among the forms
of rule to what all governments chiefly have in common, namely a
quantity of power and a tendency to abuse it. The urgent problem
became one of making government safe by limiting its power; and
the key distinction came to be one between ‘limited’ and ‘arbitrary’
government. The alternative forms of rule were now seen in
this light. Since all governments, if unchecked, endanger freedom,
liberals were inclined to think in terms of the least bad form of
government rather than the best form.
Hayek follows the liberal tradition in these respects. He
classifies governments mainly according to whether they are
limited or arbitrary, so the form of rule becomes a secondary
consideration: ‘It is not who governs but what government is
entitled to do that seems to me to be the essential problem’ (403).
By limited government, Hayek understands one in which the use
of coercive power is constrained by general rules that are well
established and effective. By arbitrary government, he understands
political rule that is not constrained by law. Arbitrary
government, in all of its forms, endangers liberty.
Democracy versus elite rule
Insofar as the various forms of rule are concerned, Hayek distinguishes
mainly between government by the few, or elite rule, and
government by the many, or majority rule. He subsumes both
alternatives – elite rule and majority rule – under his primary
distinction between ‘limited’ and ‘arbitrary.’ This means that
there can be limited governments of either an elite or a democratic
form. Alternatively there can be arbitrary governments of
either form. Thus, for example, elite rule can be a limited government,
while democratic rule can be of the arbitrary type. The key
question is whether the ruling body subordinates itself to the law.
The desirability of elite rule obviously depends on the qualities
of this select group. In line with the liberal tradition, Hayek
rejects claims to power based merely on an advantageous birth or
on superior wealth. The only kind of elite rule worthy of consideration
is that of ‘the wisest and best informed.’ Hayek grants the
possibility that ‘in any given state of affairs, government by some
educated elite would be a more efficient and perhaps even more
just government than one chosen by majority vote’ (108). Even
92
93